Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I look forward to his contribution. I am pleased to have the opportunity to second the legislation.

We are faced with a simple choice. Senator Coghlan has clearly outlined what we are trying to achieve. The decision we face is whether we are standing with the builder or the buyer, with the speculator or the consumer. The Minister of State must address a number of issues in this regard. He is playing ducks and drakes with this issue. He is stretching it out because he does not want a resolution and he has done everything possible over the past two years to defer a decision. The Minister of State contributed to the debate on the previous legislation in 2004 and both the Law Reform Commission and the Auctioneering and Estate Agency Review Group reported on this issue in 2005. The Minister of State wrote to both Senator Coghlan and myself last week saying he wanted another 12 months, which is appalling. Members should recall all the fine speeches, crocodile tears and concern for first-time buyers.

This is a simple issue, which could be addressed to make life a little easier for such buyers. It would take pressure off them and allow them to purchase a house in a fair and legitimate way. We are proposing what the Law Reform Commission and consumer interests, including the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs, have sought. Any fair minded person would seek this and it is not too much ask to Government Members to support the legislation. If there are problems with it, the Minister of State can address them on Committee Stage. The Government, however, must make a commitment on the issue.

How does the Minister of State stand on the issue? Does he think it is fair that young people struggling to buy a house must often involve their parents and extended families as well as their bank managers to make repayments on a house they are not even living in? Does it strike Government Members how grossly unfair it is that young people should pay for their houses while paying rent and other bills because they cannot live in the structure for which they are paying?

I take issue with the Minister of State's letter to Senator Coghlan and myself last week. It contains misinformation and it is misleading. The Minister of State wrote that the Government had kept open the possibility of legislation to prohibit stage payments, which he has stated previously. He continued:

In this regard the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform published the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2006 on 9 June 2006. The Bill is largely based on a draft Bill published with the Law Reform Commission's (LRC) report ... in July 2005. The Bill contains a general power for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to make regulations in the area of contracts.

I was in contact with the office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform four times earlier and I spoke to the Minister and that is not correct.

The Law Reform Commission published a report last year while a report was also published at the same time by the Auctioneering and Estate Agency Review Group. The conveyancing Bill to which the Minister of State referred is before the House and it is largely based on the review group's report, paragraph 7.3 of which states: "While recognising that the issue of stage payments is largely beyond its remit, the group is aware that the Minister for Housing and Urban Renewal is considering initiating a consultation process with relevant interests in relation to the practice of stage payments in house purchase with a view...". This is similar to the Minister of State's commitment in 2004 and any other time he has been asked to do something about this. It is understood the guiding principle is along the lines Senator Coghlan has outlined.

The group's report concludes, "The Group would generally support this objective and encourage the relevant parties, including the construction industry, the professionals dealing with the house purchase and the relevant Government Agencies, as appropriate, to work towards this achievement". This recommendation has been made by everybody but it has not been implemented. The only reason for this is that the Government is coming under pressure from vested interests in the building industry. The Minister of State is shaking his head but he should outline why he will not support the legislation. We have made a proposal that has been recommended by interests and agencies he represents.

The Minister of State may wish to amend the legislation, to which we are open and he may wish to introduce other provisions on Committee Stage and we are also open to that. However, we are not open to the principle of what we are trying to achieve being voted down later. This is an issue about which Government backbenchers get kicked around when they return to their constituencies and speak to ordinary people who are trying to buy houses for their children and friends at the weekend and witness the struggle they endure. This would be a simple gesture, which would cost the State nothing. I ask Government Members to do the decent thing and to not vote against the legislation later.

This is not a party political issue because Members on all sides are concerned about it. The Minister of State stated in his letter that he recently met officials of the Construction Industry Federation, southern region. I spoke to them to establish their views on the legislation. They wrote to the Minister of State saying they were prepared to phase out stage payments on a voluntary basis. The CIF's code of practice provides that its members should not take a stage payment over the value of what is on the site and that the site should be transferred to the potential owner immediately. The federation is trying to so something, although it is not sufficient. I accept, however, that the CIF is moving in the right direction.

While everyone appears to be moving in the correct direction, it seems the Minister of State is not prepared to state that he agrees with the principle of the Bill but wishes to make amendments on Committee Stage. He could then make such changes. This is completely wrong and unfair. The Cabinet should consider that it is putting the Minister of State's party, ordinary party workers, the Government and its backbenchers behind the eight ball on this issue, because there is no justification for not supporting this Bill tonight.