Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last Saturday, I walked with more than 1,000 citizens in Donaghmede, Dublin 13, which is in my constituency to mark the first anniversary of the traumatic evacuation of Priory Hall residents from their homes in October 2011 owing to the profound fire safety and other defects discovered in that complex. I again pay tribute to the Priory Hall residents and their families for their ongoing, outstanding and dignified campaign for justice.

On Saturday, we heard powerful testimonies from some of the resident leaders, including Graham Usher, Stephanie Meehan, Sínead Power and Darren Kelly, in regard to the horrific ongoing suffering of the Priory Hall families. For example, Stephanie detailed the awful impact on her two young children of being evacuated from their home, spending Christmas 2011 as refugees in their own country. Incredibly, Priory Hall families are now facing a second Christmas out of their homes, with the future as uncertain as ever.

No remediation work has been carried out since last November, even though at the time of the evacuation residents were told that they would be back in their homes in about five weeks. I also spoke last Saturday to some of the parents and grandparents of Priory Hall residents who never imagined their children and grandchildren being treated so badly. As pointed out yesterday by Graham Usher in a letter to The Irish Times, residents have faced a 12 month battle with the developer Tom McFeely, Dublin City Council, the Government and the banks. Graham rightly calls Priory Hall "a failure of the State". I note that Mr. McFeely was in court again today in relation to breaches of court orders and the non-disclosure of assets.

The key question is when will the resolution process be concluded? That was the question on everyone's lips at the public demonstration last Saturday. The threat of Dublin City Council's Supreme Court case on the withdrawal of families' accommodation still looms. Residents also point out that if they currently have a moratorium on their mortgage, the capital interest on it is accelerating all the time. This could be horrifically compounded if residents are left in negative equity, with a huge mortgage on an unsafe and unsaleable home. It was also reported in The Irish Times last Saturday that Dublin City Council has spent €2 million on the Priory Hall debacle, including a reported €700,000 on security. One year on, residents are in a worse position than ever. When will we know the result of the resolution process and when will it be possible for the families with Priory Hall to move on with their lives?

Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this Topical Issue for discussion. We never thought that a year on we would be making the same case for these people who have been to hell in relation to this issue.

It appears that over the past 12 months the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, has passed the buck on Priory Hall and these people remain abandoned as far as we can ascertain. As Deputy Broughan stated, we reiterate the fact we want the Minister to meet the residents to discuss funding mechanisms for the remedial works and help find a permanent solution to the current plight of the 260 residents, many of whom are paying hefty mortgages on uninhabitable homes. Without doubt, this must be addressed.

The Minister stated he has not met the residents because of ongoing legal proceedings, that he must respect the independence of the designated authority, Dublin City Council, and that he cannot interfere in individual cases. Based on the failure of all parties and those in officialdom to address this issue, the time has long since passed to bring about a resolution. The conciliation process must be brought to a conclusion. If this means interference by the Minister with responsibility in this regard, then let this be the case.

On a related issue, on the day when local government reform has been published by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, we have not seen the appointment of a planning regulator, as was Judge Mahon's wish. In recent years we have not seen proper funding put in place to augment, help and support enforcement officers in local authorities whose role could be that bit more real were they to have the resources to pursue planning, development, health and safety and building control regulations, which is their remit. I plead with the Minister to reconsider the appointment of a planning regulator to enforce proper procedures and guidelines on planning throughout the local government sector.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am shocked the Minister is hiding behind a legal process. The conciliation process is not good enough. A year is a long time for people to live in a nightmare. Regardless of whether the Minister accepts it, the State bears a huge responsibility in the matter. To say regulations are not good enough does not cut a lot of ice. The regulations in Ireland are decent and it is the lack of enforcement which is the problem. If the current arrangements had been adhered to in a proper manner, Priory Hall would not have happened. Local authorities are empowered to carry out inspections and, where necessary, undertake enforcement action to ensure compliance. Local authorities did not have the resources to do so, and this is a Government issue. The Government must take responsibility but even if it grabbed the bull by the horns and dealt with it, many people are responsible. There is the builder, the engineer, the consultant engineer, the architect, the mechanical and electrical contractors and specialist subcontractors. All of these people had insurance. Perhaps one cannot get any money from the builder at this stage, but other people have a responsibility and the issue needs to be co-ordinated by the Government. The issue must be tackled.

The fact that there was no enforcement of the regulations by the local authority is the crucial issue. There is no point in looking at a building when the curtains are hanging. One does not know what has happened because it is all covered up at that stage and it is too late. We do not need to change the regulations - we need to change the way the rules are enforced. If a consultant engineer and architect are to take responsibility for work carried out in their name, it must be supervised by somebody working for them. If this costs money then they should charge it to the builder. The current arrangement is nonsense and the Government must act on it and change it. The regulations are fine, but the lack of enforcement is a killer and is what is causing the problem. The Government bears a huge responsibility for what happened at Priory Hall and the Minister has not taken responsibility for it. He is too keen to kick it down the road and state there is a legal process. A year later it is a nightmare for the people involved and it is not good enough. The Government would interfere in other issues where it suits them. It needs to interfere in this.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like the other Deputies, I believe Priory Hall has become a symbol of what is best and worst in Irish society. We have a community of young families and parents banding together in solidarity to try to secure basic human rights in Ireland in 2012, but we also have a society which is effectively ignoring them, from the Government to the local authority to the banks and other agencies.

Like Deputy Broughan, I was there on Saturday and the deterioration in the structure since we were there a number of months ago is substantial. There is no going back. These people will not end up back in the community and nor should they be expected to return there. The only solution is to take it down and allow these people to rebuild their lives. It is an indictment of the banks, many of them publicly owned, that these people, who are evacuees from their homes living in inadequate accommodation which they cannot call their own, continue to pay mortgages for their property which is a health hazard. Some people have secured a moratorium but the interest is increasing. We as taxpayers, a Government and a Parliament who own these banks must step in. The mortgages should be transferred to a property of the choosing of the residents, be it in NAMA or somewhere else. Priory Hall is no more and these people will not return there.

I agree with the other Deputies that it is unacceptable that the Minister, Deputy Hogan, hid behind a court case between Mr. McFeely and Dublin City Council. It had nothing to do with the residents so he could have met them. After this he hid behind the conciliation process. This is not good enough. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, should meet the residents because the State is complicit. Successive Governments stood over self-certification and inadequate regulation and, crucially, inadequate enforcement. There will be no solution unless the Government takes ownership of this. In fairness, on Saturday residents were extremely critical of the role of the Government and the political establishment. To my mind they are correct. We need to take action. One year is far too long. This has become a symbol of other developments and it should not be happening here or anywhere else.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will reply to these issues on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan. I acknowledge the very difficult and distressing situation faced by the residents of Priory Hall who have been out of their homes for 12 months. I share the wishes of all concerned, and those who raised the issue in the Chamber, to see the matter resolved as quickly as possible.

A Supreme Court hearing on an appeal by Dublin City Council against an order to pay for accommodation, storage costs and ancillary costs of residents forced to vacate their apartments at Priory Hall had been scheduled to take place on Tuesday, 24 April 2012. However, on Friday, 20 April 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to adjourn these proceedings to allow for a conciliation process between the parties.

The conciliation process is being chaired by Mr. Justice Joseph Finnegan, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court and a former President of the High Court. I understand the resolution process, which seeks to identify a way forward to the complex problems at Priory Hall, remains ongoing between the relevant parties. I am not a party to the legal proceedings and I have no role or involvement in the conciliation process. Out of respect for the process approved by the Supreme Court, and for Mr. Justice Finnegan, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. It is important that all concerned afford Mr. Justice Finnegan the opportunity to complete the task which he has been given. I cannot tell the House how long this process will take, and I ask Deputies to respect the process being undertaken by Mr. Justice Finnegan.

In his contribution, Deputy Broughan raised the pyrite issue, which I will also address. The pyrite report provides a comprehensive framework to move forward and provide effective solutions for home owners. The Minister's objective in setting up the pyrite panel was to assist home owners find a resolution to the pyrite problem, and his focus is now to ensure the recommendations are implemented in a way that delivers workable and practicable solutions for home owners.

Following receipt of the report of the independent pyrite panel in late June, the Minister met with the Construction Industry Federation, the Irish Concrete Federation, the Irish Insurance Federation, HomeBond and the Irish Banking Federation in July and outlined to them the pivotal role he believes they can play in providing a solution to the pyrite problem. All parties have now submitted their responses to the Minister's request for proposals for a voluntary industry-led solution for homeowners.

The Minister has made it abundantly clear on a number of occasions that in the absence of workable solutions from the stakeholders, he will consider an imposed solution along the lines recommended in the pyrite report. Recommendation 14 in the report recommends the establishment of a resolution board which could be funded by the construction, quarrying and related insurance sectors. The responses from the stakeholders are now being evaluated and together with the relevant recommendations in the pyrite report, will inform the development of proposals which will provide for a solution to the pyrite problem.

The report of the pyrite panel contains 24 recommendations and work is also progressing on the implementation of a number of other recommendations in the report. Recommendations in respect of the development of a mandatory certification system for buildings and a registration process for builders are currently being dealt with by the Department under the building control reform programme that the Minister announced last year. The Minister hopes to have revised building control regulations signed into law shortly. He has asked the National Standards Authority of Ireland to develop a testing and categorisation protocol for reactive pyrite in sub-floor hardcore material and a method statement to provide guidance for the remediation of pyrite-damaged dwellings and this work has already commenced. So work is being done for the future but, unfortunately, Priory Hall and other issues that have been raised arose out of the way building was carried out in the past and we must make sure that never happens again. Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to comment on what Justice Finnegan is doing and I do not have a timeframe in respect of it.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are running over time so I ask Members to be very brief.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is disappointing that the Minister of State does not have a timeframe and there is no framework. When this Dáil asks tribunals and other bodies to report, we usually give them a timeframe or ask for an interim report. People feel desolate at this stage. It is very hard to get across the sense of desolation people feel about being homeless. It is almost like something that would have happened after a war or in 1969 in parts of Northern Ireland. We really must try to get a result for them as soon as possible. One of the outstanding problems of this situation has been that the Minister has never met the people concerned and has refused to do so. Can we take it that even when we do have a resolution process decision, he will meet them? As Deputy Daly noted, the condition of the buildings is deteriorating day by day.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy's time is up.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister of State concerned by that? Has her Department and Dublin City Council liaised at all in respect of a cost-benefit analysis of either refurbishment or demolition? Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament and the leader of our party at European level, visited the Dáil last week.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is over time.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He mentioned how important it is for architects, and an architect is in the Chamber right now, to be accompanied by psychologists. I note the comments made by Deputy Wallace because we did build many buildings that were grossly unsuitable, not just at Priory Hall but in other places as well. Will the Minister of State be coming forward with major legislation and a social housing programme for 2013?

Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to repeat the questions that have been asked by Deputy Broughan but I expect answers from the Minister in respect of the specific questions, namely, whether he will meet with the residents and show the sort of interest that should emanate from Government on this issue. Will the Minister of State respond to my query about the omission in today's announcement of local government reform of the appointment of a planning regulator, as was the wish of the Mahon tribunal? Has she any comment to make about the planning enforcement officers of local authorities throughout the country who cannot carry out the duties they were appointed to do by virtue of the lack of available funding through whatever guise, be it central Government funds or because their ability to raise funds themselves is not what it was some years ago? That being the case, how does she expect to address that issue? I am conscious that local authorities have been penalised in the third and fourth quarter in respect of central Government funds because of their inability to collect the household charge at the rate desired by the Government despite the fact the Government did not give them the tools to do that. Alternatively, had they been given advance notice, they might have done a better job than has been a case.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy's time is up.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

About nine months' ago, I visited the building and looked over it. I brought a hammer and had a look at how things were done. To be honest, I was completely shocked. I could not believe that so many different sections could allow what happened to take place. I believe it cannot be made right and it is not possible to bring that development to the stage it should be at for the people who paid for it. Those buildings must be knocked down and rebuilt. People should remember that the banks sent people out there to check whether it was safe to part with the mortgage money they were providing and the development was certified. The banks received certification from that person who, more often than not, was somebody within the banking structure. They stood over what was out there. Do not ask me how they did this but, as a builder, I would not like the job of rebuilding it. I would like to build it from scratch, not repair it.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The response from the Minister of State was disappointing. I am not being in any way disrespectful towards the judge involved in the process but that is not really the issue. Certainly, residents are not happy that the Government would hide behind this process and delay meeting them. There is no excuse and there is no contradiction preventing the Minister from meeting the residents because that process is underway. The reference to pyrite is a bit like hiding behind the non-answer that is there. This development, which probably cannot be repaired, is a health and safety deathtrap. One of the residents made the point on Saturday that Tom McFeely, rogue and all that he is, developed good buildings in Great Britain. He did so because he knew the British state would chase him and ensure that regulations were enforced. This State did not do so. We are culpable, the Minister is our representative and must meet these people and the State has to take a lead in dealing with this situation. The development should be knocked down, the banks which are our banks should be made pay a price in respect of that and the mortgages should be transferred to other properties to allow these people to move on with their lives. If we are here in another six months on this, it will be an absolute indictment of the Minister and Government.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will convey to the Minister the views expressed. The Government is not hiding behind anything but the fact is the judge has been appointed to do a job by the court and has specifically indicated that he wants to be given time to do that job. So we must be careful about what we say and allow him to do the job he has been given. I will certainly convey the views expressed and I believe, like other Members of the House, that the priority is to get people back into their homes if they are habitable as soon as possible and to ensure that those residents are the most important people in all of this. We in no way stand over what was done in the past. Terrible things were done in the construction industry in the past and we are trying to clean up that mess, which is why we are bringing forward new regulations and new ways of doing things.

The point made by Deputy Cowen about the planning regulator and today's announcement is not really relevant to this debate but I will comment on it. We have made it quite clear that we will implement the recommendations of the Mahon report, including the recommendation with regard to a planning regulator. I wrote to Deputy Ciarán Lynch when he was chairman of the Oireachtas Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht, asking that we have a discussion with the committee about what it sees as the best way to implement that recommendation. It could be by way of An Bord Pleanála being the body, a separate body or the Office of the Ombudsman. There are a number of ways of implementing that recommendation but we certainly intend to implement the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal in full.

In respect of Deputy Broughan's point about housing, I share his belief in the need to provide housing for people. We need to do this in a number of flexible ways.

The Exchequer simply does not have the kind of money it used to have and with which houses were built in the straightforward way.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We outlined a few ways in which the Government could get money.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for that. We must proceed in a variety of ways, as we are doing. Before this Topical Issue debate, the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, made a suggestion with considerable validity.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was a good suggestion.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will certainly listen to suggestions from any side of the House in that regard. We all want to see the Priory Hall issue resolved as soon as possible. I will convey the views expressed by the Members to the Minister.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has a cost-benefit analysis been carried out on rebuilding and refurbishing?

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can revert to the Deputies in that regard.