Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

In reality the HomeBond scheme was to give assurance to purchasers that any structural defects would be covered by the bond. It was a breach of trust for HomeBond to withdraw from pyrite damage, in the knowledge that homeowners had no way of dealing with the matter. If there was a third party with responsibility, then HomeBond should have paid up and pursued that third party itself. It is worse that HomeBond is a bond provider established by the construction sector for its own members, designed to give buyers confidence that defects in a new home would be fixed. Effectively the State is now stepping in to take over the responsibilities of HomeBond. When the construction sector is up and running again, I suspect that purchasers will not accept a HomeBond guarantee anytime soon. With evidence of increased demand for housing, the Minister might consider mandating an insurance scheme that will properly protect purchasers of new homes.

The scheme as proposed will mean that some homeowners will neither have the damage rectified nor be compensated for repairs they have made. I also understand that homeowners will carry some of the cost themselves in that items such as new flooring after amelioration, painting and decorating etc. will not be covered. All of those who are affected by pyrite should be compensated. If the construction sector cannot pay today, it should pay tomorrow. In environmental law there is a principle of the polluter paying. A home is the most expensive thing most of us will ever buy in our lives and we should be entitled to rely on it being constructed correctly. No stone should be left unturned by the Minister to ensure that those responsible for this debacle pay the full cost, including compensation in the course of time.

I have a question on the structure of the board and the scheme. I am very familiar with the Housing Agency which is an excellent body. Is it necessary to put in place a separate board? Could the Housing Agency not have carried out the work both of the board and the work as set out for it, including the procurement of competent professionals and contractors, arranging for the testing of dwellings, awarding contracts, and making payments in respect of the remediation work and all other ancillary costs? The proposed two-tier structure seems rather clunky.

I am pleased the Minister proposed a two-tiered appeals process, which will give some comfort to people applying to have their properties included in the compensation scheme.

The Bill represents a good day's work and I congratulate the Minister on the amount of effort and energy he has put into it.