Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their detailed presentations and attendance. I have met a number of groups. I represent the constituency of Dublin Fingal. As many people will know, the area is growing. As part of my work as a Deputy since 2007, I have seen the area grow and seen many examples of not just apartment developments but houses, homes and duplexes. I live in an estate that is run by a owner management company so I am well aware of the issues and burdens placed on people there too. That is why I have published three pieces of legislation on the OMC area, on sinking funds, and having a regulator for the sector, which is absolutely needed. My proposals seek to improve things. My colleague, Deputy Casey, will talk about building control amendment regulations, BCAR, and how we can ensure that theses things do not happen into the future. We have a massive legacy issue that places an incredible human burden, financially and healthwise, on people.

Unfortunately, my area was plagued with pyrite and still is. The genesis of the pyrite remediation scheme came about in Fingal and I was involved with that at the start. There is a roadmap as to how we can deal with this matter. For example, there is mica in Donegal and Sligo. A scheme was established last year but no money was spent last year and, again, this year. There are still homes with pyrite that have not gotten into the scheme. If we have a scheme into the future one must remember that schemes take a lot of time to establish and there is a lot of red tape. At least there is a mechanism for people to see there is some hope that one's home can be fixed.

What Mr. Prior put forward, and I know this from meeting people, is the stress generated when people walk into their own homes every single day and see problems that are presenting that are not fixed. Many of these people will have bought at the top of the market. Some people were struggling to pay high mortgages and then were hit with paying levies and, as Ms Cottier mentioned, people must pay quite extortionate interest rates. However, solutions do exist.

I certainly think that the Home Building Finance Ireland, HBFI, which is an issue that a number of us have raised, can be considered in the short term as a way to provide finance to OMCs. I agree with tax reliefs in the absence of a full remediation scheme but at the end of the day it is those who are responsible who should pay.

As I have seen in many instances, the original expert report on pyrite recommended that the industry be levied so that the insurance sector, the construction sector and the taxpayer paid a third each. Inexplicably, the construction sector and the insurance industry were not levied. Also, we had to proceed with the establishment of the scheme because we needed to get something up and running. The taxpayers paid €30 million a year to fix homes and took responsibility. I completely disagreed with that approach at the time.

I would like advice on the legal aspect and ensuring people do not do this again. I believe there is a mechanism available through the Planning Act. People are massively frustrated when they see the same developer or builder as built a development they know has massive defects build again in the same town or village. In a few instances I have objected to developments on the basis of previous developments being substandard. There is a mechanism in the Planning Act that allows a local authority to refuse permission on the basis of an incomplete estate but it is never invoked. We need to strengthen the provision in law.

I ask the witnesses to discuss the Statute of Limitations. In the last Oireachtas I published a Bill that amended the statute so it would not kick in until a defect had been independently verified, not from the date where one should have known. I did that so there would be legal recourse and enough time for someone to take a legal challenge. In many instances, the Statute of Limitations has expired, which is a big problem. I ask the witnesses to give us examples of where people have discovered there are issues and their insurers have said the bond is finished or over ten years, which is another issue. Homebond, in particular, has walked away from many of the structural defects and then one wonders why people bother to buy bonds in the first instance. The Central Bank and the Ombudsman for Insurance must be involved in this aspect. We also need to consider the licences of insurers, in particular, when one sees Homebond as the bond insurer on new estates, when I know that for multiple estates it has blankly refused to pay. That is the insurance responsibility element of my query. I ask the witnesses to comment on the Statute of Limitations and how changes to the Act would help.

This committee has done a lot of work on this area and, cross-party, is very serious about addressing the matter. My own party is acutely aware of the seriousness of this issue. We need to see movement in this regard. At the start it would be great if we could do HBFI and tax relief. Next, we have to consider the people who have already fixed their homes and carry a financial burden, and the retrospective nature of anything we do. I have seen that happen already with people and will ask more questions in the next round.

I have found this meeting very useful. I commend the witnesses on their opening statements and sensible recommendations. The establishment of the Construction Defects Alliance, along with the Apartment Owners Network, that I know represents more than apartment owners, is welcome. They have done a really good job on this over the last few years.