Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis na daoine a bheidh ag obair ar an scéim seo agus go háirithe gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire, an Teachta Darragh O'Brien, agus leis an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Peter Burke, fá choinne na díograise agus na hoibre atá déanta ar an scéim seo thar na míosa agus le cúpla bliain anuas fosta. Tá mé ag smaoineamh ach go háirithe ar na daoine uilig ar ais sa bhaile i mo chontae féin agus síos na tíre, na daoine le míoca agus na daoine uilig le pirít fosta. Tá siad uilig ag iarraidh suaimhneas agus síocháin leis an fhadhb mhór seo. Luaim na daoine uilig a bhí ag obair ar an fheachtas thar deich mbliana agus a bhí á dhéanamh go deonach. Ba mhaith liom na daoine a bhí ann ar son na daoine atá i dtrioblóid a aithint. Táim dóchasach go bhfuilimid ag bogadh ar aghaidh chun an saol a chur le chéile arís.

In the first instance I acknowledge that the sliding scale is not mentioned in the scheme. It came in before last Christmas. It was a massive mistake and caused considerable consternation. I acknowledge the work of the Minister in listening to the campaign groups and listening to the homeowners in ensuring it is not part of this scheme.

People and families are stuck. They are in the wrong sequence of their lives and have been for the last decade. Over the weekend, one homeowner told me she had buried her head in the sand and would continue to do that until she sees light. The difficulty we have with this issue is that people have put their lives on hold. Some people have never been on a family holiday. They have put their home and family first, and put luxuries, like a first family holiday, on hold. They were looking forward to that but now that is also on hold. They have been stuck for too long. It is time to get the scheme started - properly this time. I have personally seen the damage done by the previous scheme. Regulations drafted at the eleventh hour made the scheme unaffordable, inaccessible and unworkable. I am not playing the blame game. I will not blame individuals nor do I blame one individual Department. However, I know people were trying to fight against the 90:10 scheme throughout because it was unfair and simply wrong.

Regulations for the new scheme will be worked on in the coming months. I agree with Deputy Ó Broin that it could take months. There is an onus on all of us to try to expedite that and that includes the month of August. It is important to get those regulations right and we need to fast-track them as efficiently as possible.

I ask the Minister and his officials to examine the following areas in more detail between now and the enactment of the scheme. I welcome the €25,000 for emergency works, storage and rental, factored into the cap. While I acknowledge the Minister's role in fighting for an increased cap from a proposed €350,000 to €420,000, because of inflationary pressures and because of the increased cost of the second stage especially for engineering fees, we need to consider removing the €25,000 from the cap which would give some breathing space with the overall cap. I believe that can be addressed under the regulations.

When setting the rates, I ask the Minister to consider the issue of downsizing. I know this has been raised by many Opposition and Government Members. I believe the Minister can provide this in the regulations under section 12. These are the regulations which will set out the grant rate. I want the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and the officials present today to give strong consideration to the downsizing argument. Downsizing should be seen as a good thing as it clearly is from an environmental point of view. We should be facilitating downsizing if not encouraging it. Some people will downsize due to circumstances and some will downsize due to choice. Some people will want to build a replica of their existing home as everybody is entitled to.

I wish to raise an issue that may have been missed in these deliberations. If I am building the same house with the same specifications, I will try to salvage my kitchen and staircase, as many people are doing. I know there is still a cost with that involving getting professionals to do it as well as the cost of storage. However, if I downsize and downscale, I will have a different measurement specification and therefore the kitchen and staircase in my existing home will become redundant. In effect the families downsizing are being penalised. I ask the Minister of State to go back to his officials. I believe there is an understanding within officialdom that this may be possible. I ask for consideration to be given in this regard.

My colleague, Deputy Calleary, raised the issue of force majeureand exceptional circumstances. I am concerned that the appeal board does not have sufficient powers to take into consideration exceptional circumstances. I again raise an issue on behalf of a family in my county. This family has eight children with different health challenges and need to stay in their own home during the construction of their replacement home. I know the regulations and legislation will specify that people need to build their new house on the original footprint. In an exceptional case like this, life is not black and white. It is certainly not black and white for this family where the health challenges range from incurable blood diseases to incurable bone diseases. They do not have an alternative house to meet their needs other than in their own home at the moment.

The appeal board needs to have more flexibility. I believe it does not have enough powers. I have read section 39, which is very legalistic, as I know it must be. However, I do not believe it has the same flexibility as existed in the appeals system for the pyrite scheme. As I said earlier, life is not black and white. There is one line which refers to an "error of law or fact". Obviously, this section was drafted with a very legalistic framework. All Deputies in this House will share this experience. Every person who has contacted us over the last number of years has completely different circumstances from the other people. It is the most complex issue I have ever worked on in my 23 years in politics. There are so many different issues and circumstances that need to be looked at with clear vision. For example, individuals who bought houses after 1 January 2020 did not know the house they bought had mica. They will be able to provide proof that they did not know it had mica.

Will the appeals mechanism be good enough for their voices to be heard?

In section 19 there is a time limit for grant payment. The rules are very much for the homeowner and the onus is on the homeowner with respect to the rules imposed by the legislation. I think Deputy Calleary raised the question of needing rules on the State side, and one of the rules we need is around prompt payment. The existing scheme, the 90:10 scheme, is being utilised by a number of families and the feedback I am getting is that people are waiting sometimes for eight to 12 weeks for payments of invoices. That is totally unacceptable and it makes the scheme unsustainable. In addition, it acts as a significant disincentive to building contractors who cannot reasonably be expected to wait for long periods during remediation for payment.

In their submission to the working group last year, homeowners asked that payments be expedited in line with what normally happens with mortgage companies during a building process. Typically, payment must be made within a matter of weeks following sign-off by engineers at each stage. I am aware that within the public service the deadline for payment right across the board is 15 days, so it is important we clarify in this legislation whether that 15-day requirement will be met.

I honestly believe we must go a step further. Why should we keep it at 15 days? If I demolish my house and it costs €18,000, the house would be demolished and the material would be segregated and recycled. The contractor would finish the work and provide the invoice, so why do we even have to wait 15 days? It should be done within a period of five days. Is there anything in the regulations to ensure that happens?

It is important to point out that while I am hearing some good stories from some individual banks that they will allow people to take out a short-term loan at zero interest, these are very isolated cases. The memo to Government indicated there would be engagement with the banks and we must define what such engagement would be. What are the banks doing to step up to the plate?

What provision have we in place in the case of vulture funds that own houses now because of default? There is one example in my county and the family had no choice but to default because the house was crumbling. They moved into a rental property and the limited income they had went towards rent. The vulture fund now owns the property, which has no value because it has mica in the building. What are we doing to try to facilitate the families who through no fault of their own had to leave their homes while trying to negotiate with banks? The line in the memo to the Government specified engagement with banks but will that incorporate vulture funds as well?

On a personal level, I acknowledge the campaigners. Their commitment and endurance on a voluntary basis is not lost on people. They have put in time and, in conjunction with that, they have all gone through their own anguish about their own homes and houses. They still find the courage and determination to advocate for others, so they provide a dual role. They are still trying to get on with family life, deal with personal crises caused by mica in their homes, all while advocating for others. If there was ever a definition for altruism, that is it. How they find the time and courage to do that, I do not know, but I acknowledge it.

Paddy is outside the gates and I have met Eamon at the under-13 GAA matches. I have met Lisa at athletics on numerous occasions and tried to speak to Michael during his lunch break at his day job. I acknowledge all of them. Eileen and Ann have been at the end of the phone, night and day, for the best part of a decade. They have helped me to better understand the stress and distress caused by mica. It is not alone about the physical invasiveness in their homes but the direct impact that this matter has on health, particularly mental health.

I will continue to use my time to continue engaging with officials, which I was doing earlier today, and Government and party colleagues to make changes to this scheme. This scheme will evolve and maybe all of us will be gone from here in 20 years, although some of us may still be here. This scheme, however, will evolve and change. We must get it started and put our best foot forward in getting it right at this early stage of the legislation. I ask, once again, for the Minister to work on this through his offices. He sits around a table at the ministerial management meeting with officials on a weekly basis and I would like this matter to be kept to the fore.

We must use those regulatory mechanisms in whatever way possible to bring a bit of common sense to this and highlight once again the very important need to look at downsizing. Downsizing is not a bad thing. People who downsize will not be advantaged. People who downsize will not get more than they would have gotten. People who downsize may be disadvantaged because they will not be able to salvage as much as the people who go for the replica house. Beidh muid ar ais an tseachtain seo chugainn, gan dabht.

See this speech in context