Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The debate on this legislation is welcome. Like others contributing to the debate, I am aware of others who are at a critical point in that they are close to the point of moving out of their homes. I know some of them personally, as most contributing to the debate do. They are doing so for reasons of pyrite heave, doors not opening and closing and part of the ceiling collapsing and walls cracking. It is critical that remediation occurs as soon as possible. I acknowledge the legislation and initial funding of €10 million. It is progress, even if it is more limited than what we wish.

The pyrite panel report was issued in June 2012. What we are doing today is substantially different from what was anticipated in it. The executive summary states:

The Government should ensure that strong leadership is provided to influence the engagement of the construction industry and related players in facilitating a resolution of the pyrite problem. A Resolution Board should be set up by the Government to handle cases which cannot be dealt with by other means. This should not be funded by the Exchequer but could be funded by, for example, a levy on the construction/quarrying sector or other means. In respect of paying for the remediation, it is accepted by all with whom the Panel met, that it should be paid for by those who have responsibility for the problem.

Court cases are in the pipeline. It is critically important that whatever action can be taken will be taken by the Government should the court cases open up new possibilities from the point of view of natural justice and accumulating sufficient funds to deal with the many thousands of households affected. Section 14 is the central part of the Bill, making provision for a pyrite remediation scheme. It is anticipated, and it is right, that the housing units worst affected are dealt with first. I do not anticipate any difficulty in grouping semi-detached, detached and terraced housing with various degrees of damage, even if they are not the worst. We do not want to see a piecemeal approach, which will be much more costly.

The Minister has pointed out that this is not intended to be a compensation scheme, but there is a serious problem for people who have pyrite in their homes but at a level that falls below the threshold. The value of these homes, should people wish to or need to move, is basically zero, but if they try to put zero on a property tax assessment, another organ of the State, the Revenue Commissioners, would quickly challenge the valuation. These people should be included in the scheme if the level of damage is low, as there will be a hierarchy anyway, with the most affected dealt with first and the least affected dealt with afterwards.

Excluding those individuals - rather than developers - in multi-unit developments who begged, borrowed and re-mortgaged their homes very heavily when they could not continue to live in them is again a matter of natural justice. I know some people with very hard stories in this regard and they are at the pin of their collar in trying to pay second mortgages. In one case a Velux window in a bathroom smashed into a thousand pieces on top of children. What can be done in such a position other than repairing the damage? If there is a hierarchy of action, these people will fall below those who require remediation in the first instance, and I do not understand why that has not been considered. If these people are not included in the scheme but there are successful court actions against which funding can be leveraged, will the legislation further punish people who take action in advance of its passage? I urge the Minister to include these people, as it is essential for them to be in the scheme.

A certification process is essential both for the people whose homes will be remediated and for those who have carried out remediation already. There is a blight that comes with pyrite, and I frequently get phone calls from people who are thinking of buying properties, although not many people are buying now. Where there is movement in estates, I am asked whether there are pyrite issues, which means there is a clear difficulty where people are affected. There should be certification so that people can have some certainty about the future. The banks and insurance companies have been incredibly unfair in this regard; they may refuse insurance or a mortgage on a house in an estate affected by pyrite. A certification process is therefore really important.

We anticipate that this will be a rolling scheme in terms of the funds available, with public moneys used to front-load the process and a levy to fund the rolling scheme. As Deputy Daly has pointed out, we have held on to every bit of information. This day last year, the Minister anticipated that there would be an up-front fund of €50 million to establish the Pyrite Resolution Board to oversee the implementation of a comprehensive remediation scheme for pyrite-affected dwellings. At that point, agreement in principle from Homebond, the Construction Industry Federation and the Irish Concrete Federation had been reached to establish a special purpose vehicle for a not-for-profit entity that would operate the remediation scheme. Where did that co-operation go? Why should these groups constantly need to be legally bashed into doing something that is ethical? Is there a prospect of re-engagement in this respect?

The proof will be in the scheme itself, as it has been talked about for a while. When we see houses being remediated a bit of confidence will be built, but much more needs to be done. I know the Minister would acknowledge this, and also that €10 million is wholly inadequate. We are all-----

See this speech in context