I move amendment No. 1: In page 5, line 22, to delete “Blocks”. I will make the speech I was not allowed to make earlier and I will not be muzzled. I will talk about defective concrete. Today's Bill should have been an opportunity to correct the fundamentally broken system. Instead, we are laying more complexity on top of injustice and calling it progress. I have submitted 18 pages of amendments to improve this scheme, yet more than half of those amendments were ruled out of order, including my amendment regarding the March cut-off date that I had chosen. With that, the Government is leaving 43 homeowners behind because it has chosen to abandon them. My amendment would provide interim arrangements regarding the provision of IS 465, with scientific evidence reinstating the original engineers' determinations. Families, the purpose of modular homes, which is ultimately to save the State money, and ancillary payments were included. Partial defective builds before the cut-off date are still defective builds. Homeowners have been left behind. They have built their homes but their homes have crumbled and now they are left in debt through no fault of their own, but through the Government’s failure in regulation. The provision of upfront payments to allow people without necessary money to access the scheme, again at no cost to the State, was refused. My amendment to establish a public inquiry into the regulatory failures of this multibillion euro scheme was denied again, as well as many other extremities and amendments. The Government's amendments reveal the real problem we have, that is, we have not learned a single thing from the defective concrete crisis. Damage does not always look like damage. Legislation could have prevented this, but with flawed understanding, the deterioration will continue and the scheme will be flawed. There is one positive thing. A semi-detached house is now treated as one unit, so if one house does not meet the damage threshold, then the other can be deemed so. However, this is nothing more than a get-out-of-jail card as far as I am concerned. It relies on visual assessment. This is a blunt instrument that applies to all homes. The threshold does not measure structural integrity. The threshold measures visible cracking. Walls, however, are disintegrating behind plaster. You can knock the plaster and get nothing but dust. Walls are there to protect families, but in defective concrete homes, they do not protect families. They will end up killing families if we do not do something about it. Homes may not meet the threshold today but they will meet a catastrophic threshold in the years to come. The Minister provides no mechanism to allow us to move on, as far as I am concerned. Adjacent remediation is welcome in principle but the Bill restricts it to dwelling adaptation. Basically, if a person with a disability has to move on, that is okay as long as the disability is visible. This excludes children and adults with hidden disabilities, including autism, ADHD, chronic illness and mental health conditions. Under the Disability Act, these individuals are entitled to protection and accommodation but they are not getting it. They are not getting the same treatment as everybody else. I feel they are being discriminated against and I think everybody else will feel this, too, by the time I am finished. Allowing homeowners to remain on site with space on their sites would save the Exchequer money. It would allow people with a disabled child, for example, to move from one house into a new build that is kitted out for them. They can move into their build and it is at no cost to the State. We do not need to put pressure on the rental market because we have 25,000-plus homes affected in Donegal. If we were to move the people in 2,000 homes tomorrow, we would not be able to do it because we do not have the capacity. The Government will not look at modular homes but it must. If the Minister wants to do this properly, he needs to listen to the people on the ground and to the people who have done this and who have been fighting for them instead of following what the rest of the Government is saying to him. I am telling the Minister now that if he does not look at this in the correct manner, then what will follow will be a humanitarian disaster all over Ireland. It is already a humanitarian disaster in Donegal. Families with hidden disabilities and children with special needs endure overcrowding or sensory overload when they move to different accommodation. Can the Minister imagine if a child with autism, who has a certain way of living his or her life and perhaps has ADHD, is taken out of his or her home? A unit could have been built in another part of the garden. Leave them in their home and then let them move. As it is, that is not happening. We are having to move children to smaller places, with sensory overload, and even if they ever do recover, it will take them years. That is what we are here for. We are here to make sure that our citizens are treated equally but it is not happening. The proposed section 32 on transitional provisions are welcome because they ensure previous applications are not invalidated, but they do not address the symptomatic delays. The proposed Part 3, which amends the Building Control Act 1990, links defective concrete remediation to the national building standards. This is necessary for safety but we need to come in ahead. Voting down my amendment is voting against the people whom I represent. The people of Donegal have sent me up here. I was an ordinary working man who paid for his house. Tens of thousands of my people in Donegal, and people in Limerick, Clare and Mayo, are stuck. In the Minister's own constituency, they are stuck. It is going to be an epidemic if we do not do something about it. We have the opportunity to do it but if we do not do it, then we are going to abandon people and lives. It is bad enough that people in Donegal are treated like second class citizens, but for that to continue with their homes is unacceptable. I had a script for this speech but I am not going to stick to it. I am going to tell the Minister now that this has been going on 14 years. For 14 years, we have had failed housing Minister after failed housing Minister. It is about time that the Government took this seriously. What is happening in Donegal is also happening in Mayo, Limerick, Clare and Wexford. It is everywhere. It is happening in Kerry, Cork, you name it. There is a map out there and the only place it is not happening in is Antrim, but I am expecting a phone call any day. They know when they phone me that I will be there. I am always there and I always will be there. That is what I am saying.

Sentiment score: -0.12

As Deputy O'Donoghue was saying about building, I have built for years and years, including in Inishowen, the most affected area, in the Finn Valley and in all these areas. However, I have also poured concrete into the streets. As Deputy O'Donoghue was saying, aggregate stone is a little bit different but the same infected stone is used. We have it in the streets, in the houses, everywhere. There are nurseries in that county that are falling and the children cannot even go outside to play because the pathways are turning to dust. I keep saying it is only a matter of time. To use the word "block" is inaccurate. It is in the aggregate stone. When they quarried into the quarry and they hit the vein of pyrite, pyrrhotite or whatever it was, that was the infection. That was the core. It came out, it went into the marketplace and it spread throughout.

Sentiment score: -0.06

I will give a flavour of the facts on the ground. On option 1, Donegal County Council states - I just got this in - that 121 houses have been built since the scheme came in. In total, 229, 92 combinations and eight option twos. When you outlook option 1, that is 121. Anything else is a remediation option that will be coming back to visit at expense to the Exchequer. That is failure. For us to service, let us say, 10,000 houses in Donegal when we know there is a case for 25,000, if we are doing it properly, we need to be doing 700 houses for the next 15 years. Our numbers in Donegal last year were 382 homes built throughout the whole county. That means for us to do the defective concrete homes will take over 200 years. We do not have the people to rebuild the homes. We are doing it at the dearest rate possible. It is €4.35 a block. If you are a blocklayer, you will be looking at €4.35 a block and think that is great, but they are not going to come up to Donegal because they can get that money in Dublin. They cannot get it in other parts of the country but they are looking, because other parts of the country are affected too. We have out-of-control building costs. At the current rate of progress, it will take 200 years to redo the houses in Donegal. We have not only to do that; we have other issues too. The fact of the matter is the population is growing in Donegal and we cannot build enough houses. We cannot live in a commencement; we can live in completions and completions are what we need. There are 300 houses going forward, but it is still not going to hit the targets. We are still not going to hit 1,000 houses a year to get us out of here in 15 years. Could you imagine being in this in 15 years' time? I know we are going to be here in 15 years' time. We are going to be talking about this in 15 years' time and it is not going to be €4 a block; it is going to be €8 a block. We have the opportunity, if we go end-to-end, to have the power of bulk-buying. I have been saying this for years. Bulk-buying is the only way. A builder goes in and gets ten trusses for roofs but a company can go in and get 10,000. The price differential is massive. That is the only way we can do it, save the State money and start building houses on the scale we need in Donegal.

Sentiment score: -0.00

I agree with Deputy Doherty's proposal in the amendment. We have to think differently and we have to think outside the box about what is coming ahead. Deputy Mac Lochlainn spoke about the lack of homes being built in Donegal and he referred to that period when we had the crash. We are catching up and we have a humanitarian crisis on our doorstep. We have to think outside the box. What Deputy Doherty is suggesting would work but with it we could also take a blueprint that would change housing moving forward and I think this is the start of it. It is the simple steps and it is a good move. There are 25,000 homes in Donegal that will need to be replaced. People will need to be housed but there is nowhere for them to go. As Deputy Hearne stated, there are only a few houses for rent. If we go ahead tomorrow and 50 or 60 homeowners want to opt for the scheme and move forward, there will be nowhere for them to go. We have to think outside the box. We have to do something unique, because we have a humanitarian crisis and a housing crisis in Donegal.

Sentiment score: -0.09

When we are talking about scrutiny we have to talk about the fact there is a lack of scrutiny. The Minister of State talks about scrutiny but with the way this has all unfolded over the last few days that is very rich. There was a lack of scrutiny.

Sentiment score: 0.04

I move amendment No. 15: In page 6, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 3 of Principal Act 4. Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (3): “(4) The Minister shall maintain a single publicly accessible online repository containing: (a) all regulations made under this Act; (b) all ministerial orders made under this Act; (c) all circulars, letters, and guidance issued to designated local authorities or the Housing Agency for the purposes of this Act. (5) Where any such regulatory or administrative document is amended or replaced, the Minister shall update the repository within 7 days.”.”. The amendment requires the Minister to keep all regulations, orders, circulars and guidance under the Act publicly accessible online. Right now these documents are scattered all over the place. It is hard for homeowners, engineers and councils to track all these documents. We need a single updated source that would prevent confusion and mistakes in the scheme. The scheme is already too complex and this would simplify it.

Sentiment score: -0.11

I move amendment No. 16: In page 6, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 5 of Principal Act 4.Section 5 of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (5): “(5) A designated local authority shall be responsible for the performance, in its designated local authority area, of the functions assigned to it by or under this Act, and shall, within 3 months of the end of each quarter, publish on its website a summary of: (a) the number of applications received; (b) the number of decisions issued under sections 17, 18, 22, 23A and 23B; (c) average and median decision times; (d) number of appeals lodged and their outcomes; and (e) such other statistics as may be prescribed.”.”. Amendment No. 16 is essential because homeowners have no visibility of how long applications take or where delays are happening. Councils are already struggling, with ancillary grants taking months. Effectively, it is becoming very hard for local authorities to make progress due to the number of staff moving. There is a bottleneck that means families are stuck waiting. If the Minister resists this, it shows he is adding to the council’s workload. The council has been put to the pin of its collar and is not resourced enough. Amendment No. 50 seeks to introduce accountability and transparency into a system that has long been opaque. By requiring the Minister to produce an annual report on the operation of sections 23A and 23B, the Parliament and the public will finally have a clear, factual picture of how the defective concrete remediation scheme is working and functioning. Homeowners, the Oireachtas and stakeholders will know how many applications are received, validated or referred to the Housing Agency, how long decisions take, which remediation options have increased and the outcome of appeals, which is very important. No one should have to rely on redacted FOIs and ink-covered paper. This amendment would be a great help. Amendment No. 55 would ensure that every decision must be published in anonymised form within 90 days, showing the facts, reasoning and outcomes. Homeowners are trapped in appeals that can last for years, while the Housing Agency hides behind claims of independence. We have the Housing Agency and the Appeals Board passing the buck from one to the other, while both are operating like a secret service with no timelines or transparency. Homeowners deserve to see how these decisions are made. Enough of the secrecy and delay. Families should be able to pursue their lives without stress and uncertainty. Transparency is needed so they can trust the system. Amendment No. 56 is necessary because the Minister must make public how deleterious materials are detected, where problems are occurring and what risks are emerging. Risks are emerging everywhere. We need to make people aware of this. Publishing regional patterns and international comparisons helps to prevent repeated mistakes in the future, allows for early intervention, which is important, and builds trust that the Government and the scheme are operating together. Where we have pockets of pyrite, pyrrhotite and other deleterious materials, we can see it coming and react to it.

Sentiment score: 0.01

I move amendment No. 18: In page 6, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 8 of Principal Act 5. Section 8 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2): “(3) Nothing in this Act or any regulations established under it will affect the eligibility of a dwelling that has already been determined to be impacted under I.S. 465:2018, except in cases where fraud or clear error is proven or a non-scientific diagnosis has been given.”.”.

Sentiment score: -0.13

No.

Sentiment score: -0.30

I will give the Minister a quick example. I am from a small island off the coast of Ireland, Arranmore Island, and I live in a section of it. Within five minutes of my house was one of my neighbours. He moved to Letterkenny and I moved to the Finn Valley and the two of us had houses. I built my own house; he bought his. His house is semi-detached. He has children trying to go to college. His neighbour has knocked down his house. He is not in a position to get it and he would not meet the damage threshold. I have been up at his house. I put my fist through the wall and it is like an eggshell. When I did that, his wife realised how serious the issue is with them. The damage threshold does not work. Given the orientation of the house, it is protected with walls and trees. There is no weather hitting it but inside that wall that is not cracked is dust, absolute dust. This is what is going to happen. It will become common. Another aspect of it arises when we are building these houses and we are going in and separating them. For example, it costs €310,000 to rebuild a semi-detached house now. With that €310,000, you have separated it out. Another foundation has to be put in. They have had to remove the foundation because they cannot build on sand and they are separated out from the house. The houses of the people who cannot afford to get on the scheme are crumbling down around them and they are left traumatised while these people are trying to move on with their life. What happens with that is there is one house that has been ebuilt for €310,000. The market value is €230,000. Therefore we are doing it in the most expensive way for the Exchequer and we are leaving a family behind. If we did everything together, up and down, with house contractors in, we could do it at an economically valued rate and it would not be costing the Exchequer. The way we are doing every one of these houses is the worst way. As a builder, I would never touch them. I would never go near them because it does not work. A semi-detached house cannot be split, but we did it. Three years ago, the Minister of State, then Minister, Deputy McConalogue, was going around saying that the house that was split in half in Buncrana was an unfortunate error but here we are with 100 unfortunate errors coming down the road. We have to get a common-sense grip of this. The way we are doing this is ridiculous.

Sentiment score: -0.03

Semi-detached homes are most commonly built sharing the same chimney breast. Unfortunately, I have had to go in with a teleporter to a house that was demolished, seal up the house and basically brick up the house where there was no chimney any more because it had to be taken down. We also had to put in a flue liner for a family friend all before 3 p.m. when the kids got home. The night before, they had to stay in their granny's because the house got tumbled and their room was left exposed. Then, the rodents - the mice - all came in. This is a constant. They are abandoned because they do not have the financial resources. It is being done in the worst way because the majority of semi-detached houses have a shared chimney breast. When you take one away, you expose the house to all the elements and people cannot afford it. I hope the Minister of State will come up to Donegal. All he will see is houses split in half and tarpaulins bolted in with timbers and in behind that are children. They are going to school every day with rodents in the house because they can get in.

Sentiment score: -0.02

I move amendment No. 22: In page 7, line 37, after “withdrawn” to insert the following: "if the applicant fails to comply within 30 days of a written request, and only after a further reminder has been issued and a period of 14 additional days has elapsed". Amendment 22 is vital to protect homeowners who have been unfairly penalised by rigid timelines. It ensures no one can be removed from the scheme without first receiving a clear written request and a full 30-day response period, followed by an additional 14-day grace period after a reminder. Homeowners already face enormous stress and disruption. Under the current arrangements, all pressure falls on them, while the local and national authorities face no accountability regarding delays and administrative failures. Amendment No. 22 puts fairness and common sense first and guarantees that families are treated with dignity and not rushed out of the scheme designed to protect them. Amendment 46 provides protections for ensuring people cannot be removed from the scheme hastily. It guarantees fair process and gives applicants ample time to respond to requests before withdrawals occur, reinforcing timelines that work for homeowners and that are not against them.

Sentiment score: -0.08

I will give the Minister the figure. Forty-three families were left behind. Deputy Mac Lochlainn and I have dealt with these families. We have had meetings with them where they have come to us and said they did nothing wrong. They moved and were told to do this and this is what they did. They ask why they cannot get their money. There is a difference of a month between them and their neighbours who will get their 10%. It is a multibillion euro scheme and for under €1 million, 43 families, if they were at the top, at the €40,000, would get that amount of money. It would be under €1 million, but they did what was asked, moved forward and have been abandoned. I ask the Minister to look at this because he has the power to change this. Those families were given that word by the previous housing Minister. I believe the Minister, Deputy Browne, can right a wrong here.

Sentiment score: -0.04

Does that mean the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, was wrong when he said what he said? Was he giving misinformation? As far as the 43 families are concerned, they were told by the housing Minister to go and get it done and they would not be left behind. That is what he said. Those were his words. People trusted this and 43 people are now excluded at a cost that would be minimal. It would be fair to pay them.

Sentiment score: -0.01

I move amendment No. 27: In page 9, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “(14) Where a designated local authority refuses to recognise an individual as a relevant owner under subsection (4A), the individual shall be entitled to appeal such refusal under Part 5.”. No applicant can be blocked from the scheme without recourse. The amendment gives anyone who is refused to be recognised as a relevant owner a clear right to appeal, protecting families from arbitrary decisions and ensuring they get the support they are entitled to.

Sentiment score: 0.07

I move amendment No. 33: In page 10, to delete lines 19 and 20 and substitute the following: “section 17A(6)(a), the relevant owner may make applications for payment of an increased grant under subsection (1), as justified by circumstances.”. Amendment No. 33 ensures that relevant owners, including the 43 homeowners left behind by the March 2024 cut-off, can apply for an increased grant when circumstances justify it. It guarantees that no eligible homeowner is left behind and that the scheme responds fairly to the needs of affected families. Amendment No. 35 ensures the right of homeowners to transparency and accountability. Any refusal must clearly set out the reasons, reference the exact statutory provisions and detail the evidence and criteria relied upon. Homeowners will no longer be left in the dark or forced to guess why their application was denied. This prevents bad decision-making and ensures the process is fair, predictable, and legally robust.

Sentiment score: -0.02