Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is by pure chance that I am getting to speak because I am not a member of the committee and as it happens, there are no Independent members here. As I do not have the Fine Gael Whip, I appreciate this opportunity. I also acknowledge the Chair's inquiries and his interest in the area. We sit beside each other in the Dáil Chamber and he is always asking about it. I thank the homeowners representatives for their contributions.

In the short time available, I will return to the exclusion of pyrite and mica from the professional indemnity following Deputy Mac Lochlainn's contribution. This is something we have heard about. People are talking about it and we see it written down here today. It is the kernel of the problem. People have gone taken off the outer leaf of their own accord or through the scheme. I share Mr. Forde's frustration with the delay in completing the standards, inquiries and research.

Let us cut to the chase. If there was a builder sitting in front of us, the science would be clear and in black and white. It would be that if there is pyrite or mica on the inner leaf of a house, which is what carries the roof, the weight and the bison slabs, that is a problem and no builder, never mind an engineer, would stand over it. I am glad to see Mr. Forde has put it down in black and white and reflected a concern among engineers. You can talk to any builder worth their salt. My father is a builder and has built many blocks over a long number of years. He keeps making the same point, namely, that the weakness in the inner block will not go away by just replacing the outer leaf.

We now have scheme that very much relies on an endless or unknown time threshold in terms of investigations and the inquiry. It will be good to have the group here in the next session. What the committee can do constructively today is ensure that the knowledge and science of the expert group is used. I share Mr. Forde's frustration about the inquiry, which was supposed to be completed at the end of last year. IS 465 is not fit for purpose. Every homeowner knows that. Maybe Mr. Forde or Mr. Owens can reflect on this, as could Ms Hone or another homeowner representative. How do we bring those two time constructs together? On the one hand, we are waiting on science and research but everyone in the room already knows what the science is. If there is pyrite or mica in an inner relief wall or in foundations, that is a weakness. Homeowners then find themselves in a vacuum in which trauma is compounded by further trauma. The words we use today adds to that trauma. How do we bring the two timeframes together given that people continue to go through the trauma every minute of every day?

It is intergenerational now, so how do we stop this by bringing forward the results and the science we already know? Therein lies the problem. The meeting today with Department officials must be very focused on this issue. It is not fair for one Department to try to carry the load of this €2 billion scheme, which I have said from day one. Officials within the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications are listening to officials from the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform saying, there is X amount of moneys and we must work within this timeframe. My question is for Mr. Owens. It remains a grant scheme - is that a question of culpability? Perhaps he is not in a position to answer. As it remains a grant scheme, does that mean it is not taking responsibility for the problem and is just repairing a house, even though many houses to date have been demolished?