Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the chance to discuss this legislation. I acknowledge the significant work put in by so many people to get to this point, including the Minister, his team and his officials, but especially homeowners from Mayo, members of Mayo Pyrite Action Group, North Mayo Pyrite Group, Mica Action Group in Donegal, and similar groups from Clare, Limerick and Sligo. Last week, one of their representatives said they were ordinary homeowners put in an extraordinary situation. They led an extraordinary response, which should be acknowledged, but those that put them in that situation have to be pursued.

At last week's hearings of the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, I was struck by the lack of urgency around the appointment of a senior counsel to pursue the avenues into why this happened and into those who caused it. Far greater urgency needs to be invested in pursuing those matters and that investigation. When we consider that in the UK £2 billion has been put on the table by the industry in respect of the cladding situation, that is the kind of response we need to see here. We need to see a contribution, not a levy because that will be passed back, out of profits from some of the most profitable companies in the country to pay towards this and other issues, such as the apartment defects issue.

There is also a lack of response and a lack of engagement from the banks, which are among the ultimate winners in this because they have the mortgages. The owners are paying banks for their homes. The banks own those assets and they are very slow in co-operating with and assisting homeowners who are in a situation of having pyrite or mica in blocks. The banks have made it very difficult for homeowners, as have insurance companies, which are welching on contracts throughout the country because of the suspicion of the presence of pyrite, mica or pyrrhotite. Insurance companies and banks need to be brought to heel and told they have to serve the people regarding this. The Government is putting its cards on the table here and, equally, we need to see a far greater engagement with companies such as these.

I will briefly refer to a number of areas in the Bill. I have made a detailed submission to the Minister's office from Ms Martina Hegarty and Ms Josephine Murphy on behalf of the two Mayo mica groups regarding the Bill, which his officials have received and are considering. On section 5, while I welcome the inclusion of Limerick and Clare, the inclusion process is quite cumbersome. The people of County Sligo, in particular, who began the process at the same time as County Clare, have been left waiting and wondering why they have been left aside. There needs to be some sort of assistance provided from the Department to the relevant local authorities because there is a reluctance on the part of those authorities to get involved in this matter. There is also a complete lack of skills in many local authorities to engage in it.

On section 8 and the whole area of the definition of "relevant dwellings", it is important all parts of the house be included. There is a concern that some extensions may be excluded. There is also an issue around garages. There is rather fancy word for garages and things like that in the Bill. They will equally have defective blocks, which are dangerous to those in the house, and they need to be included in the scheme. It is a similar situation with boundary walls. The Minister has given me a commitment they will be included, but boundary walls in public areas of housing estates also need to be included in the scheme. They offer a serious threat.

On sections 10 and 11 and the core area of grants, the SCSI process was detailed and published last March. That would assume the process is working on the basis of construction costs in November and January. That needs to be updated before the scheme goes live. Smaller homes will cost more per square metre than larger homes. We need to look again at the hearings last week and, for example, the case of Ms Martina Hegarty, who is in a smaller house in a terrace where the costs will be greater, even though the house is smaller. Just because someone has a smaller house, he or she should not be left out of pocket. The downsizing option is a very real one that needs to be given consideration.

One frustrating thing is that the computer generally says no when it comes to many ideas. We need to think outside the box within the local authorities and Departments and give the downsizing option some sort of consideration within the limitations.

The Minister is introducing provision in this Bill to fund local authority and AHB homes. There are houses that are primary residences for vulnerable adults and people with disabilities that are owned by charities which do not have the resources to remediate their houses. A similar funding option should be made available to those charities, either by the Minister or the Department of Health, in order that those people do not lose their homes in the same way that other homeowners will not lose their homes.

There is a major blockage in the scheme. People are progressing, awaiting the conclusion of this process, but the SEAI process in terms of giving people funding to upgrade heating requirements has come to a complete halt. I have been in contact with the Minister's office. We need an urgent update on that because there are people who have had their houses demolished and are awaiting SEAI approval to proceed. They cannot proceed because the SEAI is saying that it cannot get clearance from its parent Department, which is apparently talking to the Minister's Department. This is it again - Departments working in silos and not talking to each other. Meanwhile, the homeowner suffers.

With regard to section 12 about remediation options and building conditions assessments, the committee hearings last week were deeply confusing. There was definite science and very definite people on both sides of this argument. I know it is being reviewed but there needs to be an urgency to the review of foundations. I welcome section 51 which triggers a review of the Bill following the review of IS 465. We need to give certainty with regard to foundations as soon as is possible. A presentation was made by Mr. Thomas Campbell, a qualified engineer in this space, with regard to a potential solution for the foundation issue. I forwarded it to the Minister's office. There are homeowners who want to proceed and get this over with. If they have to pay for their own foundations, some sort of commitment should be given to funding that if the science stands up.

The homeowner's professional, engineer and architect needs to be part of the process too, because that is the only element of trust in all of this. That needs to be stronger in the Bill. I have often spoken to the Minister about the damage threshold. I have serious concerns about it. We had a nightmare in Mayo last summer around a damage threshold, even though it did not exist. Being excluded from the scheme was more stressful to homeowners than being told they had pyrite in the first place. The 1.5 mm with regard to the expert group is not based on any science. I need to ensure that there will be robust engagement with people on the damage threshold and that it is not used as an exclusionary measure.

Why are all the timelines in the Bill on the homeowners? There is no timeline on the local authority. There is no timeline on the Housing Agency. I put the questions to Mr. Bob Jordan last week and, in fairness, he is committed to putting timelines and service level agreements, SLAs, in place. Timelines are needed on every side of this. Provision is also needed for force majeure cases. There are cases that will not fit into any of the definitions. There are older people, in particular, who proceeded ahead of the scheme to remediate their houses for family safety reasons. They need to be given some sort of recognition.

I acknowledge the huge changes. It is important to acknowledge them because it is getting lost in the argument today. This is a very different scheme to what it was this time last year. However, to make it the kind of scheme that works, we need to engage strongly in the regulations. Those regulations made it inaccessible on the last occasion and we need to engage strongly around some of the amendments being put forward.

See this speech in context