Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The legislation before us has a number of positive aspects. Certainly, it is an improvement on what was originally proposed, which was pretty pathetic. However, like the homes affected by mica, pyrite and pyrrhotite, there are cracks in the overall structure of this legislation, and individuals and families will fall through those cracks. It is bad enough that it has happened once already to these families, but for those families to know that it could happen again as part of this remediation scheme would be unacceptable. That is why I and every other Deputy I have heard speak in this debate have asked for more time to be given for Committee Stage to discuss and tease out the various amendments. Today, the Minister has heard offers from many Deputies to have the committee sit for six, nine or whatever hours it takes to get through the amendments. I am not saying that the Minister has to accept all the amendments put forward, but there are certainly a number of crucial amendments that must be incorporated into the legislation.

I will shortly highlight what I believe are some of the crucial amendments that the Minister must incorporate into the legislation. I believe the Minister and the Government want a robust and sustainable scheme that homeowners and families can have faith in and which they believe will deal with the nightmare that many of them are living through. I will not go into detail about the day-to-day misery and heartache of many families, their anxieties, their fears and the incredible pressure that so many are facing, because I have spoken about this many times in the House. However, it is important to say that many families are listening anxiously to this debate.

6 o’clock

They are waiting to see what will happen as this legislation passes through the Houses. They need to know that this House and the Minister of State will deliver a scheme that is fit for purpose. They need to know that whatever remediation or rebuilding is done will allow them to sleep easy in their beds. My final comment on this aspect is that while we often use the word "houses", we are in fact talking about homes. Every one of us who is lucky enough to have a home knows that when we walk through our front door and close it behind us, we feel we can leave behind, at least on a temporary basis, the worries of the world. At its best, a home should be a place of refuge, but for homeowners whose homes are affected by deleterious materials there is no refuge in their homes. There is fear and worry. We have an opportunity to change that situation over the next few weeks.

Many amendments to this legislation have been proposed. I ask the Minister of State and his officials to look carefully at those amendments and consider accepting at least some of the more important and crucial ones that were raised not just by Members of the Opposition today, but by his colleagues on the Government benches. All deleterious materials, including mica, pyrite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite and marcasite, or any combination of those materials, must be included in the process. That list is not exhaustive. I am not an expert but it is important that all deleterious material be included and all foundations must be included. The assessment process is part and parcel of that. I know nothing about building a house. Some people here do; I am looking at my colleague, Deputy O'Donoghue. He gave us some very powerful statements earlier that came from a place of knowledge and experience. Even I know, however, that if foundations are unstable, then the building is unstable. They must be included as part and parcel of any assessment process, which needs to be thorough and objective. That is crucial. It cannot be somebody's opinion, what something looks like, or what someone thinks. It has to be objective and needs to be based on the most up-to-date science. That will help to ensure better outcomes.

The damage threshold needs to be re-examined. Homeowners need 100% redress. While it is easy to say that as a member of the Opposition, and it slips off the tongue, the question I have to ask is how can we expect families who have paid, and are paying, huge mortgages to spend more money on making their homes habitable? We should not ask them to do that at any time but, right now, I do not need to tell the Minister of State about inflation and the major increase in the cost of living. That casts a further shadow on all those families who are concerned that the amount of money they will get will leave them short tens of thousands of euro. This State is accepting responsibility because it is responsible for lax or no regulation, and for lax or no implementation of the regulations on our Statute Book. That responsibility has to be 100% and no less.

I agree very strongly with my colleague, Deputy McNamara, and others, who called on the Minister of State to pursue those who actually caused the problem in the first place and, in certain instances, whose salaries and bonuses were paid on the backs of the misery of families whose homes are damaged and destroyed by deleterious materials. The taxpayer, and that includes the affected homeowners, will end up footing this enormous bill unless the Minister and his successor exercise their authority, which they have. It is partly written into the Bill but it needs to be strengthened because while the intentions of the Minister and the Minister of State may be good on this, they do not know what the intentions of their successors will be. That is why this part of the Bill needs to be strengthened so the State is protected from an ever-increasing bill.

Many Deputies raised the issue of downsizing because families will be penalised for this, which makes no sense from an environmental perspective and the perspective of using less building materials and engaging in less work. It means we could get through this process quicker. It could also allow families to insulate their homes to make them more energy efficient. That is a win-win. Penalising people for doing something positive is just plain wrong. There seems to be a real miserly approach to this. People are not gaining financially; there is no moral hazard here. We all know what that is. It was a phrase most of us were not familiar with before we bailed out the banks but we then all learned what moral hazard is. There is no moral hazard here. I want the Minister of State to look at that aspect again. If there is moral hazard, I ask him to please tell me where it is.

Will the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, review of IS 465 be completed before the commencement of the scheme? If not, can it be guaranteed that the outcome of the NSAI review will be fully integrated into the scheme? It will not be perfect but if we are guaranteed that will happen, it is something. We need proper testing. We need to know that what we are doing will deliver the kind of remediation families need.

I will raise issues specific to the constituency I represent, which includes Sligo, Leitrim, north Roscommon and south Donegal. Donegal is included in the scheme and, as I said, if the Minister accepts a number of the crucial amendments that I and others have submitted, that is a good start. In that context, I thank all the campaigners who have ensured that very good scientific evidence has been provided to us as public representatives in order to enable us as laypersons get a better understanding of the situation they face so we could put forward amendments that will improve the Bill and deliver for all those affected. I thank my colleagues, Deputies Pringle and Ó Broin, for their assistance in also providing amendments we could sign and support.

As far as Sligo is concerned, we are not yet officially included in this scheme. When I raised this issue with the Tánaiste approximately 12 months ago, he used the phrase "natural justice". That may be the case but people are still worried and anxious.

I met some campaigners from Sligo outside Leinster House today, as I have met campaigners from many counties over many months. Their hearts are broken, but the important truth is that many of them still hope that we might get it right. When I asked the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, about the inclusion of Sligo, I received a response from him approximately two weeks ago. He spoke of the good co-operation with Sligo local authority and of the very good work going on. I believe, from the perspective of natural justice, that we will be included.

However, the Minister and I are aware that there is a heavy responsibility on local authorities. I have asked on many occasions and written the Minister to ask that more support and resources be provided to local authorities. Local authorities have considerable expertise, but this is a new area. Is the Minister supporting local authorities? Is he giving them the kinds of resources they need now and on an ongoing basis, in order that they can represent all the homeowners in their area? Is he making it easy, or even a little bit easier, for them to present their case?

I have also written to Leitrim County Council to ask about the situation there, because I have received one or two emails from people who have concerns about homes in certain parts of County Leitrim, especially in the north of the county. Leitrim County Council informed me that, up to now, it has not been alerted to deleterious materials in homes in Leitrim. I hope that is the case, but we all know that mica and pyrite does not stop at any county boundary. Leitrim is a small county and I hope very few affected families will be affected. However, local authorities such as those in Leitrim and Roscommon need to be resourced and supported to get the information as quickly as possible, in order that families that have concerns about their homes can be included in the scheme.

A local authority in a small county has few resources and less expertise. That is simply the reality and yet those local authorities will be expected to do the same work as local authorities in larger counties. There is something inherently unfair and unjust about that. Will the Minister assure me that will not be the case, that the resources and expertise will be provided and that the Department will work with these local authorities to ensure that the homeowners, of whom I hope there will be few, will be properly represented and will know that they can get in to this scheme?

In the coming weeks, the Minister can get this right. The Opposition will support him. In respect of all those homeowners who are listening today and who will send us emails to ask what happened and what the Minister said, after listening to his speech and, it is hoped, after Committee Stage next week, I ask the Minister to make sure we can say to them that the Minister and the Government are taking those crucial amendments on board and that we believe and hope this scheme will deliver good outcomes for them and their families.

See this speech in context