Ms Angela Ward:

I am PRO of the Mica Action Group, MAG, Donegal. I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today. Do members know how many times homeowners have had to endure Government rhetoric that the enhanced scheme provides 100% redress to victims of the defective concrete crisis? Do members have the empathy to understand how it feels to be a homeowner who realises that their Government has deliberately hoodwinked most of their fellow citizens into believing they are getting their homes fully restored at zero personal cost? Have members ever heard of the illusory truth effect? When a message is repeatedly put forth, the statement ultimately becomes accepted as the truth. This is exactly the strategy employed by Government regarding the notion of 100% redress. What the committee will hear from me today is not illusory. What it will hear is the homeowners' truth, informed by MAG’s direct contact with hundreds of homeowners. Which truth members choose to believe at the end of these proceedings is a matter entirely for their own conscience.

There are many issues with this scheme, but today I will address what I believe are the most fundamental. The scheme does not provide for 100% redress. Homeowners' evidence financial shortfalls of tens of thousands of euro for the most modest of homes with the scheme excluding fundamentals such as foundations. County Donegal is among the most economically disadvantaged nationwide, yet homeowners are expected to pay thousands in upfront costs that can only be recouped retrospectively. The necessity to have thousands of euro readily available financially paralyses homeowners, leaving them unable to rebuild their homes. Homeowners were promised that all SEAI grants would be readily accessible. Eight months into a live scheme, there is still no clear guidance on how homeowners can access such grants. Again, to access such grants, homeowners must produce thousands of euro upfront.

The second impediment is that rigorous scientific evidence is being ignored. The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, continue to operate a scheme underpinned by a now discredited standard - IS 465. Right now, homeowners are being pushed into critical remediation options based on a flawed and irrelevant desktop study.

The results of international, peer-reviewed scientific research of no less than six independent research groups that all evidence the primary issue to be internal sulphate attack remain unacknowledged. At a meeting of this committee on 13 July 2023, Geraldine Larkin of the NSAI stated that the experts serving on the NSAI technical committees would keep under review the possibility of issuing interim guidance should it be considered useful or proportionate. We have a live scheme. It is reckless, irresponsible and negligent to play fast and loose with people’s lives. Pushing people down remediation options that scientific evidence indicates will ultimately fail is unconscionable in terms of ethical, moral and fiscal responsibility. If the NSAI insists on awaiting the results of other tests, a precautionary approach must be taken in the interim. Ignoring the problem is to compound the issues.

Mortgage lenders are seeking certification from engineers over the entire structure not just the remediated portion. To date, we have not had clarity that engineers can do so backed by professional indemnity insurance. Due to a lack of due diligence by the Government, we have homeowners trying to engage in a scheme that does not guarantee full mortgageability, insurability or saleability of their homes post remediation.

Thousands of homeowners are excluded from the scheme because they are deemed ineligible, cannot project manage a build, have additional needs, do not have access to thousands of euro up front or, quite reasonably, are not prepared to replace their home with another defective home that excludes foundations and leaves defective material behind. This is not just the evidence from affected homeowners but also recommendations from a recent EU PETI report, which states that the scheme "should take better account of the financial burden of all the costs such as the cost for new foundations" and that "national and local authorities should take all the necessary measures to provide tailor-made and fit-for-purpose assistance to affected homeowners as well as comprehensive and effective solutions that meet their wide-ranging needs".

Despite the overwhelming evidence of fundamental issues, homeowners are being stonewalled at every turn by those who have the power to make the changes required. We ask, therefore, that this committee make an urgent intervention. Only a foolish optimist or a liar would deny the realities of the scheme as it stands. One hundred percent redress is an illusion fabricated by an irresponsible Government that has cast aside facts, truth and reality. Members can believe the lived experience of the homeowners or they can believe Government PR.