Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I appreciate the Government is looking at this matter and the Minister is working on it. The fact it has taken this long to get to the point where we might have a 100% redress scheme is not in any way acceptable. The Government supported the 90% scheme as an acceptable measure until this point and it demonstrates complete disregard for people and the stress and anxiety they are under. We are talking about their homes.

I will comment on what the Tánaiste said about this recently. He said we must ask ourselves if it is reasonable to ask the taxpayer to fund the reconstruction of what are quite large houses in some cases. I say to the Tánaiste that we must ask ourselves instead if is reasonable for people to live in homes that are falling apart and unsafe through no fault of their own whatever. Is it reasonable that people are excluded from the redress scheme because they cannot afford to access it? It is a key point, as people may not have been able to meet the 10% balance and additional costs of the scheme; these people are in most need of assistance from the State, as they are on lower to middle incomes.

This scheme is unfair when compared with the pyrite remediation scheme. Another great injustice of the scheme has been that the only people who could avail of it are those with some additional resources, and very few people in this position had such resources. It is not just about the anxiety and stress caused by problems with mica but the fact that people have had to move from their homes. A number of people are paying mortgages and rent at the same time, along with all the other costs. When the Tánaiste asks if it is reasonable to ask the taxpayer to step in, we must ask if it is reasonable for children to go to sleep at night afraid that the house might fall in on them? Is it reasonable that people would put life savings and earnings into homes only to see them crumble? Is it reasonable that after all the problems we have had with building defects, including pyrite and fire safety issues along with mica, we still do not have the kind of independent testing and inspection for building sites and materials that we should have to ensure this can never happen again? Is it reasonable that the regulation of products from quarries has been so lax in the history of the State, leaving open the possibility of these kinds of building defects and defective materials? That is what caused this problem and pushed families through such major stress, worry and anxiety. Having this compounded by the financial difficulties because the redress scheme is insufficient is unacceptable.

We must bear in mind that a house is not just bricks and mortar, it is the place where the members of a family forge their hopes and dreams. It is where newborns are brought home and it is where the most important milestones for families are often celebrated. It is often the last place people are before being laid to rest.

As a councillor I dealt a lot with residents affected by pyrite and fire safety defects and heard their first-hand stories about how they were affected. Initially, when people saw a crack they hoped it was just a settlement crack but then, over time, they realised their worst nightmares were coming into play. At that point, people need full support rather than having to fight every step of the way to get support from the State.

It is true that the State alone is not responsible. The State should be pursuing vigorously the suppliers of materials and builders who are responsible for this. It is also the case, however, that over the years the State has failed with regard to testing building materials and has a very lax regime in place. Until we have the kinds of regimes in place in other countries for testing building materials and carrying out independent inspections of building sites at every stage of the process, and for as long as we continue to rely on the industry to regulate itself for the most part, these sorts of issues will continue to emerge. They issues are devastating for individuals and families and create a massive financial burden for the State and taxpayer. It will cost more than €1 billion to address the mica issue and another €1 billion to correct fire safety defects in some 100,000 apartments constructed during the Celtic tiger years. The State has already paid out €160 million for pyrite remediation. This money would be much better spent elsewhere if we had proper regulation, testing and standards.

After the issues caused by pyrite, mica and fire safety defects, the State has not fully learned lessons with regard to building materials, regulations, and independent inspection and testing. One would have thought that after the terrible tragedy at Grenfell Tower and all the lives lost there, the State would at this point be very rigorous in its approach. I do not know why the Government has not moved to introduce the kinds of regulation and independent inspection regimes that are in place in other countries. Why at this point has the Government not learned these lessons? Why maintain the position where the taxpayer and State could potentially pay out these sums again in future? Why put families and individuals in that position, with the stress they suffer as a result?

I fully support the motion and I thank Sinn Féin for tabling it. It is good that the Government, under pressure from the protests and the campaigners, has become more supportive than it was in the past. If we do not bring inspections of building sites and the standards of building materials into line with those in other western European countries, we will continue to have these problems into the future. That must happen.

See this speech in context