Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this Bill, which represents a long overdue beginning to a resolution of the pyrite scandal. It has been nearly a year and a half since the pyrite report was published.

I pay tribute to Sandra and Peter Lewis and others in the Pyrite Action Group for their sterling work in pressuring and lobbying TDs and the Government to address the debacle that has resulted in this terrible situation facing thousands of families. I would also like to pay tribute to the late Minister of State, Shane McEntee, who put a great deal of work into finding a solution to this issue and was held in high regard by many of the families.

The pyrite issue, like the issues with Priory Hall, Gleann Riada, Balgaddy and others, exemplifies what was so rotten at the core of the Celtic tiger period. Profit was king and people were an afterthought at best. This scandal, like others, is the result of lax regulation and negligent building practices. These hangovers are the result of a greed that possessed the powerful in Ireland in those times. Corners were cut, profits were maximised and responsibility was reduced to lip-service.

This callous greed was shown up clearly by the behaviour of Homebond. Homebond was supposed to protect many of these families, but at the first sign of trouble it was found wanting. It has disgraced itself throughout the campaign by affected families for repair works. It abandoned many of its customers and snubbed the Oireachtas committee investigating it not once but twice. Homebond's insurance should have meant that many home owners would never have needed to campaign at all. Given its conduct, I was disappointed when a Homebond representative was placed on the building regulation advisory board. Instead of being a great comfort to families in a time of need, Homebond only made matters worse. Residents who saw their dream homes crumbling as their mortgages were still being paid had to consider the possibility of even more debt to fix the problem and put a secure roof over their children's heads once again.

The Minister, Deputy Hogan, stated repeatedly that the State had no responsibility in this scandal. I disagree. The State allowed quarries to sell these contaminated materials, allowed builders to use them and then allowed companies such as Homebond to behave as they have. Of course the State did not put pyrite in people's houses, but when regulation fails the State must accept its failure in this.

The quarry and construction sectors are most responsible and it is unfortunate that we enter this new period and the beginning of a resolution without a clear method of recouping the public funds used for the remediation scheme. I am very glad that public money can be used until such a levy is in place, as I called for this from the first instance a levy was mentioned or thought of. The families in homes being torn apart by pyritic heave cannot wait for the details of levies to be ironed out.

I welcome the Minister's continued expression of a desire to see an industry levy in place in the future. The process of repairing the worst-affected homes is an expensive one and I fear that the current level of funds available will run low quite quickly when the priority cases are dealt with. The Minister said that more funds would be announced in the new year, and I hope this is true, as the longer the pyrite remains inthose homes the worse they will become and the more expensive the work required will be. This is the reason I question the wisdom of not allowing the owners of houses with lower levels of pyrite to apply for remediation. Priority cases should be dealt with first, but allowing homes to deteriorate before they can be repaired seems like a recipe for a more expensive scheme in the long run.

There should be some measure in place to support families who, despite heaping great financial hardship on themselves, got repair work done and paid for it out of their own pockets. The Minister indicated that this measure would not be retrospective, but that is a mistake. Those people did not do that because they are affluent but because they were desperate and had given up waiting for a solution that they feared might not come. While they no longer fall into the category of priority focus, they should also benefit in the longer term from a levy taken from the construction and quarry industries.

As the Minister is aware, local authorities such as Dublin City Council and Fingal County Council have conducted repairs of estates and properties damaged by pyrite, which they and the Department have financed. One hundred and six units in Sillogue in Ballymun have recently been successfully restored and are now fully occupied and of the highest standard. Also, Avila Park estate in Finglas is being restored. There are other estates which I will not mention. Those families need a secure home, but the State is not wholly responsible for the presence of pyrite and the quarry and construction industry should face some of the financial burden of the repairs. Some builders took it upon themselves to repair homes they had built in order to preserve their good names. In those cases it was no small undertaking and they should get credit for their responsible reaction and the way they handled matters.

In order for people to prove that they require repair work covered by the remediation scheme they will need to get costly engineer's reports. Such a report can cost anything from €3,000 to €6,000. I note that the Minister mentioned that the Housing Agency might have a role in this. It is important that it does, because the cost of an engineer's report is excessive. Will people be compensated for these expenses, which are required for the scheme to work? At a time when families are struggling to keep the lights on, this essential expense to secure the roof over their heads is not easily undertaken or afforded.

I understand that the primary focus of the scheme is to repair structures to secure habitation, but there is also a serious problem in many estates caused by pyrite in pavements, roads, walls and other structures. What will be done to deal with those issues, of which there are many? A number of the homes affected have had major pyrite damage not only to walls but also to fixtures and fittings. Door frames have been broken, fitted kitchens have been warped beyond use and pipes have been damaged, as have other fittings. This was caused by pyrite present in the concrete used in the build and in the stone underground, sold by quarries and okayed by this State's lax inspection system. Questions need to be answered about this, despite the major headline issue of pyritic heave being dealt with.

It is important that we have an independent appeals mechanism for residents who are affected. We have the red, amber and green system. Does that need to be examined more carefully in terms of the way we categorise these houses? Some of the houses I have seen in the amber category were in very bad condition. We know that 800 to 1,000 houses need to be tackled urgently at this stage, but we are not sure of the overall figure. The Pyrite Resolution Board has given us some figures, but many believe it is not up to speed with regard to the number of people affected.

The Minister mentioned the Housing Agency. Can he elaborate on its role, along with that of the Pyrite Resolution Board? Will it have a stronger role in determining cases? The Minister indicated that it would examine and determine each individual case. How will that be done? The Bill should take into account dwellings that have been affected, and it should be retrospective in its scope to include people who got works done and paid for it out of their own pockets.

What will happen with regard to the taking in charge of many estates where issues remain? Will the local authorities be pressurised into taking in charge many of these estates? In some cases the builders have gone and we will not see them again. My experience is that it takes years for councils to take estates in charge, even small estates.

I first encountered this problem more than eight years ago when I visited Avila Park. These houses had been built only a short while before, yet there were holes in the walls and gaps in the houses. The kitchen counters were warped in the same way as the floors, such was the level of the damage. Will the replacement of these fittings be excluded from the scheme? There is some indication that many of these fittings may not be included. I believe they must be included because people bought these houses with the kitchens fitted. They were bought as part of the scheme. Will the Minister take that into account?

We know that on average these units will cost €30,000 to €60,000 to complete. Some of the companies involved are better than others and some of the ones that have done work in Ballymun have done an excellent job. We want to get value for money from those who will do the work on the houses, and that should be closely examined.

We will not oppose this Bill, but more needs to be done. I do not accept that people should be excluded in any way, because if they can prove their case that damage has been done to their properties over the years they should be compensated.

See this speech in context