I will follow on from Deputies Ward and Ó Broin as regards where the regulation is based on block. As I said earlier, I have been a building contractor all my life. The same grit goes into block as goes into lintels, only it is a different sized chip. Lintels were 8 in. by 4 in., but now they are a regulated 8 in. by 8 in. even though it is the same material. It is just certified differently. It just uses a different sized chip, but it is the same stone. What goes into foundations also goes into the subfloor, the finished floor and the block work. It is the same stone. About the particles, the Minister might say that it covers the block only, but it is like baking a cake, using flour in one cake and saying that it is only down to that particular flour in that particular cake. It is the same flour. For every building material that may be used in a house, it is the same stone. The only thing that is different is the plastering, which is a sandstone. That is the difference. Everything else would be based off the different types of stone that are in the quarries. What I am trying to say to the Minister is that the amendment before the House seeks to remove "Blocks" only. If we were to interpret it through any law in the country, if a stone is a 6 mm chip, a 10 mm chip or a 20 mm chip, it is the same stone. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It is simple science. Why not listen to people who understand what they are talking about? These hands are rough enough from using it for many years. I understand it. I am asking Members to understand the same. It cannot be put down just as one product. It has to be put down within the products of the house that have been used.

Sentiment score: -0.01

I listened to the Minister speak on the amendments. He referred to the Building Control Acts 1990 to 2025. What the Minister is saying is that for a house built in the 1990s, a section can be put on that house connecting the 1990 blockwork to the 2025 blockwork. Who is going to certify it? I deal with engineers daily. For certification of anything that I need, I would have to get all the different certificates right down to the nails that are used. Everything has to be shown to be job specific. Given the Minister referred to 1990 to 2025, he is now connecting the basis of what is allowed for houses, whereby some part of the house will be removed and the internal structure will be left as it was. How are they going to be joined? The Minister is joining 1990s standards to 2025 standards. He is not taking out one completely and replacing it but actually connecting to it. How can he regulate around that and give guarantees to homeowners that they can remove the outer part of their house, leave the inner part, support the house, connect new blockwork, which is of 2025 standard, to 1990 standard blockwork, and get somebody to certify it? I do not think it can be done. Is the Government going to give a guarantee that it can be certified? If there is an issue afterwards, will the Government take liability for the mess it is now making? The Minister talked about building regulations and building standards. They are upgraded every year. Even from the point of view of hospitals being built, if they go to 1 January of the following year, the regulations can change and they would have to start all over again. Yet the Minister is able to say under those amendments that 1990 standards can be certified with 2025 standards. What has been made excessively clear tonight is that the Government will give the guarantee and take responsibility if there is a breakdown afterwards in the two different contexts of materials from the different eras.

Sentiment score: 0.03

As other speakers said, this has not been costed since 2022. I will give the Minister a small few facts and it will not cost the State anything. I know the funds myself on a year-to-year basis for building costs. In 2021, the average cost of building a 2,000 sq. ft house was €120 per sq. ft on a greenfield site with a builder's finish. It cost €240,000 in 2021 with VAT of €32,400 on top that. In 2023, it was €180 per sq. ft. The same house went from €240,000 to €360,000 and the VAT was €48,600. In 2024, it was up to €200 per sq. ft - the same house with nothing extra. It cost €400,000 in 2024 and €54,000 VAT. If someone takes on a Government contract tomorrow morning, built into that contract, if the project goes over due to inflation over a certain percentage, is the adding on to the contract once the engineers can prove the material has moved. I said this in the Dáil last week and read out the letter, and it is ironic, that the same umbrella group from which the concrete products came - some, not all of its companies - sent a message through all their companies around Ireland that there would be an 8% increase in concrete products across the board. It was not one company saying it, it was the umbrella group sending it out through all its companies and the Government announced a 10% increase in the building. It has come out with 8% on concrete products alone. That is on top of what I am talking about here. I have been talking about greenfield sties. We now have to look at dismantling houses and getting rid of the material environmentally and with the proper certification. The costs are astronomical. Another €20 or €30 per sq. ft can be added to that and that is based on 2024 prices. We are talking about people who are short of money. A small thing that could go towards it, for the costing of the house, would be a VAT exemption. Why not? Based on 2024 prices, that would give them an extra €54,000 on a house towards the money they cannot raise. The Government could also, based on the Government doing its own contracts, fund it itself. The Government is going to give them the money in the first place, so why not fund it itself based on the engineers' reports? People would then not have to try to raise €200,000, €300,000 or €400,000 to rebuild a house or pay the VAT rate. Based on 2025 costings, taking in the remedial work that has to be done outside of the scope of works, the VAT is probably €70,000 based on a 2,000 sq. ft house. That €70,000 could go towards the rebuilding of their house if they get the costings. That would go some way to addressing inflation of costs. There is a 5% levy on all concrete products that was brought in. The same companies that were the problem announced an 8% increase this month. I am told it is coming in from 1 January. That same company in the past two years has given a 34% increase on all concrete products and the Government is charging a 5% levy on top of that. When will a regulation be put in place to tackle the elephant in the room? There are people who built their houses and got HomeBond and all these other certifications for their houses which are now falling down around them and the quarries that caused the problem are putting up their prices under an umbrella group. People trying to build houses are getting a 5% levy on all concrete products and everyone in the country building today is paying for the mistakes that were not regulated at the time. For somebody getting their house costed at the moment, based on today's prices, the VAT could help that burden. That is a solution for part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the Government is paying this as 100% redress, as the Minister said. Why does it not fund the people and give bank guarantees to them in the same way as for anyone building a new house today? Why does it not give people their payments based on the building as it goes on? If a person has to come up with a small bit of money, they can try to fundraise themselves. That, to me, is a solution. Why would the Minister charge tax on redress of 100%? Addressing this is within his remit. If I am pricing a project, it is based on a period of three months. How long is it going to take for the system to come into place and how long is it going to take for people to qualify? By the time the Minister moves the goalposts, prices will have gone up again. Is there not something to be said for index-linking based on the cost of prices going up now and on current inflation costs, as shown by economists? All of this is at the Minister’s fingertips. I have to cost daily, so why can the Minister not do so? Where there are Government contracts, rising costs are built in. Therefore, why can this not be done for everyone else? I want the Minister to exempt the tax people are supposed to pay where there is 100% redress. This will go some way towards paying for the houses that need to be rebuilt.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Everyone one of the speakers is talking correctly. They have the experience. I have taken out the front of buildings with 300 or 400 tonnes of stone propped over the buildings. For a semi-detached house - it depends on the era it was built in - there could a 6 in. or 9 in. block wall in the middle separating them or there could be a stud wall built up between them with fire-lined boards on both sides. If you open and take down one property, because they were built as one unit, when one side is taken out that weakens the structure of the other side. If the roofs are cut roofs - the same ridge board runs across the top of the roofs - then the rafters are on the same wall plates, which means that if you disturb anything, you weaken it. If a house on one side is defective, the same bloody blocks are on the other side. If you open it to the elements, you make the other house defective. If a house is built as a semi, it is one unit. It is built as a block. If it is a 15-block unit, it should be treated as one unit and all of it should be brought in together. What happens if one house is said to be defective? The proper way of doing any other house is to brace it in case you take away something that may have been supporting the house. You could create something that could put people's lives in danger. Is there anything in the Government regulations to say that if one side of a house is removed and the other side collapses and injures somebody, the Government is responsible? Common sense is not that common. If it is a semi-detached house, it is one unit. It was built as one unit and it should be treated as one unit. If one side is defective, the other side is defective. If it does not meet the threshold, it should be based on the building as a whole. That is where a small bit of common sense comes into it. We need to regulate properly for this. By allowing one house to come down, that could deteriorate the other house faster. I said this at the very start when the Government said the roof had to be kept if there was an existing house. It said that the outer walls should be removed. Then it wanted the outer walls to be replaced and connected to the existing blockwork, which could crumble down the line because it has been opened to the elements. It is a sign of madness. Why does the Government not listen to people in the business, who have solutions and common sense? I know as a contractor that if you have to take down a semi-detached house, the bonding and insurance you will need to have on the second building in order to take down the first building will cost more. It has to cost more because it is a health and safety risk. Someone is being left in a health and safety risk situation. It also concerns the insurance of the person in the second half of the house. Will their insurance cover their house because somebody has removed half of the building and now they have tarpaulin on their end of it? Is their house insured? Under fire regulations or health and safety, is that house insured if a storm comes? That is what we are asking. If it is a semi-detached house, it should be treated as one building.

Sentiment score: -0.10

In the scheme of things, when you look at projections of what this will cost, it will be 43 houses and roughly €22,000 per house. Given the different-sized houses, it is an average of €22,000 per house. Going by the 29 March deadline, there is a price increase which is between €16 and €20 per square foot, with the inflationary costs that have been caused by different things, including budgetary changes by the Government, the hike in fuel costs, transport costs, rising insulation costs and rising silicone costs. All the different oil-based materials for houses, through different budgets, have created an increase. We are asking for fairness for 43 houses. It is a pittance when looked at in the scheme of it. We are looking at 43 households which have been left behind. The Minister has an opportunity to fix this when it goes to the Seanad. I believe he will look at this. When you work out what it will cost and based on what it is costing for all the houses to be repaired, it will not even come to 1%. For the sake of 43 houses that went early, as they were instructed to, and are now in a situation where they have a deficit because of inflationary costs, the right thing to do is include everyone. The people who entered the scheme early are the ones who started the whole system going, which showed the Government the faults in the system in the first place. Those people have highlighted it and the Government would not have tabled any of these amendments today except that those houses went first and now the Government has realised the problems that were there. They have given the Government the answer that it needs to fix the houses that are there at the moment. Why not include them when they are now helping the Government to fix some of the problems that it faces today? Its own advisers, all the different chartered engineers and so on could not give the information in a timely fashion but it has it from the practical experiences from the 43 houses. The Minister should use that practical experience, should cover those 43 houses and should bring them into the same scheme. Deputies Ward and Ó Broin have been saying it. Everyone here has been saying it and people have been saying it in the right context, that everyone understands. The Minister and I know it is the right thing to do.

Sentiment score: -0.01