Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Just for clarity, I will be speaking on both No. 12 and No. 165. The latter is the Sinn Féin amendment. We are all acutely aware of the issues with mica and pyrite and how people are affected by them. We have long argued for the Government to hold those responsible for defects to account and to implement a redress scheme that supports those affected. It is something my colleagues, Deputy Doherty, and our housing spokesperson, Deputy Ó Broin, have repeated time and again. The mission statement of that scheme should be that ordinary owners who purchased in good faith should not be liable for the costs of remediation caused by the incompetence, negligence or deliberate non-compliance of others. That is why a redress scheme for those affected by mica, pyrite and fire safety defects should require a contribution from those responsible, be they developers, construction companies or financial institutions. That is why amendment No. 165 should be accepted.

I note the provisions of No. 12. They mirror the proposals by Deputy Ó Broin, who, in his book Defects: Living with the Legacy of the Celtic Tigercalls for a redress scheme that also provides some form of retrospective relief for owners who have already covered the cost of remediating their homes. This should be done by allowing these homeowners to write off the capital costs of remediation against their future tax liabilities over a number of years, as is currently the case for landlords. Amendment No. 12 is prescriptive that we need a scheme that works. That is why I ask that the Minister, if he does not accept those amendments as he should, report back within six months on the introduction of a redress scheme, including provision for levies to claw back costs from those responsible.

On the mica and pyrite scandal, I put on record my disappointment at the divisive strategy emanating from some Departments in recent times. In many ways it is trying to pit those affected against the general population. We recently learned that under the National Broadband Plan the taxpayer is paying for over 40,000 premises which will already be covered by Eir at a great cost. We know also of the cost of the sink that is the National Children's Hospital that continues to swallow money. We know people have been really affected by this. We need strong soundings from this finance committee and this Finance Bill in support of these people. That is why amendments Nos. 12 and 165 should be accepted.