Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Humphreys, who sought this debate, and everyone who participated in it. When the Grenfell Tower tragedy happened, it was terrifying for the entire world to observe, but particularly for those of us in Ireland, given that we are such close neighbours and have so many close relationships with the UK. We moved quickly to set up a task force to inspect not just local authority homes in multi-storey buildings, but also buildings over a certain height in respect of their cladding, life and fire safety systems. I hope that the update that I was able to provide to Members regarding tall buildings and what has been done to date was helpful. That work must always be ongoing to ensure that we are adopting best practice in how we protect people living in taller buildings. Since we will be constructing more taller buildings and apartments, it is important that we continue to move with best practice.

It is also important that we recognise the people who are on the front line when incidents happen, namely, fire officers, and not just the ones working on fire safety in advance, but also those attending at the scene. I have met many in the course of my role as the Minister responsible for our fire services. They do an incredible job. I have also had the chance when abroad to meet other countries' fire services. I note the collaboration between Ireland and other countries as well as the new technologies that Irish companies have advanced and that are used in emergency vehicles to protect first responders in other countries. It is important that we keep fire officers central to the debate, given that they will have new obligations as we build more taller buildings and there will be more work for them to do in terms of fire safety assessments and so on.Regarding the idea of a fund, which Senator Murnane O'Connor mentioned, we need to be really clear when we talk about such proposals what we are proposing. How much will the fund amount to? How is it to be funded? How far will the taxpayer's liability extend, to what types of private buildings and for how long? How will this potentially take away from the responsibility of the builder, knowing that the State might step in in the future where the builder does wrong? I am all for and open to ideas and proposals, and we want to help people who need help. We cannot just come with sentences, though; we need to come with fleshed out details or we could get things wrong.

Senator Murnane O'Connor was right when she talked about the additional work that needs to be done with owners' management companies, and that is on a range of issues. They play a very important role in many people's lives but are perhaps not included as much in the debates on the things we need to do when it comes to taller buildings and apartment buildings and their maintenance, management and, where necessary, their regeneration over the ten, 20 or 30 years people might be living in those homes. We need to involve them more in the work we are doing. We do, but more work needs to be done in that area.

This brings me to a point Senator Warfield made about the advertising of unsuitable properties, properties that should not be seen as legally fit to inhabit, and the need to regulate websites or other companies that advertise such properties to recognise that they have a responsibility here as well. As we build more homes, and this year we will build tens of thousands of new homes, we need to ensure we look at issues of fire safety and keeping things up to date and issues with owners' management companies because they are playing a greater role in people's lives. We also need to ensure we regulate new activities regarding the letting or selling of homes, activities that did not exist perhaps ten years ago and that need to be regulated.

On that point, one new activity we are regulating is the short-term letting market. I found a bit bizarre the comment Senator Murnane O'Connor made to the effect that we are now trying to step in as a State to the short-term letting market. We are not. Yesterday the regulations I brought to the Oireachtas joint committee were described as radical - not my word - by Deputy Boyd Barrett. That says something about the level of ambition we have to ensure we do not close down this new activity. Homesharing plays a very important role in our economy and in people's lives. We are open to homesharing while also recognising that short-term letting in our cities, where there is high demand and high rent pressures, is not appropriate when we are in the kind of crisis we face at present.

To respond to Senator Coffey's contribution, I recognise his expertise in this area as someone who was in the Department before me. He did very good work to progress reforms in this very important area. Those reforms were necessary because of some of the deficient and defective works that were undertaken prior to this Government and the Government of which he was a part coming into office - more legacy issues that we were tasked with cleaning up, which we have done and will continue to do as necessary. The Senator mentioned mica and pyrite and the way in which we have responded and are responding to both. It is important to point these issues out because they are separate and entirely different to the issue of defective or substandard building. We agreed during last year's budget negotiations that €20 million for homes affected by mica in Donegal and Mayo would come out of this year's budget for the scheme that was agreed in principle at Cabinet.

Senator Coffey spoke about people living in apartments that were built defectively and people who are in a very difficult position in this regard. I recognise what he said. A defect is one thing, but a problem that puts people's lives and safety at risk is another. We must find a way to approach these two things separately because of the risk that is potentially there for people who are in a very difficult position, as I said earlier, through no fault of their own. For some of them it is an impossible position, so how do we help them? We need to see how we can progress that piece of work because it is so important.

To respond to Senator Ó Ríordáin, the challenge he recognised at the beginning of his contribution, to advocate without causing damage, is so important. We must recognise that there are people who would come forward but will not because they fear that in doing so they will do more harm to the situation in which they find themselves. They have made probably the most significant investment they will ever make in their life in buying a home, they find that that home is defective and needs remediation work, which they may not be able to afford, they find that the defect has undermined the value of that building, that home, and they know that to come forward to advocate too loudly might undermine the property further. They are in an impossible position, and it is important to recognise that. We must find balance where it is necessary but at the same time we do not want to let anyone away with the responsibilities they have where they have done wrong. We need to find some way of capturing that. I know there are discussions ongoing in this regard because I am involved with them with the Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, and others as to how we can further protect people in their homes.