Caít Keane (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am aware he is standing in for the Minister, but this is also his baby. I thank those who brought forward this Bill as it deals with an important issue. It is important to keep this issue and debate live and to ensure that every pressure possible is applied to ensure action is taken. On that basis, I welcome the Bill. I am not sure the Bill deals with all it should deal with in regard to the report and the recommendations, but as Senator Power said, Fianna Fáil will not push it to a vote. Looking at the recommendations put forward and the proposed red light system, I believe there are shortcomings in the Bill as it stands.

While pyrite is an important issue, it is not new to the table. Pyrite has been a huge problem for families who have had to move out of their homes and some families will still be out of their homes for Christmas due to this sad situation. The problem has been an issue since 2006 and 2007. We need to ensure legislation is enforced and to ensure that local authorities have sufficient staff to ensure this happens. This should be a priority and I ask the Minister of State to comment on this.

I understand that when the problem was mooted initially, the Department was in contact with the National Standards Authority of Ireland, which subsequently published a new amended standard recommendation on the use of aggregates as infill for civil engineering. It is fine to publish a strategy, but it needs to be implemented and there must be sufficient staff to sure it is enforced. It is important that those who sign off on contracts are aware of and comply with new regulations. We must ensure these are implemented.

The new standard recommendation came into effect on 7 December 2007 and addresses the quality standards of new homes and buildings in so far as problems relating to pyrite are concerned. If the problem had been addressed then in 2007 and if the regulations had been enforced, the situation would not be as bad as it is and the people in Priory Hall and elsewhere in north Dublin and around the country would not now find themselves in the fix they are in.

More recently, in September 2011, the Minister announced the establishment of an independent panel to explore options to find a solution to the problem of pyrite contamination. He took this action in response to the very difficult situation faced by homeowners who, through no fault of their own, had been left to deal with the consequences of pyrite in their homes. These consequences have been outlined clearly by the two Senators who have spoken. The report of the pyrite panel was published in July this year and its findings are comprehensive. While the State is not responsible for the pyrite problem, it has a duty of care to ensure the regulations are implemented, if possible, in order that those who live in these houses are not left totally out of pocket through no fault of their own. The builders and everyone else involved should be held responsible. We need to find solutions to this complex problem for homeowners.

The report of the pyrite panel contains 24 recommendations and provides the Department and the various stakeholders with a roadmap to move forward and make progress towards rapidly solving this difficult problem for homeowners. I am sure the Minister of State will comment on this. The report examines a number of factors that have contributed to the pyrite problem, the most obvious of which is the building control system which is based on the Building Control Acts. I have mentioned the building regulations. I ask the Minister of State to comment on the new building regulations and the issue of enforcement. The report of the pyrite panel states:

Traditionally, Building Regulations in Ireland dealt with hardcore [the name given to infill materials such as broken bricks and concrete which do not really absorb water or deteriorate] in a general way through fitness for purpose and performance of the elements of a building. Prior to 2008, Technical Guidance Document C stated as follows: "The hardcore bed should be at least 150mm thick and should be broken stones, broken brick or similar suitable material well compacted and clean and free from matter liable to cause damage to the concrete".

This would not have happened if the regulations, as written, had been enforced. It should not have happened. The expert panel concluded that before 2007, "there was not an effective testing and inspection regime in place in quarries to identify the presence of pyrite or to ensure that the hardcore material being supplied was of an acceptable quality". This is a fundamental aspect of the pyrite problem. It is regrettable that an adequate inspection regime was not in place at the time, as it could have prevented the damage caused to homes and much other damage also. That is the history of how the problem developed. The Government and the other stakeholders are required to try to provide relevant ways of solving the problem. We have a responsibility to the homeowners to do our best to ensure they are not discommoded further as a result of this problem.

I would like to refer specifically to a few of the 24 recommendations made in the report that are logical and in the best interests of the homeowners affected. The report recommends that a series of certificates be developed for dwellings affected by pyrite. It suggests the insurance industry should not penalise homeowners in estates where pyrite damage has been proved but should continue to provide standard insurance cover for all dwellings. I hope this issue will be addressed when the Minister brings forward his proposals. I agree with these recommendations. It is particularly important for the stakeholders who played a part in causing these problems to take responsibility for their actions. The two previous speakers have said those who are responsible for the construction of substandard buildings that do not conform to the regulations should take responsibility. Last month the Construction Industry Federation and the Irish Concrete Federation were asked to discuss proposals arising from the engagement of the financial sector at upcoming meetings. I have been told by officials in the Department that the pyrite resolution board is to be established shortly. Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on when he expects it to be up and running. How will the construction sector be forced to pay? Will a levy be introduced to ensure homeowners are not out of pocket? Some of them have left their homes, as Senator Averil Power mentioned. How will those who have engaged in remediation action on their homes be addressed?

I have read various figures for the numbers of homes affected. The report was contradicted when it was suggested information on the ground was indicating that the number in question was more than 10,300. That needs to be sorted out. If we do not know how big the problem is, how can it be dealt with by the building and insurance sectors? The only recognised method of remediation of home damage by pyrite is its removal and replacement. The report estimates that this could cost approximately ¤45,000 per house, which is not to be sneezed at. When people bought their houses, they did not expect to have another ¤45,000 on their backs within a few years. I appreciate that pyrite does not cause an immediate effect in all dwellings. However, problems might be noted down the road. While we cannot legislate for this now, we should ensure the regulations we bring forward will not prevent people from seeking redress in the future. They should not be told they cannot be included in this legislation because they did not report the problems by a certain date. Pyrite takes years to establish itself. We cannot say there is a cut-off date by which all cases have to be reported. It would cost more if everyone had to be dealt with at the same time, rather than being spaced out over time. I have mentioned the panel's recommendations with regard to insurance. It also recommended that the Statute of Limitations Act 1957 be reviewed, which is what the Bill is about. I know the Statute of Limitations covers a period of limitations. The Bill defines who will establish what pyrite actually is. Perhaps the Minister might make a statement on how he is going to deal with the different recommendations in the report. I know the Department is actively working on it.

I commend Senator Darragh O'Brien of Fianna Fáil for bringing this legislation to the House. I do not know if the amendment proposed is the way to go. It has been suggested all of the bodies and stakeholders identified in the report might come together voluntarily. I refer to the Construction Industry Federation, the Irish Concrete Federation, HomeBond, the Irish Insurance Federation and the Irish Banking Federation. HomeBond has stepped out, but it should be made step in again. The bodies I have mentioned which are directly or indirectly responsible for this problem should come together voluntarily. If they do not, they should be dragged together kicking and screaming. I do not know how that might be done, but they should be made do something. As I said, the State did not actually build the houses affected - the industry did. If it is allowed to get away with this type of thing, it will lead to more cowboys coming on stream because they know they will get away with it. They have to be shown that they will not. They should have to demonstrate where the funding needed for remediation action will come from. HomeBond was established to ensure insurance would be available for this type of remediation action when builders and buildings failed.

I will conclude by asking the Minister of State to speak about the pyrite resolution board. A report on this matter is supposed to be brought before the Government. Perhaps the Minister of State might comment on it also.