I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Unfortunately, this is a bit like playing handball against a haystack because I do not believe the Minister is going to change his mind on any of these amendments. Through the vote we have had on the amendment on blocks, he has made Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael TDs from all of the impacted counties, including Mayo, do something they know is absolutely wrong. One hundred percent redress means 100%, not more or less; it is just what it takes to make up for the lack of legislation or the failures by the Government. It is not because of any failure of the homeowners, as we have said many times here, but because of the abject failure of the Government that 100% redress is needed. People have never been given an explanation as to why those in Mayo and other counties along the western seaboard are treated differently from those who availed of the wraparound scheme that was in Dublin. If somebody gave us a rationale for it and stated how it is and has to be, we could look at that. Everybody here has tabled amendments in good faith to improve the scheme and make it fit for purpose. When we submitted all our points on the original scheme, including those we are making now, we wanted to save the Government money. Our bottom line was that we wanted to ensure nobody would be locked out of the scheme because they could not afford to get into it. By rejecting amendment No. 5, the Minister would be continuing to lock people out who cannot afford to get into the scheme. This is because the gaps we are talking about are €40,000, €50,000, €60,000 or €100,000-plus. That is an awful lot of money and it is absolutely crucifying people. It is not only crucifying the mortgage holders, as their children will be paying back because of the huge gaps. In amendment No. 6, we are asking for the end-to-end remediation scheme for all those impacted by defective concrete blocks. To add insult to the injury of the levy on the products, the State is charging VAT on top. You could not make this up. It is totally wrong. I want to turn to the issue of retrospective payments. It is now many years since I went to a house in Ballycastle that was falling down completely. At the time, we did not really know what was happening. I said to the couple affected, who had to rebuild the house and who had saved all their lives, that something had to be done with the house. I said the county council could not help them out but that I was sure that if they kept all their receipts and kept every record properly such that the project could be thoroughly audited, they would not be excluded from any scheme put in place. If the Minister is going to refuse to accept amendment No. 7, he will be saying to the couple that there is nothing for them and that, even though they did nothing wrong and instead did everything right, leaving everything fit for audit, they are still excluded. They are neighbours of the Minister’s TDs in Mayo. They know them, they know their faces, and they know their families. I am totally dismayed. If somebody were standing up here trying to be obstructive or to get in the way of what needed to be done, I would ignore that, but that is not happening. We are not only seeking to protect homeowners and have fair play for them but we are also seeking to save the State millions of euro. What the Government is doing tonight by not accepting the amendments is costing the State millions of euro. That will come back to haunt it and the people involved in this.

Sentiment score: -0.05

While we are talking about the process, why does it take over nine months for the test results to come back? There is no explanation whatsoever. People are told, month after month, that this is to do with the process of the whole thing. Why does it take so long for the results to come back from the test?

Sentiment score: -0.07

I need clarity before I leave here tonight. I want to be able to tell the people of Lios na Circe and Westport what this means for them. Not only are these semi-detached, detached or terraced houses, but the topography of where they are built means they are sitting on a number of slopes. These houses were built by an approved housing body with the local authority and local authority mortgages. The Minister of State is saying that this amendment is designed to bring flexibility so that if one homeowner applies and they want to rebuild their house and they meet the damage threshold, the other relevant owner can then bypass, if you like, the threshold required or that can be taken into consideration. Is that what the Government is trying to do in order to bring in the flexibility? I am trying to understand. It should be the default position that the relevant house can be done as well at the same time if it is very obvious that it has defective concrete blocks and foundations. The amendment provides that the "owner of the attached dwelling may appeal the decision in accordance with Part 5 within 90 days of the date of the notification". Is the Government really saying there will be cases that will need to be appealed because somebody decides the attached house cannot be done at that particular time? Could the Minister of State clarify that, because I want to know what to tell these people?

Sentiment score: 0.12

We are talking about a scheme that will cost billions, that is, in excess of €2 billion and maybe €5 billion. To have this arbitrary date to exclude some homeowners is deeply unfair and unequal. I have a situation on one estate where some homeowners on the estate are getting one rate and some owners are getting the other rate. That is grossly unfair. I ask the Minister, as others have said, to revisit this and look at it again. In the context of the whole scheme, we are talking about a pittance here but it is a huge, potentially life-changing amount of money in the difference it makes to single householders. We do not want a situation where one neighbour is pit against another because one gets more or less on a scheme that is not 100% in the first place.

Sentiment score: -0.14