Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important topic on behalf of the Labour Party and to respond to the Minister's proposals on how he and the Government propose to address the issue of defects in apartments. This is a serious issue for many homeowners, families and households. Like other colleagues, I have met many residents of affected apartment blocks, as well as with the Construction Defects Alliance and others. In July, I raised this issue in the Dáil with the Tánaiste and sought a commitment from Government for an adequate and effective redress scheme for those affected, and I was glad there was a positive response to that at the time.

The Minister set out the steps he is taking and those he proposes to take. He said he received the final report of the interdepartmental and agency group yesterday, which looks at the recommendations in the working group report. He also said he would bring a memo to Cabinet next week on that. It is somewhat unfortunate we are debating this in a vacuum because we have not yet seen either the interdepartmental group report or the memo being brought to the Cabinet, nor will we have an opportunity to debate the report until the new year. Will the Minister of State bring back the call we would all make, cross-party, to have an early debate on this issue again in the new year, when we will have sight of the interdepartmental group findings and the memo to the Cabinet? We would then be clearer as to exactly what the Government proposes to do for those who are seriously affected.

This cuts across many different constituencies and affects throughout the county. In my constituency of Dublin Bay South, I have met apartment owners and residents from Rathmines, Ballsbridge and across the constituency who are affected by defective construction in their buildings and homes. Many are already out of pocket because they have expended money on remediation works, either personally or through fees to their owner management companies, and we should not forget that many more who have not spent that money yet are living in danger. A home should be a safe place. Housing is a human right. Last week I stood alongside many colleagues outside these Houses with people whose homes are not safe because of defective building. It is five years since the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy in London, which showed us so starkly the carnage that can result because of defective building practices. I note an Irish company was involved with the supply of cladding that was involved in that tragedy. Tragedies such as these are always at the back of our minds when debating construction defects and defective buildings because they can have such real and tragic consequences. All those living in defective homes are deeply aware of this, as they are of the huge expense and distress remediation works have caused. A woman in my constituency said her daughter risked not being able to go to college because the family were so out of pocket. After receiving such an enormous bill for remedying defects in their apartments, they could not afford education costs for their children. That is the sort of impact this is having on families.

We know from the working group report that up to 80% of apartments built between 1991 and 2013 may be defective. Of the 100,000 units, which is a massive figure, up to 90,000 are affected by the most serious issues, the fire safety defects, that arose primarily through shoddy work for which all sectors of the industry - professionals, contractors and subcontractors - were responsible. Limited regulatory oversight by State bodies was also a key contributory factor. We know from the working group that the estimated cost for remediation is approximately €2.5 billion and the report was clear the State should provide redress to owners to address defects through management companies, if necessary, and that retrospective financial support should be provided to owners who have or are paying towards remediation.

I am conscious we had a cross-party briefing on the owner management companies issue last week. We know owner management companies are the most effective mechanism to deliver the whole building's safety that is essential in ensuring those living in multi-unit developments can live safely and be assured of appropriate remediation work. However, owner management companies, as we all know, are largely run by volunteer directors who may often lack the necessary expertise and experience to discharge the critical responsibilities they are doing voluntarily. The funding challenges being faced by many such companies encapsulate the real difficulties here.

In practical terms, owner management companies cannot borrow. They will face lengthy processes to recover debt. They can only operate with the cash they have to hand and, therefore, the Government will need to provide proactive, hands-on support to such companies to ensure they can manage remediation works effectively to deliver safe buildings and outcomes. Any approach that only partially funds owner management companies for remediation works will risk leaving buildings unsafe and families in those buildings therefore unsafe.

We need a public sector body underpinned by primary legislation. I know the Minister has acknowledged the need for legislation. We need a body to take charge of managing the remediation programme, as the Pyrite Resolution Board has done, in conjunction with owner management companies. The works should be fully funded upfront by the State and cost recovery should operate through the tax system. In addition, we will all be conscious that people who have already paid or are paying towards remediation costs will have to be included in the scheme because to do otherwise would lead to many owner management companies being unable to complete remediation works already under way. We need to ensure inclusion for owner occupiers and social landlords too, because housing associations form part of the occupiers and landlords for many multi-unit dwellings. We will be conscious of that as well. Support can be provided by means of grants based on the production of confirmation of payment of remediation costs by the relevant owner management company.

I will highlight the need for the construction industry to contribute substantially to the cost of the remediation support scheme. That has been acknowledged. We in the Labour Party have called for a 2% levy on construction profits of construction companies from 2024 onwards for a period of at least ten years. It is necessary for those directly involved in creating the risk to also have a direct responsibility to bear a substantial portion of the costs. That is a crucial issue, not only to deal with past defects, but also to ensure one prevents and deters companies and construction operators from building defectively into the future.

See this speech in context