David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I compliment my colleague, Senator Darragh O'Brien, on the introduction of the Bill, which is timely. As stated, one's home is one's most important possession. I welcome some of the Minister of State's unscripted statements at the end of his contribution, in particular, those relating to the establishment of the pyrite resolution board, the commencement of operations in the first quarter of next year and the desire to bring this issue back before the House to monitor progress. However, I am not clear on the proposed use of the traffic light system, on which I will comment further.

The Minister of State referred to the unpredictability of pyrite, which suggests there is no way of telling when pyritic heave could occur. As such, all dwellings should be remediated. When I originally heard about issues with pyrite in north county Dublin, I did not understand the nature of the problem. However, I gradually realised it was one involving a chemical substance, one form of which I recall was once called fool's gold because people in the 18th century were misled into believing that because of its metallic and golden appearance it was gold. The pyrite we are discussing is a naturally occurring mineral, with elements of iron and sulphur, which, when exposed to moisture, be it rain or dampness in the atmosphere, produces sulphuric acid which creates gypsum which then expands. This is dynamite in the foundations of a house and deeply worrying.

There are a number of parties involved, including the quarries which irresponsibly produced low grade material combined with pyrite and the builders, some of whom I understand have taken action against quarry owners and suppliers. We cannot exculpate completely the local authorities. Some local authority housing in Lusk contains pyrite. I would have thought that local authorities had a duty of care when advertising and inducing people to purchase houses described as affordable. How affordable are they if they are affected by pyrite?

One can have any amount of certificates, but the certificates are not worth the paper on which they are written. One hopes they will give peace of mind, but they will not assist in the sale of a house should that becomes necessary, as nobody wants them. Many local people would share my opinion in this regard. It would be entirely appropriate on budget day to introduce a measure that could be put in place immediately. I ask the Minister of State to make this clear to his colleagues, particularly those in the Cabinet who have responsibility for financial matters in order to ensure no property tax is levied on these properties. That would be outrageous for those who bought these houses in good faith. I refer not only to affordable houses but to all houses which contain pyrite. Regardless of financial circumstances, because we are all in a similar position, how can we possibly expect people to pay for the privilege of their houses being threatened with a chronic and systemic difficulty?

According to his script, the Minister of State appears to want to either shift or evade responsibility because he has stated it would be convenient for some if this matter became the responsibility of local authorities. I have no doubt that local authorities and central government have a role to play. The Minister of State made a comparison with the guidance on hardcore set out in the United Kingdom and Canada, claiming ours compared favourably. However, he was very short on specifics. How do they compare favourably? What comparisons were made? If remediation is to be applied only in areas categorised as particularly dangerous, what will happen if there is a row of houses involved or, in the case of semi-detached houses, if one house is excluded while there is a problem with a neighbouring house? The problem will affect these houses, too, but this has not been taken into account, although the Minister of State acknowledges the unpredictability of pyrite.

There is the Statute of Limitations which I realise is troubling. We dealt with this issue in dealing with the Magdalene laundries and it will arise again in dealing with the symphysiotomy issue, in respect of which there is a proposal concerning the timing of knowledge, although this may be difficult to prove. The Minister of State has stated the report makes recommendations, but he did not say what, if anything, was being done to address this issue in a practical sense. There can be talk - "We must look into this" or "There is merit in that suggestion." However, it would be much better if something was actually done, rather than having its merit acknowledged because this is something that affects people directly and on a daily basis.

The Minister of State quoted the Pyrite Panel as stating there were 12,250 buildings in question, nothing in the order of 60,000 or 70,000. However, the report states there are probably another 10,000, which is a considerable extra number. If one takes the sum of ¤45,000 for remediation purposes, that gives an idea of the measure of the problem. However, it does not only involve houses. What about the surrounding areas, including front paths and footpaths? If this material is also found in these areas, they, too, could contribute to the problem of gas leaks. I suggest this information should be directly transmitted to the gas and electricity authorities as a matter of urgency.

I have a series of questions posed by people who sought confirmation of the process of mediation and asked how it would take place, how cases would be prioritised and about the make-up of the pyrite resolution board. Has information been given on these matters? Will testing be carried out systematically and who will pay for it? How will the scheme be project managed and who will do it?

I very much welcome what the Minister of State said about HomeBond and the various insurance companies involved. It seems extraordinary, but there is a suggestion of a degree of collusion between banks and HomeBond in that the banks if they had an involvement would pressurise HomeBond to look after the repairs. If the banks can do this, surely the State could also lean on the companies to ensure they did the work. What about compensation for those who have already paid, who, having been alerted, got in early? Have they any chance of getting their money back? There is also a question of standards concerning the infill. We need to look at all of these issues and learn from the experience.

It is significant that the vast majority of instances, if not all, took place between 2002 and 2006 during the boom when there was a lack of governance and responsibility. Former Senator Joe O'Toole had connections with north County Dublin and I remember him raising the question of building standards. We were very lax; the lack of regulation was significant. After all, people are supposed to sign off on projects, including architects, engineers and planners. Presumably, they signed off in cases in which there was this problem. I refer to the inspection of houses and associated matters. Will the Minister of State give us an undertaking that houses will be inspected not only for the presence of pyrite but for fire safety and other issues? There is the example of Priory Hall. What happens if a project gets the all-clear for pyrite and six months later there is a planning problem because the buildings are found not to be fire regulations compliant? It will be back to stage one. This is an opportunity for us to insist on full certification that houses meet all planning and safety requirements. Ultimately, it is not just a matter of planning or compensation but people's welfare, peace of mind in their house and their safety and protection against injury or death.