Colm Burke (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley. His colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy O'Dowd, provided an outline of how it is proposed to deal with this matter. It is important that the resolution committee be put in place at an early date in order that it might begin to deal with the issue. I come from the legal profession and have acted for both builders and householders. In that context, I am aware that there is nothing worse than arbitration relating to a building dispute. Such arbitrations tend to drag on and the solutions always seem to be far more complicated than necessary.

This situation has been continuing for a number of years. It is important for householders that it is brought to a conclusion. There is a level of uncertainty. Many people bought houses at the top end of the market, not only have they suffered under the downturn of house prices but have this added problem in addition to the problem of trying to secure insurance in the long term. There is a question mark over the properties, should they ever wish to sell on. It is important that we try to find a solution to this problem. We will not be able to bring a solution to all of the issues that have been raised but let us try to resolve the issues where work is required on the property. The Minister has outlined the traffic lights system which require immediate remedial action. I agree with Senator O'Brien that many who are caught in this problem are not able to get the funding to do the necessary work. This is the reason it must be given priority.

We need to look at the issue of insurance. It always amazes me that insurance companies love people when they want to try to sell a policy, but when a person tries to claim, they wish that he or she would please go away. We need to readjust how the insurance companies approach that. We have had this problem when dealing with flooding in Cork. I have come across a number of problems. One person paid insurance for eight years and because they had a claim for subsidence the insurance company does not wish to cover the property for flooding, even though subsidence and flooding are not connected in any way. Insurance companies are looking for angles so as not to own up to their responsibilities. We need to deal with that issue. This has been already outlined by earlier speakers. There are many players involved in coming to a resolution of this problem. We all have a part to play through the Government, building industry, quarry owners and insurance companies. If all the parties were involved in trying to come to a solution, the problem would be dealt with earlier. We must give priority to the house owners who have suffered. It was not their fault that problems arose. They relied on the skill and judgment of builders, of the people who were supplying the materials. They relied also on the skill and judgment of the people they employed to inspect their properties and also to ensure that regulations were complied with. Questions must be asked about the first indications that the item being supplied was defective. Why was action not taken at that stage to ensure that the supply of that material would cease and that it would no longer continue to be supplied to housing estates? Who was responsible for not implementing that?

Supplying building material for building is analogous to the car manufacturer who supplies cars and is under a duty and obligation to the people who purchase the cars. It often happens that car manufacturers must recall cars so that remedial work can be carried out to make them safe. We seem to have moved from that level of care in the building industry. That is wrong. A builder contracts to provide a house for somebody and contracts that it is of merchantable quality and that people can live safely in the house. One contracts also that if there is a defect, that it is remediated within a period. The problem is that the defects are identified after the six year limit period, which we need to consider. We must be able to find a solution for the house owners at the earliest possible date so that they can go back to living in a normal way. It is important to keep the pressure on all the players.

The other issue that arises is that the insurance cover limit is specified in cases. If, for example, a quarry has ¤6.5 million insurance cover for any single event and if the quarry is supplying materials for a housing estate of 100 houses, is the fund for that entire estate confined to ¤6.5 million or ¤6.5 million for each individual house?. We need to have that matter clarified. That is one of the things that insurance companies are hiding behind, the limitation as regard the cover they provide and whether it is for the entire housing estate or for each individual house. That must be clarified as we cannot ignore it any longer. Senator O'Brien has suggested we deal with it again early in the new year. We need to keep up the momentum to bring about a solution.