Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Technical Group and the group of Independent Members for bringing forward this important motion. It is important to highlight this significant issue. If ever there was a bad example of self-regulation and self-regulation being no regulation it was the building industry in the past ten or 15 years and there have been many victims. Many families have suffered because of the building boom. No proper legislation was put in place to protect homeowners, purchasers or tenants. Much of the legislation has been in place since the 1990s and it was put in place at the time to undermine and weaken the regulations and the position of homeowners and tenants. That legislation led to self-regulation, self-certification and the running down of the building control inspectorate. All of this has left householders living in fire traps and buildings with structural damage.

Residents seeking justice have doors slammed shut in their faces at every turn. I had the opportunity to meet some of them last night. In recent times the situation at Priory Hall has brought this issue into stark focus. I salute the resolute campaign being waged by Priory Hall residents and acknowledge their presence in the Visitors Gallery in the past two days. I have met many of them and commend them for the work they have put in. They have continued to ensure their plight and that of others is not far from our minds and the minds of those who have a responsibility to introduce change.

Despite many months of campaigning, the Minister has yet to meet the residents. Priory Hall is in the headlines, but it is only one of many such complexes in which decades of irresponsible governance have left a disastrous legacy of defective buildings, fire hazards and abandoned residences. There is a housing estate in Portarlington in my constituency of Laoighis-Offaly, built by the same developer, Na Cluainte, in which considerable problems have surfaced. I acknowledge the work of its residents. There have been many other issues in the constituency. There is a situation in Rathbrennan on the north side of Portlaoise where, I believe, one housing complex will have to be knocked down. It has been left half finished for three or four years. Offaly County Council has washed its hands of Riverside estate in Portarlington where people are living in apartments which have been left in an appalling condition and which were built using substandard materials. The people affected have been left high and dry. HomeBond, the developer, the county council and the regulatory process have all left them down. I have witnessed at first hand the appalling conditions in which they have been living, including dampness, porous walls, leaks and a range of other problems. There is a serious lack of standards. No proper fire prevention measures have been taken.

These problems are especially acute in the case of apartments where there is no proper privacy for residents. In apartment blocks there are only plaster slabs separating some apartments, which is totally unacceptable. Noise travels across two or three apartments and there are fire hazards also. Strangely, having plaster slabs separating apartments is considered acceptable by the relevant Department. I spoke to officials at senior level in the Department about this issue as a county councillor before I became a Member of this House and was informed that the use of plaster slabs was acceptable. In one case in an apartment block in Portlaoise a person did not like his neighbour. From the common area in the corridor he put his boot through the wall of the neighbour's apartment. Is this acceptable? Only two layers of plaster slabs separated them. I have heard long explanations from officials in the Department and people involved in the industry about why the use of plaster slabs is acceptable in the separation of apartments, but I simply do not buy them. We are informed that apartment complexes are common on the Continent. The difference, however, is that there is concrete underneath, above and between apartments and the common areas separating people from their neighbours. The use of plaster slabs is not acceptable. I, therefore, call on the Minister and officials to reconsider this issue. What level of privacy is possible? I recall while canvassing in an apartment block knocking on the door of apartment No. 6 and hearing the radio playing in apartment No. 12. As I got closer to apartment No. 12 it was not much louder when the occupier opened the door. That is unacceptable and I call on the Minister to take up the matter.

There must be accountability and the motion is a start. The Government should, in all honesty, support it and I hope it will. In particular, there is a role for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan. The motion sets out where responsibility lies, that is, at the door of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. The Minister should outline what he and his Department will do to reform the building regulations. The existing legislation was useless in the 1990s and it is worse than useless now, given the changes that have been made. It must be radically reformed. The maximum penalty for non-compliance with the Building Control Act 1990 remains the equivalent of £10,000.

Local authorities should be adequately funded to carry out inspections. Financial constraints should not be allowed to continue to undermine the security of homeowners. Unfortunately, in some counties only 5% of new buildings are inspected and some are drive-by inspections. Bonds for developments should be improved. Bonds have been allowed to roll over from one phase of a development to the next. A developer who pays €100,000 is allowed to roll it over to phase two of a development without phase one being properly completed. This must stop.

The Minister should examine the issue of insurance and bank bonds. Insurance companies are prepared to go to court and face down local authorities. Quinn Insurance, or whoever has taken over the company, is prepared go the whole way and push the issue with local authorities, as it has the resources to do so. The Government has an opportunity to break from the legacy of the past. It should, therefore, support the motion and take responsibility for the necessary remedial works to make buildings safe. To ignore the problem while residents are highlighting and seeking movement on it is not an option for the Minister. We do not want another Stardust tragedy to occur before serious action is taken.

I share the concerns expressed about pyrite in the motion. As a public representative, I believed in my innocence that everyone who purchased a home and had HomeBond cover was hunky-dory, so to speak. It transpired later that HomeBond cover was useless. Changes must be made to provide homeowners with some form of guarantee.

We should fear the impact of global warming on the construction industry. If temperatures ever reach the point at which silicone melts, we will experience serious problems with our housing stock as the material has been widely used to hold together fittings in housing and apartment developments. I am not being flippant in highlighting this issue. There were no clerk of works on sites, people were doing work who were not qualified tradespeople and they were using silicone where they should have been using fixings and there is a potentially serious problem.

Some of the approximately 700 houses - the figure was supposed to be higher - being leased from the National Asset Management Agency are of poor quality. I ask that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government ensure all housing leased from the agency is of good quality before allowing it to transfer to the housing stock.

I welcome this motion, which should be supported by all Deputies. An emergency programme of works should be introduced to carry out necessary remedial works and building regulations should be reformed to ensure we do not find it necessary to revisit this issue.

See this speech in context