I will respond to the Minister. It is clear that the Minister does not actually understand the significance of the amendment that has been tabled by Deputy Ward. The problem is that deleterious materials in concrete are not confined solely to concrete blocks. They are in poured concrete and other materials. One of the fundamental weaknesses of the original regulations and the former Minister, Darragh O'Brien's 2022 scheme is that they confine the issue of deleterious materials to block only. I know the Minister is not going to accept the amendment. Hopefully, when the review of IS 465 is resolved, he will eventually realise that one of the many limitations - we will talk about those at great length throughout the course of the next four hours - of the scheme he is seeking to amend is that it is blind to instances where the deleterious material is in building materials other than block. This amendment, therefore, does not render the Short Title incomplete. It actually rectifies, albeit in the Title as opposed to the substance of the Bill, a significant limitation in the original scheme. This is going to have to change at some point. Obviously, it will not be now but it will change at some point.

Sentiment score: -0.01

It would be helpful if the Minister were to provide a little more context for amendment No. 63 and the circumstances in which those regulations may be used. What is the origin or intention of this amendment? This is just to help us fully understand its purpose and scope, and whether it relates to the more substantive issue of amendment No. 74 and the regularisation process related to the Building Control Acts. With respect to amendment No. 74, in my contribution to the motion of instruction that we discussed earlier, one of the things I asked the Minister was, given the fact there has not been any Oireachtas scrutiny of the building control amendments, and given that those amendments will require the Minister to produce quite detailed regulations on the regularisation process, whether the Minister will give a commitment to consult the Oireachtas housing committee on those regulations when they are in draft form. Will he give us the opportunity to have a hearing where we not only get to ask questions of the Minister and his officials but also hear from the likes of the National Building Control Office and the building control authorities?

Sentiment score: 0.20

I move amendment No. 5: In page 5, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “Report on gap between cost of remediation and grant under scheme 2. Within 3 months of the passing of this Act the Minister shall lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report examining the gap between the actual cost of remediation for eligible homeowners and the grant provided under the scheme. The report shall set out recommendations for reform of the defective concrete block scheme to ensure that it provides 100 per cent redress to all impacted homeowners.”. The purpose of these three amendments is to give me and my colleagues an opportunity to highlight some of the challenges and weaknesses in the operation of the current scheme. While they are not addressed in the Minister's Bill, it is an opportunity for us to raise them. If they are not addressed at some point, hundreds, if not thousands, of homeowners and tenants will continue to be unable to access the scheme. It is important to reflect on where we are with the scheme. When the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, introduced the revised defective concrete blocks scheme very controversially in this House, railroading through the legislation and ignoring 80 homeowner-drafted amendments, we were told that the revised scheme would address the problems identified by affected homeowners and tenants in the affected counties. What is interesting is that when we look at the figures, the actual number of applicants to the revised scheme is less than the number of applicants to the original scheme. If the revised scheme were better, if the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, had succeeded in fixing the problems of the original scheme based on secondary legislation, there would have been more applications. The most up-to-date figures I have by way of parliamentary question show that there were 1,644 applicants to the original scheme up to the summer of this year, but only 1,152 to the enhanced scheme. We also know that because of many of the deficiencies in the transitional mechanisms between the original and the revised scheme, a very significant number of homeowners are stuck in limbo and unable to transition. The really startling figure relates to the total number of homes that have had work commenced on the property and the total number of homes where full remediation has taken place. Again, I am sure there is a slightly revised number that the Minister has available to him. Only 908 homes had commenced some level of work as of the summer of this year, and only 203 had been completely remediated. If we look at the estimates of the original expert group on defective concrete blocks, estimates that did not fully take into account, for example, social homes, additional private rental homes or non-residential buildings, what that tells us is that the scheme as it is currently in place is failing. Deputy Ward made clear from his contacts with his own constituents - my colleague, Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, will do the same - that the people who desperately need access to these schemes are simply not getting it. Why is that? Amendment No. 5 points to the single most important reason, which is that it is not a 100% redress scheme. The scheme does not cover the full cost of remediation or the full cost of all of the ancillary charges that homeowners or tenants have to face when remediation is taking place. Until the scheme addresses that fundamental deficit, it will not work. For example, I have spoken to homeowners who are currently getting their homes remediated in County Clare. These are modest-sized homes, one- and two-person bungalows. They have shortfalls in the region of €60,000. I am talking to families in Donegal who have slightly larger homes, but they are completely standard homes in that part of the country, and they are facing deficits of €100,000. What amendment No. 5 speaks to is the need for the Government to fully investigate the gap that is currently taking place between those folks who are remediating, what the grant provision is and what the actual costs to them are, and then bring forward proposals to address that. We have suggested proposals but we cannot table those amendments because they would place a charge on the State. This is, therefore, the only mechanism to do so. Amendment No. 6 deals with the other fundamental weakness of the scheme, which is that it is a grant-aid scheme. We all know the Leinster pyrite scheme was not a grant-aid scheme; it was an end-to-end scheme. It has worked exceptionally well, and one of the reasons it never gets debated in this House is that there are not complaints or problems with the primary purpose of the scheme. The reason is that the people in Leinster who were impacted by pyrite contacted the Housing Agency, which sent out competent professionals who inspected the property and agreed with the homeowners the work that needed to be done, and then, through a properly managed framework agreement, the Housing Agency employed the contractors to undertake the work. It is more efficient and cost-effective, and less stressful to the homeowners. Imagine being a pensioner in Inishowen who is on disability allowance and the Minister's proposition is that the pensioner has to project manage, procure and oversee the demolition and rebuilding of their home. It is a completely ludicrous proposition and we know, from talking to affected homeowners, that it has also led to a significant increase in prices being charged by building contractors and building materials suppliers. An end -to-end scheme is much more sensible. Again, we cannot propose an end-to-end scheme because it would be ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Orders. The purpose of this amendment is, therefore, to require the Minister to examine the merits of such a scheme and bring forward propositions to address it. The final amendment in this group, amendment No. 7, looks at the other barriers. There are some listed in the amendment but there are more beyond that. As regards the damage threshold, if we are serious about having a scheme that is based on the science, as other Deputies have said, it should not be based on a visual inspection but on the actual scientific evidence of the extent of sulphate attack in the deleterious material, based on engineers' reports and laboratory testing. Likewise, while some of what is now in this amendment is being addressed by way of amendments brought forward by the Minister, the continued absence of staged payments, for example, means that unless people have access to bridging finance or capital of their own, even with the offer of a grant, they may not have the capital to undertake the works and, therefore, will be unable to proceed with the remediation. Again, while we have solutions to that, we cannot table them because they would place a charge on the State. Therefore, we want the Minister to examine these issues in a timely manner, based on the real, lived experience of homeowners in Donegal, Mayo, Clare, Limerick and Sligo, and come back with recommendations to change them. To conclude on this grouping, if the Minister does not deal, during his term of office, with these fundamental flaws to both the original scheme and the revised scheme of the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, the scheme will continue to fail. Even with the partial increase in the grant cap for those who will be able to avail of it - there are exclusions and we will come to those on section 8 - without these more fundamental changes, raising the grant will not benefit the vast majority of people who are currently locked out, excluded or unable to utilise this scheme and they will continue to be left behind. This is an issue of equity and fairness. If people affected by pyrite in Leinster received 100% redress with an end-to-end scheme and appropriate ancillary grants, I can see no reason the Government can justify treating the people of Donegal, Mayo, Clare, Limerick, Sligo and other potentially impacted counties, including Fingal, as we discussed earlier, from exactly the same treatment. Right now, they are not getting equity, fairness or redress. For these reasons, we recommend all three of these amendments to ensure the Minister takes on the task of investigating coming up with credible solutions to problems that were identified back in 2022 when we tabled amendments to rectify those. The Minister's predecessor did not listen. We are hoping the Minister will listen on this occasion.

Sentiment score: 0.04

I will press amendment No. 5.

Sentiment score: -0.15

I move amendment No. 6: In page 5, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “Report on legislative changes necessary for end-to-end remediation scheme 2. Within three months of the passing of this Act the Minister shall lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report detailing the necessary changes to primary and secondary legislation to allow for the operation of an end-to-end remediation scheme for all those impacted by defective concrete blocks and related building materials.”.

Sentiment score: -0.25

I move amendment No. 7: In page 5, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “Report on barriers to inclusion in scheme 2. Within three months of the passing of this Act the Minister shall lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report examining barriers to full inclusion of affected homeowners and others in the scheme including: (a) the operation of the damage threshold; (b) the issue of semi-detached properties; (c) the issue of side-by-side remediation; (d) the issue of retrospective payments. The report shall set out recommendations for reform of the defective concrete block scheme to remove these barriers.”.

Sentiment score: -0.40

I am not at all clear on what this amendment does and its relevance for a semi-detached dwelling, for example, where one dwelling is deemed to be awarded a grant the other has previously not been. It might be helpful if the Minister were to try and explain in plain English, particularly in a case where you have attached or semi-detached dwellings, what this amendment is trying to do. Obviously, as Deputy Mac Lochlainn outlined, this is a very significant issue. It is one where we have had examples in Mayo, Donegal and elsewhere. For the sake of clarity, if the Minister could talk us through, what are the implications of the proposition for this request for one of the relevant dwellings that does not meet the damage threshold and how does this operate in real time?

Sentiment score: 0.37

My question is kind of the same as the first time. The Minister of State said this provides greater flexibility and it will effectively allow for the bypassing of that damage threshold. Will the Minister of State try to give us an explanation of how that is going to work? Having read this amendment four or five times, I am not clear. Is the Minister of State saying that if there are two homes side by side and both have applied for inclusion in the scheme, and one has been awarded a grant but the other has not because they have not met the damage threshold, there will now be a mechanism by which they can apply through the local authority or the Housing Agency for the damage threshold to be deemed to have been met when it was not originally and therefore both homes can be remediated? That seems to be what the Minister of State is saying but that is not what I am reading. If that is the case, on what grounds is the Housing Agency going to be able to overturn the original decision not to award a grant for remediation? How flexible will that flexibility be? We need more explanation of how this will actually work in real time rather than just a general statement around flexibility for us to determine how, if at all, this will be helpful for the type of homeowners Deputies Mac Lochlainn and Charles Ward spoke about.

Sentiment score: 0.22

After Dublin.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Without repeating the same argument, it would be helpful if the officials could produce a briefing note on how this is going to work that could be shared with the Oireachtas housing committee, for example. The committee members could share it with their colleagues. I am not at all clear how and against what criteria it will operate. It is clear the Minister is not going to give us that information here. That is fine but even a short briefing note from the officials explaining how they envisage this measure will work in real time would be very helpful and welcome.

Sentiment score: 0.33

I fully support the amendments, but I would like to make a comment on the section before we proceed. We have spent the past three and a half hours dealing with a wide range of deficiencies within the scheme, but section 8 is the substantive element of the legislation. It relates to the application for an increase to the remediation option grant. That is something for which people on this side of the House, particularly those from the impacted counties, have been making the case for quite some time. It is important for us to remember the timeline. Legislation was rushed through the Dáil in the summer of 2022. It took a year for the regulations to be drafted, but the cap was set in the legislation in 2022. People started applying to the new scheme in 2023 and transitioning from the original scheme during that period. A core principle of the scheme was that nobody would be disadvantaged either from transitioning or applying. At the end of 2023 and in early 2024, the then Minister, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, requested the SCSI to conduct an updated assessment of the potential costings. That work, I understand, concluded in March 2024 and some updated work was done until August. The agreement in principle from the Government to introduce this legislation was then agreed. The problem is that the final subsection of section 8 refers to qualifying expenditure. Where somebody applies for the increased grant and that grant is awarded, it can be paid out only on qualifying expenditure, and that, according to the subsection, means "expenditure, in carrying out works to satisfy the approved remediation option, incurred by the relevant owner after the date of the notification referred to in subsection (1)(a), but not earlier than 29 March 2024". Almost everybody on this side of the House tabled amendments to remove that. I fully understand that this places a charge on the State and therefore, under Standing Orders, it is ruled out of order. I anticipated that. However, this is a really crucial section of the legislation and there is simply no justification for the date 29 March 2024 because construction sector inflation started in 2023, featuring through to the end of 2023 and into 2024. The consequence of having this arbitrary date, and it is arbitrary, is that there will be a significant number of homeowners who will have undertaken remediation, or portions thereof, prior to that date, and they will have been paying prices significantly higher than suggested by the original SCSI report that informed the cap in the legislation in 2022. For this reason, many of us on this side of the House simply cannot support this legislation. It is creating another very serious inequality. No affected homeowner should be left behind. Any affected homeowner who has experienced construction-sector inflation since the setting of the cap should be able to avail of this. We teased this out with the Minister’s officials at a meeting of the housing committee and they could not provide any credible justification for why the date was included other than that it was, if I remember correctly, the date on which the SCSI report was concluded. However, that report was considering inflation over a much longer period, from 2023 onwards. I appeal to the Minister to provide in his response either a better justification for the cut-off point than we have received to date or an undertaking that between now and the taking of the Bill in the Seanad, he will revisit this matter and either introduce flexibility or remove the date. Otherwise, the consequence will be that a significant group of homeowners will be significantly out of pocket because the Government is simply not backdating the increased cost as a result of inflation in accordance with an appropriate timeframe.

Sentiment score: 0.08

The Minister has not explained the reason for the date. Let me just emphasise the chronology here. When Darragh O'Brien rushed through the legislation in 2022, the expectation was it would take some time for the regulations for the revised scheme to be completed. The Minister was crystal clear that he did not want homeowners to wait until the new regulations were introduced and therefore he gave a public commitment that if they proceeded to apply for inclusion in the original scheme, when the regulations for the new scheme became live they could transition to it and they would be no worse off. So, on the word of the Minister and the Government, in 2022 people would have continued to apply under the old scheme. When the new regulations came in in 2023, they would have transitioned onto that scheme. Some of those people would have had works done prior to the date of 29 March 2024. However, those works would have been more expensive because of construction sector inflation from the period of the 2022 legislation. I understand that the Minister received the report in March 2024, but that report was looking at construction sector inflation as it impacted in these counties for a period prior to that report. I cannot remember if the report was commissioned in December 2023, January 2024 or February 2024, but the Society of Chartered Surveyors would have been looking back into 2023 as part of that exercise. It seems to make no sense whatsoever to set a date of when the report was received when it was actually examining construction sector inflation for a period prior to that. I do not know how far back the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland went - if it went back to the setting of the cap in the 2022 Bill or to the opening date of the scheme in 2023. Perhaps the Minister can provide us with the rationale as to why somebody who may have had some works done in February 2024, January 2024 or December 2023 should not be treated in exactly the same way as people at a later stage. It may well be that the inflation impact for them was less than for people after that date and therefore the amount of additional grant uplift they will need will be less; we do not know. However, it seems to be a completely arbitrary proposition that it is the date the Minister received the report. I ask the Minister to explain the rationale for allowing that date to be the date. Does he at least accept that there were inflationary impacts on the prices that people had to pay for works prior to that date from some point in 2023 up to but before 29 March 2024 and therefore people will be left out of pocket because of this deadline?

Sentiment score: 0.04