Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)

Yesterday, Engineers Ireland ran a training course for engineers on IS 465, a standard, as the Government knows, that is outdated, discredited and currently under review. I met with Damien Owens, the director general of Engineers Ireland. and spoke to engineers who did not even know the standard was being reviewed. They are being trained to use documents that Government-commissioned research from Geological Survey Ireland has proven to be scientifically wrong. The damage in these homes is caused by internal sulphate attack, not mica, yet engineers are being instructed otherwise. This is not a neutral educational decision. The Housing Agency employs these chartered engineers. They must complete this training to work on the defective concrete scheme. They are being instructed to apply for this discredited standard and are paying for the privilege. Damien Owens has told the Oireachtas joint committee that IS 465 is not fit for purpose, yet Engineers Ireland is proceeding anyway, while Government agencies employ and rely upon these same engineers. The State cannot pretend to detach from this by funding the research that disproves the standard and at the same time allow its own agencies and engineers to operate and to be trained. The research does exist and was paid for by the Government. The Government is complicit in misleading homeowners and committing an injustice. This is not just an oversight but the continuation of a system that punishes victims while protecting the State from accountability.

Every step, inconsistency and contradiction is being documented and will be part of the public record. I have a number of questions for the Tánaiste. Will he confirm that any training required for engineers working in State schemes will immediately be reviewed and aligned with the current peer-reviewed scientific evidence rather than the obsolete, discredited standard? Will he confirm that the Government accepts full responsibility for the oversight of such training and the competence of the engineers whose assessment determines homeowners' eligibility for redress? Will he acknowledge it is entirely unacceptable that the Government commissioned and paid for research that disproves IS 465, yet allows its own scheme to continue training and deploying engineers and to act as if the research does not exist? Will he finally accept that every decision taken under this flawed framework deepens the State's exposure to legal challenges and potential judicial reviews? The Government cannot claim ignorance of evidence it commissioned and published.

See this speech in context