Dáil debates

Wednesday, 6 June 2012

Private Members' Business. Building Control Regulations: Motion

 

8:00 pm

Photo of Dessie EllisDessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)

I thank my colleagues in the Technical Group for raising this important issue through a well constructed motion which my party is pleased to support. The motion contains a particularly succinct description of the manner in which the State has operated in prioritising wealth over the interests of the general public. It clearly shows that those who had great fortune and influence were those on whom the State looked kindly, namely, those who oiled the Fianna Fáil TACA machine and greased the tills of the corrupt and negligent class of politicians which ran the country into the ground.

Actions speak louder than words. These problems which resulted from the laissez-faire approach to regulating both the building industry and the most basic of safety regulations continued to plague those who unfortunately bought a home from a developer who knew everything about squeezing through loopholes and nothing about providing quality housing or social responsibility. The reason the motion is before us is that we cannot allow these issues to remain unresolved and justice not to be served for such persons and all those who were placed in danger by the recklessness and negligence of legislators, regulators, developers and those who allowed the system to continue, went along with it or profited from it. This problem, like many others related to the mismanagement of the State, comes as powers over issues such as planning and inspections are removed from locally based people charged with protecting the public good and vested in unaccountable bodies.

As the motion states, one particularly grave example of the failings of this light touch - to the point of being non-existent - approach to regulation is the disaster of Priory Hall. I reiterate the solidarity greetings sent recently at Sinn Féin's annual Ard-Fheis in Killarney to the evacuated residents of Priority Hall. A motion passed at the Ard-Fheis deplored the disgraceful conduct of the Priory Hall developer, Thomas McFeely, and his Coalport development company, which bear primary responsibility for the plight of the residents. It also deplored the totally inadequate planning and fire safety regulations and lack of enforcement by the Government and local authorities which allowed such developers to act with impunity. Sinn Féin called on all relevant banks and lending institutions to fully participate in the resolution process at Priory Hall chaired by Mr. Justice Joseph Finnegan aimed at finding a solution for residents. This solution must vindicate their rights to a home and not to be financially penalised as a result of gross negligence for which they do not bear responsibility. In line with the motion, the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis called on the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, to empower and resource local authorities to carry out rigorous inspections of all housing developments and enforcement of all relevant planning, construction and fire safety laws and regulations to ensure we would not have a repetition of the Priory Hall scandal. We must never again have a scenario in which, one year on from their evacuation, the Priory Hall residents remain in limbo, facing bankruptcy and without secure homes.

Another example of the failure to properly support families who have been failed by the construction sector is found in my constituency of Dublin North-West and the surrounding areas where many people were sold homes contaminated with pyrite. The properties of this substance render buildings unsound and the material has caused major problems for families who have wedded themselves to large debts to provide a home. They have been left with a substandard construction which, in the interests of their safety, would be better demolished and replaced. The homes in question were planned and approved, materials were purchased from quarries that were allowed to operate and the developer behind the scheme was allowed to bring the buildings to market despite their flawed construction. This is a case of an obvious and glaring failure to ensure a product on the market, in this case a house, was safe and fit for purpose. If any other product was involved, the body which allowed it to go to market would be held responsible and the victims of the failure to regulate properly and protect the public compensated and afforded justice. I support the motion which I commend to the House.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.