Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Bill before us has major implications for the thousands of homeowners who have been or may be affected by pyrite damage. I must say at the outset that I am disappointed by the amount of time allocated to debate the Bill in the House, particularly that allocated for the next stage. The approach taken by the Government to the ordering of Dáil business this week is pretty shocking. As I said to the Tánaiste last week, we are rushing through three major Bills this week, any one of which would have formed the business of an entire week in previous Dáil terms.

I welcome the fact that legislation dealing with the pyrite issue is finally before us. The problem of homes affected by pyrite first came to my attention in the Drynam Hall estate in Kinsealy in the summer of 2007, when the parents of a young householder in the estate alerted me to the shocking news that her home was infested with pyrite.

The Minister of State will well remember that when the 30th Dáil resumed, I immediately raised the matter with the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, John Gormley, and the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, who totally washed their hands of this outrageous fraud on young home owners and mortgage payers. Unfortunately, a few months later the first shocking reports came through of possible pyrite damage in the massive Clongriffin estate in the north fringe in my constituency. From that time I have raised the matter on literally hundreds of occasions in this House, particularly on behalf of the householders affected by pyrite damage in my constituency. The further atrociously long wait of nearly three years by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, in getting his act together to tackle the pyrite problem has meant that home owners affected by pyrite damage have been languishing in their homes for years with little or no hope in sight of a resolution to the damage done to their homes.

I welcomed the recent announcement by the Minister, Deputy Hogan, that €10 million of initial funding was to be allocated by the State to the pyrite remediation scheme. However, following the announcement I expressed my strong concerns that the fund was to be restricted to homes with pyrite damage in the so called red category. More important, I expressed even stronger concern that the entire funding for pyrite remediation was to come from the Exchequer. I know the Acting Chairman, Deputy Mathews, is interested in the phenomenon. One could ask what happened to the pyrite levy which was a key recommendation contained in the pyrite panel report of 2012. In addition, what happened to the proposal that people responsible for inflicting damage on others would be made accountable for their wrongdoing and gross carelessness? It is welcome that some home owners will benefit from vital assistance in carrying out remedial works to their homes in instances of significant pyritic damage. It is also welcome that the Pyrite Resolution Board will be put on a statutory footing. However, this very belated Bill is a poor enough attempt by the Minister, Deputy Hogan, to address the pyrites debacle. The Minister has also missed an opportunity to prevent a disaster of this kind recurring by not including provision in the Bill for the inspection of quarries to determine the presence of pyrite in infill. Furthermore, the apparent problems in the building regulations due to be brought into effect by the Minister in the coming weeks are not being addressed in the Bill or elsewhere. There seems to be a complete determination by the State and its agencies not to take responsibility for the building industry and not to make it responsible to the State for the work it does in spite of the huge commitments made by young families.

In moving to the content of the Bill, I wish to highlight my major concern that there is not even a hint of those responsible for pyrites being held to account. Over the past six or seven years the key questions my Dublin Bay North constituents have continually asked are twofold. First, whether those responsible for the egregiously careless invigilation of construction suppliers and grossly deficient building works will be held to account for their actions. Second, whether those responsible will be made to pay for the grave financial damage done to citizens and householders. I note that section 7 provides that grants from the Housing Agency, subject to sanction by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, will be used to implement the pyrite remediation scheme and ancillary matters. The implications of the section are significant. The Minister has apparently done a U-turn on his view that a pyrite levy was to be imposed on the quarrying and construction industries. I note in the wake of the publication of the pyrite panel report in 2012 that the Minister said a pyrite levy would be on the table. Throughout the pyrite panel's considerations, there were constant reports and spin from Government that the building, construction supply and insurance industries and other professions with a direct responsibility, including banks, would be levied with the bill for the repair of the damage. In the autumn legislative programme, a Pyrite Levy Bill was No. 10 on section A of the programme. The purpose of the Bill as outlined in the programme was: "to provide for the imposition of levies on the quarrying and insurance sectors to fund a remediation scheme for certain pyrite damaged dwellings and to establish the Pyrite Resolution Board on a statutory footing".

The decision to drop the levy has significant implications for the public purse and it means the State will carry the can ultimately for pyrite damage. As more and more estates in north and west Dublin, Meath and other counties were reported to have pyrite damage from 2007 onwards, I was given an astonishing estimate by some builders that the number of houses requiring remediation would be up to 60,000 housing units with a rebuilding cost of up to €20 billion. I accept the pyrite panel estimate was approximately 12,000 units but even if there are, for example, 20,000 pyrite-damaged housing units, the ultimate cost could be at least €1 billion. The pyrites disaster was second only to the banking disaster and had we not had the collapse of banking it would be the greatest scandal of modern Irish history. Of even more concern is the very real fear that if the funding for the scheme is subject to sanction by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, it could be restricted to the most severe cases only and many others with varying degrees of pyrite damage would be left without recourse to assistance in carrying out remedial works. I will table an amendment on Committee Stage tomorrow, which I hope will not be ruled out of order, to call for the imposition of a pyrite levy to be included in the Bill.

In a similar vein, I am most concerned that the Bill does not provide a mechanism to address future potential construction incidents similar to the pyrites disaster. By not providing, for example, for the inspection of quarries, the Bill is merely responsive to the current problem without seeking ways to improve the quarrying and construction supply industries. I note that reference is made in the Bill to the NSAI standards on pyrite. However, it would have been far more useful to have also included provision in the Bill for inspections to determine the presence in infill of pyrite or any other problem stone, and to make arrangements for the suspension of quarrying activity in the event of pyrite being found. Approximately, 18 months ago planning staff in Fingal County Council carried out the first systematic review of quarrying in the county on its seven major quarries in accordance with the Planning Act 2000.

I strongly welcome the placement of the Pyrite Resolution Board on a statutory footing. The establishment of the board was another key component of the recommendations of the pyrite panel report 2012. Part 2 addresses the necessary legislative provisions for establishing the board. I note that the board is already in place on a de facto basis.

I further welcome section 13 which sets out the arrangements for the board in making the pyrite remediation scheme. However, I note that section 13(1) makes reference to the draft scheme having to be prepared by the board and sent to the Minister for his approval "as soon as may be after the establishment day". I have tabled an amendment seeking that a limit would be put in place so that the draft scheme would have to be prepared within six months. We have waited long enough for the pyrite remediation scheme to be put on a statutory basis and I would be fearful that without an express time limit in place the scheme could be delayed further. I am opposed to the guillotining of the three historic and vital Bills being considered this week in the House but I did not oppose the Order of Business – neither did the Acting Chairman, Deputy Mathews - on the Pyrite Resolution Bill because we have waited long enough for action.

Section 4 refers to “significant pyritic damage”. I note that section 4(a) defines significant pyritic damage as follows: "(i) damage condition rating of 1 (with progression), consistent with pyritic heave, or (ii) a damage condition rating of 2, consistent with pyritic heave, in each case established on foot of a building condition assessment carried out by a competent person...". I am concerned that this definition appears to restrict the applicability of the pyrite remediation scheme to the most severe cases of pyrite damage. However, many hundreds if not thousands of households have been affected by significant pyrite damage, albeit not all at the upper end of the scale to date.

Members are aware that Homebond stopped compensating home owners for pyrite damage in August 2011. However, I understand Premier Guarantee continues to process claims for pyritic damage. Homebond's suspension of processing pyrite claims means that a large number of home owners are not receiving any remediation for pyrite damage. The definition of significant pyritic damage in section 4 could in practice be rather restrictive and could therefore potentially exclude thousands of home owners from the scope of the pyrite remediation scheme.

I wish to raise some concerns about the new provision contained in the Bill as passed by the Seanad. Section 19 provides for the deferral of decisions of the board on applications under the pyrite remediation scheme in circumstances where "a builder or developer of a dwelling has instituted or invoked dispute resolution procedures arising out of or in connection with pyritic heave affecting a dwelling owned by an applicant...". I assume the amendment has been introduced on the basis of the need to allow the legal process to conclude before a decision would be made on an application for pyrite remediation to the board. However, one could ask what happens to the home owner in this instance. I note a home owner may make a submission seeking that the decision not be deferred. However, the decision on whether to defer will be at the discretion of the board. I have concerns that, in effect, the legal process could be used to deny assistance to home owners under the scheme, which would be a very negative development.

While I warmly welcome the legislation to finally establish the Pyrite Resolution Board, I must express my opposition to the approach taken by the Government to many aspects of the legislation. The absence of a pyrite levy or any provision to put a levy in place is a shocking indictment of the Government and its lack of will or ability to tackle the wrongdoers and help out ordinary citizens who are really struggling. The Bill protects big business, the flotilla of developers and their out-of-control friends in the banking industry – whom the Acting Chairman, Deputy Mathews, has so eloquenty spoken about so often in the House - from their obligations. It also absolves the totally quiescent previous Government of Fianna Fáil and the Green Party. The behaviour of the Green Party on the matter was one of the most disgraceful I have witnessed in this House. I refer to the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Mr. Gormley, and his ministerial colleague, the current leader of the Green Party – or the remaining tiny faction of the party – the former Deputy, Mr. Ryan. They were in power in this House for three and a half years and did not lift a finger to help so many hard-pressed householders. I welcome the fact that at long last we are taking action on the matter. I note the presence of Deputy McEntee, whose father played a tremendous role in pursuing the matter vigorously on behalf of those affected in County Meath and north Dublin.

It is fitting this legislation is now in place. The Minister should have kept his promise on the pyrite levy, however.

See this speech in context