Ms Lisa Hone:

I am grateful for the opportunity to present to the housing committee. In the press release announcing the commencement of the defective concrete blocks scheme, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, stated it was a scheme that "can and will deliver for all concerned." On behalf of homeowners, I will outline why the scheme will not deliver for all concerned. Although there are some moves in a positive direction, Government’s refusal to genuinely listen means serious flaws persist.

In the public spotlight, Government representatives appear compassionate, yet at the same time they spin media stories which misinform the public and undermine victims. They pledge urgent action and then miss every deadline. They promise meaningful engagement then consciously ignore the lived experience of those affected and the scientific evidence, deny pre-legislative scrutiny on the false pretence of urgency, dismiss homeowner legislative and regulatory amendments, and inexplicably, reject zero-cost solutions which would bring much-needed flexibility to this rigid scheme.

The Minister also talks about schemes evolving. This is the Government’s second chance at getting the scheme right. The only reason this scheme needs to evolve is because of the lack of political ambition to get it right this time. Furthermore, the way in which tens of thousands of victims of defective homes throughout Ireland are treated seems to be based upon their geographical location, the type and cost of the damage and how many seats their constituencies are worth at the next general election.

This is now a civil rights issue as those affected are not being treated with equality. The Leinster pyrite scheme covers the removal of all deleterious materials and the work is managed and funded by the Housing Agency, which is reinstating all homes on a like-for-like basis. The defective apartment scheme promises to be nationwide and cover all costs incurred. This is in stark contrast to the defective concrete blocks, DCB, scheme, which leaves behind deleterious materials, forces homeowners to become project managers, exposes them to rampant construction inflation and excludes homes by county or type of ownership. All victims of defective homes find themselves in this horrendous situation for the same reason; the persistent failure of the State to enforce an effective regulatory and market surveillance system over the construction industry. To date, no operator has been brought to account by the Government. We recently witnessed headlines where the head of the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office, NBCMSO, declared a national emergency in market surveillance due to a lack of resources.

Although not exhaustive, the following underlines key homeowner concerns. On the science, the DCB scheme for homeowners in County Donegal is based upon an untested hypothesis as opposed to proven scientific research. In 2023, two independent scientific groups, Leemann et al.in March and Brough et al.in April, published internationally peer-reviewed research. They identified that the high-risk aggregate phyllite was used in the manufacture of concrete blocks. The phyllite rock hosts not only mica but also the iron sulphide pyrrhotite. Detailed scientific investigation reveals that oxidation of pyrrhotite causing internal sulphate attack is the primary mechanism of failure and not mica freeze thaw. Evidence from Quebec, Connecticut and Switzerland proves that if iron sulphides are present in quantities beyond regulatory standards, it can result in the degradation of even poured concrete.

All of this research was published prior to commencement of the scheme and initial research findings were presented to this committee in June 2022 before the legislation was passed in July. Yet, the DCB scheme still uses IS 465, designed around a mica freeze thaw hypothesis, to recommend remediation. To keep using this obsolete standard means decisions are based on solutions for the wrong damage mechanism. Options 2 to 5 of the scheme retain defective, unregulated blocks in homes and all options advise homeowners to build on existing foundations, yet such options are not proven to be permanently effective against the context of internal sulphate attack. The damage threshold focuses heavily on visual appearance, which may belie the deterioration of the concrete within, leaving homeowners locked out of the scheme and in limbo for years. It is inhuman to push homeowners to remediate homes without scientific assurance that the home will not fail again. It also raises questions about the responsible management of public funds, where hundreds of thousands of euro could be spent on a house destined to fail again.

I will address the failure to recognise and support homeowners in vulnerable and complex situations. How is it reasonable to ask a couple in their 80s, one with a serious illness and the other a carer, to deal with a demanding three-stage application process, the strip-down of a beloved home, a demolition, a rebuild and two house moves? How do a family with a disabled child who require a home adapted for wheelchair access move forward if it is impossible to find alternative accommodation? It is wholly unrealistic to think that two facilitators spread over thousands of affected homeowners, and an engineer with a multiplicity of clients, can provide the project management and support required. We have consistently asked for recognition of those in the most vulnerable and complex circumstances via the support of an end-to-end scheme, flexibility of side-by-side building, the provision of suitable alternative housing, or for people to be able to release themselves from this crisis via a transfer of eligibility, all of which has been denied.

On the finances, to distance itself from its central role in the origins of this crisis, the Government portrays itself as a benevolent body, carefully describing the scheme as a grant. To call it a grant scheme, which implies a partial cost contribution, and then declare it provides 100% cover is contradictory. Affected homeowners are exposed to the double whammy of a cost-of-living crisis plus double-digit construction inflation. Grant allowances are calculated on a basic build to pre-2008 regulations, no matter what year the house was built, to what finish or to what energy standards, despite the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, SCSI, recommendation that all construction should employ a minimum of current standards. In 2023, the SCSI reported a 14% annual increase in construction costs, yet there is no recognition of increasing costs in the overall cap set in November 2021. The Government, in full cognisance of the issues around construction inflation, wrote the cap into legislation, as opposed to regulations, knowing full well this makes it very difficult to amend. To demolish and rebuild, homeowners in County Donegal are currently being quoted between €205 and €220 per sq. ft compared with the grant rates of €190 for the first 1,900 sq. ft, and €116 per sq. ft thereafter, up to the maximum cap. A current example is a homeowner in a home of 1,250 sq. ft, with a rebuild allowance of €237,000, but who has a real build cost of €270,000, which is a shortfall of almost €33,000.

The Government promised seamless access to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, energy schemes. However, it is not clear how this will work. The redress finance group recently testified to the finance committee about the highly stressful impact of shortfalls of tens of thousands of euro, cash-flow issues, an unhelpful attitude from mortgage providers and the lack of engagement from the Government with both financial and insurance industries. Once homeowners pass through the scheme, their home must be fully insurable, mortgageable and restored to full market value. It is clear that the Government has not conducted its due diligence in this regard. How can the Government assure homeowners of the validity of the certificates of remediation if the homes do not have credibility with such organisations?

As regards implementation, not only what is done but how it is done is critical. To date, three years of homeowners’ experience in County Donegal with the previous scheme have been fraught. A lack of responsiveness and information have unnecessarily added to homeowners' stress. It seems incredible that there is no overall project manager for a multibillion euro scheme and no timelines set to respond to homeowners.