Mr. Michael Doherty:

There is quite a lot in that. We have suggested 35 different amendments in our submission. To catch the essence of it, we had three pillars from the beginning. The first relates to cost: 100% redress and no less. The scheme has a cap of €420,000. When the scheme was announced at the end of November last year, that cap affected 18% of our homeowners. Because of inflation, it now affects one third of our homeowners. That cap needs to go to €460,000 to stay where were at the end of November with 18% affected. If the cap is raised to €460,000 at least we are back to where we were at the end of November and 18% of our people will need to suffer a cap over and above the square-foot cap. There is one starting point.

The second one is the need for penalty-free downsizing. We cannot penalise people who are taking the grant available and trying to make the most of it to build a smaller home. That is just morally wrong. The third thing relates to the rates. The rates need to be solid. The rates need to be reviewed before we launch the scheme. We cannot launch a scheme that will hit the ground in months with figures that go back to February 2021. They need to be reviewed and up to date. A number to allow for inflation needs to be applied to that because otherwise our rates will be in arrears for the next 12 months and the homeowner carries that cost. Those are the cost issues in pillar 1.

Pillar 2 relates to the science. We have scientists and geologists here. We have a compelling case that says we have missed the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is a deleterious material that is not even referenced in IS 465, called pyrrhotite.

It should have been referenced because there is a 2004 European standard that ought to have been included by NSAI and was not. We are suffering the consequences on the back of that. We are in a stand-off between the Department and the local authority in Donegal, where 369 applications are stalled because they do not know how to deal with pyrrhotite as IS 465 filters out everything bar pyrite and mica. That stand-off is still to be resolved and it has been running since January. We are six months into it. We need to be in a place where we can say "if in doubt take it out". I have no issue, nor has any homeowner, with NSAI doing what it needs to do to understand the science. If we have a policy of "if in doubt take it out" and there is science that removes that doubt, we have no problem with moving to a place the science says is safe to move to, but we cannot put the cart before the horse. We cannot ask homeowners to go through this twice in their lifetime with the risk of the unknown. The unknown has not yet been clarified. The Department's position is that it will have a go and if it does not work we will have a second bite because that is what the 40-year guarantee and the second grant is for. That does not deal with the mental aspects of a homeowner going through this twice. Pillar 2 is all about the science. We need to get the science right and then the 40-year State-backed guarantee is in case some other unknown evolves over time due to new learning. That is fine. We understand that.

A point was made earlier about the scheme evolving. There is a lot of learning at this point in time. The Department and the Government have a lot of information. We do not need three or four bites of this. We had a bite of it in the 90:10 scheme from January 2020. This is the enhanced scheme announced at the end of November. We have told the Government and officials what needs to happen to make this work. We do not need two or three more bites of this. We can do this right this time if the will is there to do it. If there is further learning down the road, we will take that when we need it but let us not make excuses for not doing the right thing now by saying this scheme can evolve. Let us take what we know, what needs to be done, and do it this time.

Pillar 3 is about excluded homes. There are other people who will not avail of this grant but they are equally victims. They paid for their homes and they are being excluded. There are people in second and third rentals. At the minute, the principal private residence is covered, as well as the first rental property. If people happen to have a second or third rental property, which some did for investments for the future or for pension funds, they are not eligible. We have nowhere for the families in those homes to go, not to talk about the fact the landlord is out because of it. What does he do with the second or third property? There are homeowners who bought and invested and have been part of the Mayo, Donegal or Clare landscape but are being excluded. These people bought in good faith and the Government is not looking to include them in any shape or form. These people are not saying they should be pushed to the front. They are just asking not to be left behind. If there is a revision in three years, which is being talked about, we need language in place now stating that no defective concrete block home will be left behind. For these people, it is not a case of not ever but just not today. They will take that.