Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the debate but I wish it was not necessary. However, it is necessary because essentially the industry was given until 30 September to respond, which was a significant amount of leeway, but it gave the Minister the two fingers. In recent weeks it has been dragged back into the system. I acknowledge it is back in the system because the Minister of State, Deputy Shane McEntee, has played an essential role between it and the Government. I noted the difference in the language used by the Minister of State and the Minister in respect of the next ten days. The Minister said he was hopeful that all stakeholders will respond positively within ten days, whereas the Minister of State went a step further and used the word "guarantee". If it is up to the Minister of State it will be a guarantee and I acknowledge that, for a long time, he was a lone voice, particularly in opposition.

I take issue with a statement made by the Minister that a strong statutory framework for regulation of construction activities exists under the Building Control Acts 1990 and 2007. If that was the case, we would not have some of the problems being experienced. The reason the mandatory compliance certificate is being introduced is that previously there was a lower standard, an opinion certificate issued by various sectors. The mandatory compliance certificate was provided for in legislation but it was not signed into law, as we discovered at the joint committee meeting last week. I challenge the Minister on the issue of a strong framework. For some time I have expressed the need to licence builders in order that we have a sector from which people are confident to purchase their homes. We must learn from the experience.

I hope the debate will move the issue to the point where we see the A to Z and the timeline on how to resolve the problem. As it is a structural failure, it needs a structural response. It is not about a piecemeal response. It has to deal with issues such as testing, how the testing will be conducted and who will pay for it. Will it be done in a systematic way? We have to deal with the issue of certification in order that when houses are found to be pyrite free or remediated, there is no blight that continues on if the house runs into difficulty in regard to insurance issues and needs to be resold. Those are practical issues that need to be dealt with as well as the most urgent issue of remediating the problem.

The pyrite action group, which has co-ordinated some of the people affected, compiled many documents. It has indicated what it sees as the effects of pyrite: heaving, the lifting of ground-bearing concrete slabs, bulging and cracking of internal partition walls supported by floor slabs, cracking above doors and windows, even on the outside, internal doors jamming to the point where people have been locked into rooms, and bulging and cracking of floors and walls. I have seen structural cracking of outer walls which interferes with damp courses, cracking shower trays and fireplaces, staircases, fitted wardrobes, kitchen tops and other units separating from the walls, and causing damage to underground piping, such as sewerage, gas and water pipes. Then we find the HomeBond structural guarantee is not really a structural guarantee. The Minister referred to its expertise. The expertise I see from HomeBond is that of avoiding the problem. It is an absolute disgrace. I have no confidence in its expertise because of the way it has handled the issue, which is nothing short of a disgrace.

HomeBond was established by the Construction Industry Federation and the Irish Homebuilders Association in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. The Department is not a disinterested party in respect of this organisation and the problem as a consequence. There must be consequences for HomeBond rather than allowing it to participate in the solution when there is a doubt about its credibility.

I have been in an estate where apartments have been affected and often it is the people on the upper floors who are most affected. There are practical issues in the upper floors that do not control what happens on the ground floors. In some case, some of those apartments have not been sold. Where the downstairs area is affected by pyrite, the upper floors suffer the consequences. Many other issues need to be dealt with. People talk about stakeholders getting involved. We need to know from a practical point of view what will happen where the builder is in receivership or ceases to exist or if the developer is in NAMA. That is the information we had hoped to get from the report. Much of what was done in the report was necessary but what is missing is the A to Z on when and how the problem can be remediated. We need to know what will be the role of the banks and the lending institutions. They should not be let off the hook as they are central to the problem. They required a certificate from an organisation such as HomeBond or people would not have got a mortgage.

How can they dissociate themselves? It is unfortunate we are at this point. In addition to the threat of the levy, organisations such as the Construction Industry Federation, the Irish Insurance Federation and the lending institutions have had an open door to Government. There should be a consequence for these organisations and should they have less access on the issues they want to discuss with Government unless they deal with the issues Government wants them to address. They should face Government sanctions.

See this speech in context