Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. It is possible to be on the side of the citizens of our country and not support this amendment. The reason I do not support it is that the work the two Deputies are calling for is already under way. That work is in respect of the awful issue that so many are confronting in Donegal and beyond with mica, where they have seen what they hoped to be their homes turn into crumbling buildings. That work is in the final stages of completion and the Finance Bill is not the place to make reference to this. The issues the Deputies referred to will be dealt with separately by the Government. The issue of how we fund this is something I am concerned about and focused on. I do so in the spirit of recognising the anguish the families are confronting, which has been raised by both Deputies. I very much appreciate the need to bring this to a conclusion, but the Finance Bill is not the place to do it. The Finance Bill deals with our tax law for next year and this issue has to be resolved well before then. I am working on that with other members of the Government.

Regarding the non-procedural matters raised by the Deputies, the only thing I will say is that the inclusion of such an amendment in the Finance Bill is premature, given that we have work on mica that is in the final phases, I hope, of yielding a recommendation the Government will accept. Deputy Mac Lochlainn raised issues regarding the role of the Housing Agency. I understand the point he made. I was involved in the pyrite scheme both from a policy point of view and through seeing the effect it had on constituents on the northside of Dublin, a number of whom were in my constituency. I know that the average harm that is done to a home that has pyrite is of a different scale from that of many of the homes that had to deal with mica. Excuse me, the other way around is what I mean. I am sorry. The average experience of the challenge that many families are now facing due to the effect of mica on their homes is very different from that of those who went through the experience with pyrite. I take on board what Deputy Mac Lochlainn has said. Deputy Doherty raised a role for the Housing Agency with me last Thursday on Leaders' Questions.

On the point both Deputies made regarding how we fund elements of all this, I am considering that at present. It is not to diminish for a moment the stress that so many homeowners are going through to acknowledge that the cost of this is very considerable. It is necessary, as part of looking at how we can fund a better response for those who have been afflicted by this awful experience, to look at ways in which this can be funded. I listened to what the Deputies said in that regard and, again, it is something I and a number of my colleagues are considering at present.

As regards the engineering point raised by Deputy Mac Lochlainn, to be open with the Deputy, I know a little less about that than about some of the other issues he raised. I hope we can find ways of giving confidence to families if a solution is available that does not involve the total demolition of their home, that we can give confidence in other solutions apart from demolition. I have met families outside my Department who have been affected by this. They conducted themselves with dignity and great calmness in the face of a terrible experience. I imagine some of them, at least, would consider that there could be a benefit in not having to go through a process where a home is knocked down, it goes through a tendering process and is rebuilt, with all the time involved in that. For some of them, I imagine that other works would be something they are willing to consider. However, of the different issues that have been raised with me, that is one I need to understand a little more in the coming days.

As I said, the core reason for not accepting this amendment is that, particularly in the case of mica, I believe the Government will have moved forward on this issue well before we get to the implementation of tax law for next year.