Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House today to take the Bill. Pyrite is a problem affecting thousands of homeowners in his area and predominately along the east coast. I wish to start on a positive note. A good deal of focus has been brought to the problem. The figure captured by the pyrite panel is a little under 10,000 dwellings but our research suggests that the figure could be anything up to 70,000 dwellings. Anyway, we all agree it is a major problem that needs a political solution.

One of the recommendations of the pyrite panel in its report of July was an extension of the Statute of Limitations. We had prepared the Bill in advance of the publication of that report. There is a grey area and this is not the solution to the problem - I wish to be clear on that. It is only one small part of the jigsaw with regard to what needs to be done. It is not necessarily the solution but, should he wish, a homeowner should be able to take an action against the builder or quarry from the date of knowledge as it stands. There is a grey area because if someone saw a problem occur in his house in 2006 or 2007 then the Statute of Limitations would apply in many cases. This proposal was prepared my myself and Senators Averil Power, Thomas Byrne and Diarmuid Wilson. Under our proposal the Statute of Limitations would kick in from the date a homeowner received an independent, verified and approved pyrite test which showed that pyrite was prevalent above safe levels in a dwelling, whether a house or an apartment. This would give the Government more time, and time is of the essence. The longer this goes on, the more people become statute-barred from action.

We have an issue with another aspect of the Statute of Limitations, which relates to building enforcement by Fingal County Council. The council is not proceeding in 31 cases against builders on the basis that it is statute-barred. I believe this needs to be addressed, and the Bill can do that. Some small changes need to be made to the Bill but above all the purpose is to give certainly to homeowners and to demonstrate that the law is on their side should they need to go down the route of taking a builder or quarry to court.

I have held discussions with officials in the Department. I understand certain issues need to be ironed out with the Department of Justice and Equality and that it is not only a matter for the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. I realise the Department of Justice and Equality requires additional time to examine the Bill. We do not propose to put the Bill to a vote today, but we intend to leave it on the Order Paper and give the Government a little more time. However, if some of the issues are not addressed we will re-introduce the Bill in January.

I welcome representatives of the Pyrite Action Group, the Lusk Village action group and other groups from the Dublin and the north-east region to the Visitors' Gallery. A substantial report was published in July at a committee meeting which I attended and during which I asked several questions. At this stage homeowners need to see some real action. Will the Minister of State indicate when the Department believes the pyrite resolution board will be established? We have missed several deadlines up to now. I understand there is complexity in this regard. As the Minister of State is aware, this is a progressive problem; it gets worse and worse. Will the Minister of State provide an update? When does he believe the resolution board will be established? Most importantly, has a decision been arrived at among the stakeholders? The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, gave additional time one month ago for the stakeholders to come forward with proposed solutions. Everyone needs to know the position at this stage.

I put it to the Minister of State that I have visited houses in my area in north Dublin which are unsafe to live in. It is not only that floors have been raised and doors cannot be closed; there are also problems with underground services, particularly gas, electricity, water and sewerage.

Only a very small number of such houses have been remediated. As I said earlier, based on research conducted by Fianna Fáil, there could be upwards of 72,000 housing units affected by pyrite but less than 1,000 have been remediated to date. An overall political solution is required. The fundamental flaw in the pyrite panel's report is that it proposes a card system that would only bring about the remediation of the worst affected homes. Anyone who understands pyrite will know that the longer it is left untreated, the worse it gets. We cannot draw a line and declare that we will only fix and remediate a certain number of homes because the ones that remain will get worse over time, as the experts will affirm. We need a political commitment to the effect that all dwellings that are affected by pyrite will be remediated and we need a systematic plan for this. We also need a certified testing system and to provide assistance to homeowners to fund necessary tests. Such funding could come from the industry and those who caused this problem or failing that, at the very least, testing such be deductible against the homeowner's future tax liabilities. Most people only found out that their homes were affected by pyrite when their neighbours got independent confirmation through a pyrite test.

Anyone who has visited a house or apartment that is badly affected by pyrite will know that this is one of the most serious housing issues that this Government will face. I welcome the fact that there is focus here but what the pyrite action groups and the homeowners need is a clear timeline and a solution. If we fall short by simply saying we will remediate only the worst affected dwellings, then we are simply pushing the problem into the future. Admittedly there is a substantial cost to remediation, with estimates of up to ¤30,000 for an average dwelling. The cost is substantial but the work is highly specialised, as I have seen in those houses which have been remediated. We need to be sure that, for example, the new infill for the houses to be fixed will be properly tested. Are we going to run with the British standards for pyrite or are we going to stick with the "acceptable level" of 1% of infill, which many believe is too high? Before we move ahead with fixing the affected houses, we must ensure that we have proper standards laid down for the new infill that will be used and for the operators, that is, the people who will carry out the work. We must be sure that those carrying out the work are certified, approved and have the requisite expertise.

Local authorities have been very slow to deal with private houses in this area. Dublin City Council has dealt with affected houses in its own housing stock, as have some other local authorities. There is some evidence that this problem is not confined to the east coast. I have heard reports of cases in Mayo and Clare. It is also important to point out that the pyrite problem is not solely a housing issue. Schools, other buildings and some major infrastructure may also be affected. This issue must be dealt with without further delay. We have already missed four deadlines and I ask the Minister of State to provide information on the timeline for the establishment of the resolution board and to indicate when the proposed solutions will be published. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government asked the stakeholders to come up with solutions and we need to see them as soon as possible. However, if those solutions do not include a full remediation of all dwellings affected by pyrite, we will simply be pushing the problem into the future.

Specifically regarding the statute of limitations and the Bill before the House today, it will go some way towards removing a legal grey area with regard to the date of knowledge. Many people put the initial signs of pyrite down to settling, plastering cracks and so forth and it was only as matters got worse that they realised that they actually had a structural problem in their homes. Most of the homeowners in question bought their properties from 2003 onwards and many of them are now in negative equity. Indeed, for many, their homes have no value at all and will remain valueless until they are fixed and properly re-certified.

The Government must examine closely the issue of insurers such as HomeBond failing to deal with this problem. It has simply washed its hands of it. When people bought their houses, they paid for their bond and believed it would protect them against structural defects in their homes but HomeBond effectively walked away from them. We must continue to pursue insurers such as HomeBond which have not stepped up to the plate. I know of instances where HomeBond has paid for remediation works in houses that are owned by banks but it has not paid for work on houses owned by individual mortgage holders. The State should not be left alone in carrying the cost for this. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is the main body overseeing the local authorities and the latter are responsible for building controls. Under the regulations governing building control and various EU regulations, the State itself will be liable for the cost of remediation unless a workable solution is found. The insurers should be paying towards this but have simply decided not to. I would like to know if there is any further update in this regard, particularly with reference to HomeBond. I know that Premier has dealt with this in a different manner, to give credit where it is due.

Regarding the number of homes affected, in my own area of north Dublin I know of at least 4,000 to 5,000 dwellings. The pyrite panel reports that the total number affected is 10,000 but that is incorrect. The figure is definitely higher and this question must be looked at again. I do not intend to push this Bill to a vote today because I appreciate that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Department of Justice and Equality have examined this issue in detail but that further work needs to be done. However, I will leave it on the Order Paper for January to give the Government more time to come back with some real timelines and real solutions. I earnestly ask the Minister of State to convey to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government our firm belief that unless the pyrite problem is solved for all affected dwellings, the solution will only be a half measure. Having been in some of the worst affected houses, I agree they must be fixed now. I have been in houses where the floors are inverted, tiles are pushed up, sinks and toilets do not work and where there is a real danger with regard to underground services such as gas. We certainly need to prioritise and make sure that those worst affected are fixed first but we cannot close the door on all the other dwellings that are affected and that will get progressively worse as time goes by. The cost of fixing such dwellings will only increase unless the problem is tackled in a systematic way.

I thank the Minister of State for his attendance and look forward to his comments on the matter. The problem must be tackled and testing is crucially important. We must work out how we can assist people in getting their houses tested. Standards are vitally important. We have seen bad practice in the building industry in many estates over the last five to ten years and the last thing we need is unqualified operators coming in to fix the houses and not doing a proper job. We must work with the NSAI to draw up appropriate testing standards and to ensure that those who are contracted to carry out the remediation works are properly qualified.

One issue of concern for me in the pyrite panel report was the suggestion of talking to the banks that lent the original mortgages to see whether more money could be got from them by way of a loan for homeowners to fix their own houses. In most cases these properties will have no value and their mortgages will be far more than the owners could get for them at market value. Therefore, to ask individual homeowners who bought in good faith houses certified by local authorities, and who took out insurance with HomeBond and other such companies and did everything right, to go to their financial institution and borrow another ¤30,000 to fix a problem not of their making is unacceptable.

I thank the Minister of State for attending this debate and I look forward to the debate.