Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Like the previous speaker, I question whether the State is going to get value for money, to the extent that it is going to expend money. Of course, the affected homeowners are going to have to add to the money if they can and if they cannot, I do not what they are going to do because of this ban on downsizing. How is the scheme going to result in value for money if this money is expended on a house that has dodgy foundations and is liable to further crumbling and further subsidence? It strikes me as very skewed logic.

I have already asked how the Minister's Department and the State will save money by banning downsizing. I am still waiting for an answer. I appreciate that the Minister's time is limited. It is the Minister's side of the House that decided to limit the time here, not us. It was the Government side that said two hours would do for this debate, but God knows why. The Minister might explain why. I presume the decision was not made without the Minister's knowledge or that of the Chief Whip. It is the Minister's Bill after all. I presume the Chief Whip asked how long is necessary to debate this Stage and the Minister said "Two hours, and we will ram it through, sure they won't know the difference, and maybe the people affected will not know for years, and sure we will have the election, it will have come and gone and nobody will be any the wiser."

I want to know specifically how the Minister is saving money by banning people from downsizing. The amount of money they are getting is set elsewhere in the Bill. Once it is agreed how much money people are getting and they spend that money, what is wrong with that? How could this cost the State more money than if people were to build the house to the same size as the previous one? The only difference is by how much the unfortunate homeowner is going to have to augment the rebuild cost. Will the Minister explain how that is saving money?

See this speech in context