Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

I thank Deputy Martin for raising this matter. In this case everybody has sympathy for the families who have been caught in this legacy of incompetence and greed. It is a symptom of the mess the Government has inherited. I understand this is not the only such case and that there may well be more. The Deputy did not make a proposition concerning the numbers to which he has referred, but I am willing to listen to what he has to say about how this might be sorted out. The Deputy is aware that Supreme Court proceedings are due shortly, which will adjudicate on a number of issues. Deputy Martin would not expect me to pre-empt what may happen or how the court will decide this. The Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, who has responsibility for housing, met some of the residents to discuss their concerns. I understand that the ESB was concerned about a number of safety issues and that it is not its intention to cut off the supply. Dublin City Council sought an early hearing in the matter of its appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court. The issue in the appeal is whether the High Court was entitled to make orders under section 23 of the Fire Safety Act 1981. The order to pay such costs has serious implications for the taxpayer. I know the builder-developer has been declared bankrupt in England. There are also implications for Dublin City Council in its role as the fire authority. By mid-December 2011, the council had already incurred charges of more than €350,000 for accommodation on foot of that order.

It would be wrong to speculate on what the court may decide on the issues before it. The overriding priority is that a successful conclusion should be brought to this matter for the residents of Priory Hall as quickly as possible. The Minister has repeatedly asked Dublin City Council to do what it can. I understand there is constant contact between the council and the residents in this case. The Minister's responsibility is to set out the minimum statutory requirements and technical standards a building like this requires. It is outrageous that this kind of edifice was allowed to be constructed without yea or nay in so far as competence, conditions, safety standards or building requirements were concerned.

The builder has been declared bankrupt in England, while the residents have had to move out due to safety concerns and the case has ended up in court. I do not want to see this matter continuing indefinitely. I would like to see these people back in their homes. Nor do I want to see the taxpayer screwed left, right and centre because of the gross incompetence and sheer drive for more money by builders who carried on recklessly in putting up an edifice like this in the first place. I understand there are more out there as well.

See this speech in context