Niall Blaney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank both deputations for coming. This has been a very worthwhile exercise and I thank them for their involvement to date. Sometimes this issue has got very heated, but we recognise the witnesses bring a very important element to ensuring the scheme works. We also appreciate the fact the scheme has evolved so much. That flexibility has resolved many issues on the ground. There are some more, which the officials will hear from members and others, but as far as I am concerned, I appreciate the changes that have taken place in the context of the evolving situation since the 90-10 scheme was announced. As time moves on, it is important the Department does not take a position that this is now it. The one thing I have learned, and I have been heavily involved in this over the past couple of years, as have others, is this situation is continually evolving. Once the scheme is adopted, I have no doubt other situations will arise. I hope the Department has the same approach as the Minister whereby there is flexibility because it is crucial to ensure these homes are protected. It is also crucial to ensure these same mistakes are not made in the future.

I have a number of questions. I will ask them together and the representatives can answer what they can. If they cannot conclude, I ask them to come back with a written reply at a later stage. When was the Department first made aware of the presence of pyrrhotite in blocks in Donegal? When was the research tender commissioned? What is the status of, or timeline for, this research? How long will it take the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, to review results to enable it to amend IS 465?

There are a few other bits and pieces regarding the legislation. Last night, one case in particular was brought to my attention where an individual was awarded stage 2 in the grant process. On examination of the building since the start of works at stage 2, the engineer realised the damage threshold has now increased to the extent that demolition is necessary. He is no longer willing to stand over the building because the legislation states the applicant cannot go to demolition. That is part of the new legislation. Will the Department take a look at that? It is in the Department's interest to ensure it considers a situation where an engineer comes along and states a building has deteriorated since testing to the extent that it is now declared fit for demolition rather than remediation. It is important the legislation allows for that because we are dealing with professional opinions as regards somebody's individual opinion. I ask the officials to reflect on that to see if something can be done about it.