Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 14 May 2024

Defective Concrete Blocks: Discussion (Resumed)

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

We have convened this afternoon to consider the enhanced concrete blocks scheme. From the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage we are joined by Ms Áine Stapleton, assistant secretary, Mr. Derek Rafferty, principal officer, and Mr. John Wickham, senior adviser. From the Housing Agency, we are joined by Mr. Bob Jordan, chief executive officer, and Mr. Peadar Espey, programme manager. Joining us from the County and City Management Association, CCMA, are Mr. Kevin Kelly, chief executive, Mayo County Council, and Mr. Michael McGarvey, director of services, Donegal County Council. From the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, we are joined remotely by Ms Geraldine Larkin, chief executive officer, Mr. Enda McDonnell, director of standards, and Dr. Ken Murphy, standards officer. From Engineers Ireland, we are joined by Mr. Damien Owens, director general, and Mr. John Garrett, chartered engineer.

The relevant papers have been circulated to members. Before we begin, I will read a note on privilege. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place in which the Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, to participate in public meetings. The witnesses attending in the committee room are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their contributions to today's meeting. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. Members and witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege they enjoy and it is my duty, as Chair, to ensure the privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative they comply with any such direction. For witnesses attending remotely, there are some limitations to parliamentary privilege and, as such, they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness does who is physically present.

Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person or entity outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The opening statements have been circulated. I ask the witnesses to try to keep their contributions to five minutes. I invite Ms Stapleton to give her opening statement.

Ms Áine Stapleton

I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss the defective concrete blocks scheme. As the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach said, I am an assistant secretary in the Department with responsibilities in housing policy and standards. In this role, I lead on the housing remediation matters. I am accompanied by my colleagues, Mr. Derek Rafferty, principal officer, housing remediation unit, and Mr. John Wickham, senior adviser on building standards.

As the committee will know, the enhanced defective concrete blocks scheme was launched in July 2023. Currently, four designated local authority areas come under the scheme, namely, Donegal, Mayo, Clare and Limerick. The Remediation of Dwellings Damaged by the Use of Defective Concrete Blocks Act 2022 also provides a mechanism for additional local authorities to seek inclusion in the scheme, and several other local authorities are currently at various points in the designation process.

The current scheme provides grants to eligible applicants to remediate their homes. It now covers eligible costs up to a maximum of €420,000. The scheme also provides grants, and these are included in the overall cap, for temporary accommodation of €15,000, storage of €5,000 and essential immediate repairs of €5,000. The scheme commenced last July, and more than 2,000 applications are currently at various stages of the process. The local authorities administer the scheme and have been working intensively along with the Housing Agency to process applications and issue grant approvals. The Minister, departmental officials and relevant local councils worked closely with affected homeowners on the development of the enhanced scheme. The Department continues to work through implementation issues with relevant agencies, local authorities and homeowners. We are very grateful for the strong engagement of the homeowners in this process.

The Department is aware that a focus of discussion has been the technical issues surrounding the IS 465 standard dealing with testing and categorisation of damaged buildings incorporating concrete blocks containing certain deleterious materials. An interagency defective concrete blocks technical matters steering group, known as TC73, has been established to support and inform the NSAI standardisation programme about technical issues. The steering group includes representatives from the Department, the NSAI, Geological Survey Ireland, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland and the Housing Agency. The steering group has agreed on a process to specify, procure, fund, and manage research projects. A procurement framework for the provision of laboratory analysis services has been established by GSI to support its Irish construction materials project on concrete products.

In addition, a strategic oversight group has been established by the Department to monitor progress and seek to ensure each participating organisation is supporting the NSAI to deliver on actions as expediently as possible and remove any barriers to progress. The membership of the strategic oversight group includes the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the NSAI, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, Geological Survey Ireland and the Housing Agency.

Any revision to the standard by the NSAI is reliant on the delivery of the evidence-based outputs of key research projects, including those from GSI framework partners, the full evaluation by the relevant technical committee, and the subsequent completion of the standardisation process in accordance with the NSAI’s procedures. My colleagues and I will be happy to answer any questions.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

I thank Ms Stapleton. I call Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Bob Jordan

We are pleased to assist the committee in its discussion on the enhanced defective concrete blocks grant scheme. I am accompanied by my colleague, Peadar Espey, the Housing Agency’s programme manager for the scheme.

The Housing Agency’s purpose is to provide expertise and solutions to help deliver sustainable communities. We do this by being a centre of expertise on housing, supporting housing policy development and implementing effective housing programmes in collaboration with others. We work with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, local authorities and approved housing bodies to deliver housing and housing services.

To meet the housing challenges facing our society, the Housing Agency’s role has increased significantly in recent years. This extends to defects schemes, including the enhanced defective concrete blocks grant scheme and the interim remediation scheme to fund emergency fire safety works in apartments. The Housing Agency has also built up considerable technical expertise and knowledge relevant to the defective concrete blocks grant scheme through the implementation of the pyrite remediation scheme since 2014. To date, almost 2,800 homes have been remediated under the pyrite remediation scheme.

I will now talk about the Housing Agency’s roles in the defective concrete blocks grant scheme, which are set out in legislation. We have two key roles. These are the assessment of applications and assistance with consideration of new areas for inclusion in the scheme. The Housing Agency is supporting Clare, Donegal, Limerick and Mayo county councils to deliver the scheme. Our role is to make it easier for homeowners to access the scheme. We take on the financial cost of assessing and testing dwellings. We also determine, on behalf of the local authorities, the appropriate remediation option and grant amount for dwellings. The local authorities in their role as administrators of the grant scheme are responsible for processing applications and for sending on validated applications, including the building condition assessment, BCA, report, to the Housing Agency.

When an application is received from the local authority, the Housing Agency reviews the BCA report and conducts visual inspections, where necessary, to determine if the home has met the damage threshold for entry to the scheme. If the damage threshold has been met, the Housing Agency prioritises dwellings for assessment, testing and categorisation in accordance with IS 465. A chartered engineer is engaged by the Housing Agency to undertake the assessments.

The Housing Agency enters into an agreement with homeowners to enable IS 465 assessments, sampling and testing of homes. Based on the results of these tests, the Housing Agency determines the appropriate remediation option and grant amount. This amount is based on the grant calculation methodology and the rates provided in legislation. The Housing Agency’s determinations are communicated to the local authorities, which then inform the homeowners of the outcome of their applications.

The Housing Agency also assists with the designation of potential new areas for inclusion within the scheme. A local authority, or the Minister, may submit a request to the Housing Agency to be considered a designated local authority. The Housing Agency will consider the request and have assessments, investigations and testing carried out on homes in the area. These investigations are carried out using IS 465 protocols. We then submit our findings and recommendations to the Minister.

The Housing Agency has a professional and technical team of project managers, engineers and surveyors working with homeowners and local authorities under the scheme. The team has undertaken the Engineers Ireland IS 465 training programme. The Housing Agency has established a regional office of five staff in the north west for the scheme, which is supported by technical and administrative staff in Dublin. Resource requirements are regularly reviewed.

The Housing Agency has established two panels of external consultants. The first panel consists of chartered engineers to assess, sample, test and categorise dwellings in accordance with IS 465. The second panel consists of competent building professionals to conduct detailed floor and external wall measurement surveys on dwellings which have transitioned from the previous scheme to the enhanced scheme.

In conclusion, the Housing Agency supports people living in homes affected by defective concrete blocks by carrying out the remediation option and grant amount assessments on behalf of local authorities. We also assist with the consideration of new designated areas for inclusion in the scheme. We are happy to answer any questions and provide further details.

Mr. Kevin Kelly

I am chief executive of Mayo County Council and chair of the County and City Management Association, CCMA, committee on housing, building and land use. I am accompanied today by Mr. McGarvey, who is the director of services at Donegal County Council.

On behalf of the CCMA, I thank the committee for its invitation to again contribute to the discussions regarding the defective concrete block scheme. When I last attended this committee, I reflected on the distress that defective concrete blocks have caused to property owners in counties Donegal and Mayo originally, but now also in Limerick and Clare and the ensuing impact on homes, families and entire communities. Each of the local authorities included in the scheme to date are at varying stages in the consideration of applications. Appendix 1 to my submission contains the updated position on the numbers and stages of applications for each county.

In response to this issue, Donegal and Mayo county councils established local committees comprised of councillors, action group members, homeowners and council executive members. These committees have been engaged in extensive discussions to facilitate greater understanding and to address the multi-faceted complexities associated with this issue and its resolution. In Mayo, the committee is made up of seven councillors, members of the council executive and homeowners impacted by defective concrete blocks. The committee, which meets regularly, is chaired by the cathaoirleach of Mayo County Council’s housing strategic policy committee. In Donegal, the defective concrete block committee was established as a formal committee of the council, with 12 elected members on this committee nominated by plenary council. The Donegal Mica Action Group is invited to the meetings and has participated in them. There have been 16 meetings of the committee to date. Although Clare and Limerick are at earlier stages of the process, they are aware of the existence and usefulness of such a committee if it is required in due course. It is anticipated that there may be in the region of 6,000 affected homes in Donegal and a further 800 in Mayo, with the initial estimates for Clare and Limerick being 620 and 700, respectively.

The committee will also be aware that there is an implementation steering group made up of officials from the relevant local authorities, the Department, the Housing Agency and the homeowner’s liaison officer to ensure the successful roll-out of the enhanced scheme. The Minister has acknowledged the scheme will evolve and that, given the complex nature of the scheme, it will be important to keep the operation of the regulations and guidelines under review. The concerns of the homeowners were brought to the group by Mr. John O Connor, the homeowner liaison officer, who also attended the group, which has met on nine occasions.

Previously, it had been identified that it was important to have extra liaison personnel in place to deal with issues quickly and to maintain a good level of communications locally with affected homeowners. The appointment of community facilitators through LEADER local development companies working closely alongside local authority personnel dedicated to resolving issues swiftly and maintaining effective communication with homeowners has proven to be beneficial and there is a significant ongoing workload in this regard. There are two facilitators in place in each of Mayo and Donegal. There is also a facilitator in place in Clare and the position is being kept under review in Limerick.

A scheme for social houses impacted by defective concrete blocks has been drafted by the Department and local authorities look forward to its implementation in order that impacted properties can be brought back in to beneficial use. All of the local authorities currently in the scheme have confirmed the existence of social houses impacted by defective concrete blocks but definitive numbers and the extent of the damage has yet to be quantified.

In conclusion, we all understand that the remediation of property damage due to defective concrete blocks is a significant task. It necessitates a continued concerted effort across government, local authorities, the Housing Agency and homeowners. The objective of local authorities remains to undertake their functions under the scheme in a manner that will deliver the most prompt and beneficial outcomes for the homeowners affected by this crisis.

Ms Geraldine Larkin

I thank the committee for the invitation to assist in its consideration of the issues under discussion today. I am the chief executive officer of the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI. I am accompanied by my colleagues, Enda McDonnell, director of standards, and Ken Murphy, standards officer. We are here to assist the committee in its work and to address any questions it might have on the review of IS 465.

At the outset, I wish to acknowledge the homeowners and the impact that issues with defective concrete blocks have had on them. I assure all stakeholders that the NSAI acknowledges the urgency around the review of IS 465 and that every effort to expedite work while maintaining integrity of process on this crucial issue is being made. In the interest of time, I will restrict my opening statement to providing updates on the progression of work with regard to the review of IS 465 since we met with the committee last July.

In November last year, preliminary findings from two primary research programmes managed by Geological Survey Ireland, GSI, to establish the long-term impact of pyrrhotite in walls, rising walls

and foundations were received by the defective concrete blocks technical matters steering group, which is chaired by the Department of Housing, Heritage and Local Government. These findings were promptly circulated to NSAI technical committee 63 concrete blocks, which is comprised of all stakeholders, including homeowners, for review and discussion. The findings were also circulated at the same time to the committee working group focused on the more in-depth evaluation of any research presented to the wider committee to facilitate the prompt incorporation of these interim findings into the review process for IS 465. The wider committee and the working group have met a combined eight times since the interim findings were made available at the end of November. Further meetings of both groups are already planned to include further consultation with research groups.

NSAI previously committed to issuing interim findings from these deliberations should this be considered useful or proportionate and where experts agree it would be of benefit to stakeholders. Work on drafting such interim guidance is under way and will take the form of an amendment to IS 465 to enhance the sampling and testing protocols within the standard, taking account of all available findings to date, including the initial research output relating to internal sulphate attack. To expedite the drafting process for the amendment, the task has been undertaken by the working group and this draft will be presented to the main committee members for further development as soon as a substantive draft is ready for consideration. The current estimation is that the amendment will be out for public consultation later this year.

This amendment will serve as a step forward in the review and development process of IS 465. However, the full evaluation of IS 465 continues to be reliant on the delivery of the final outputs of key research projects, including those from the GSI research partners, the evaluation by the committee of all expert information provided to it and the subsequent completion of the standardisation process in accordance with the NSAI’s best practice procedures.

Research projects relating to IS 465 are expected to be concluded in quarter 4 of 2024 or quarter 1 of 2025. The process to complete a standard's development requires approximately six months following the conclusion of the consideration of any relevant research data. This six-month timeline includes a public consultation period and the committee’s subsequent consideration of those submissions in parallel with its own deliberations before finalising its findings. Should there be a delay in the conclusion of the research, this will impact on the timelines for conclusion of the revision of IS 465.

In summary, NSAI understands fully its important role on these standards and all standards developed by its technical committees right across the broad spectrum of standards for construction.

It should be noted that this substantial programme of research and analysis requires adequate time to facilitate careful consideration of all the relevant technical input by utilising the experience and expertise of the voluntary members of NSAI TC73, representing a wide range of stakeholders, including homeowners, to deliver on this crucial work.

I trust this statement has given an overview of our work and we are happy to assist the committee with any further questions members may have.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

I thank Ms Larkin. I might suggest that while the next contribution is ongoing, she either tries to set up her headphones or log out and log back in. I did not stop her because members had her script and could follow along and hear her. However, it was not as clear as it could be for the question and answer session.

Mr. Damien Owens

I am pleased to appear before the committee on behalf of Engineers Ireland. I am the director general of Engineers Ireland and a chartered engineer. I am joined by Mr. John Garrett, who is also a chartered engineer and a member of the Engineers Ireland’s IS 465 register with many years of experience in dealing with homes affected by this issue. Mr. Garrett is not an employee of Engineers Ireland but a member of our institution.

Engineers Ireland is one of the oldest and largest representative bodies on the island of Ireland with more than 25,000 members and it is provided with statutory authority in Ireland pursuant to the provisions of The Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland (Charter Amendment) Act 1969 to award the title of chartered engineer. Our organisation has supported the introduction of the defective concrete blocks grant scheme since its inception and since 2019 maintains an IS 465 register, which lists chartered engineers who have the necessary direct professional experience, competence and specialist training, in accordance with the requirements set out in IS 465. Many of our members have been involved in the assessment and remediation of affected properties since this issue first emerged and much of the feedback from registrants’ experience has been incorporated into an amendment of the scheme, such as extending the number of counties covered.

At a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach on 1 May, we articulated a number of issues relating to current enhanced defective concrete blocks grant scheme. First and most pertinent of these matters is the challenge posed for all professionals working in this area by issues concerning IS 465. IS 465 is now under much-needed review by the NSAI. While it is important the outcome of this review should not be pre-empted in this response, it is nevertheless the view of many engineers that the existing standard is no longer fit for purpose in an evolving situation and developments in the scientific understanding of this issue must be appropriately considered. The completion of the review is both essential and urgent, especially given the requirement of engineers employed by the Housing Agency to address an “indication of the potential for future deterioration of retained blocks in their current state” within its reports on recommended remedial options for properties. Engineers Ireland is calling on the Government to divert all necessary resources to the NSAI to ensure a revision is completed by the end of the year. The completion of this revision is necessary to provide clarity and confidence to all those affected by this issue, including building professionals.

Second, a number of applicants remain within transitional arrangements from the previous defective concrete blocks grant scheme. These transitional applicants had their homes assessed by chartered engineers at first instance who made recommendations as to the appropriate remediation option for those properties under the scheme. Such a recommendation is then subject to a review by a chartered engineer employed by the Housing Agency who makes a determination as to the remediation option that will be ultimately approved for that property. In some instances, issues have arisen due a recommendation for a remediation option by an engineer employed by a homeowner differing from that determined by the Housing Agency. It is submitted that, given the research on a review of IS 465 has not been completed, where a discrepancy exists between the recommendation of a member of the register and the Housing Agency, the higher option of the two should be preferred to provide greater assurance to homeowners and building professionals.

Third and finally, a chartered engineer providing an opinion on the condition of a building will have professional indemnity insurance. However, there is evidence that some insurance providers are excluding work with deleterious materials from their cover. Given the quantum of remediated properties and the total sum of grants awarded under the scheme may exceed €2 billion, it is unreasonable to expect a relatively small number of professionals to shoulder the potential indemnification costs, not least for periods long after retirement. Such concerns were evidently considered by the Oireachtas when enacting the legislation governing the scheme. Section 45 of the Remediation of Dwellings Damaged by the Use of Defective Concrete Blocks Act 2022 currently provides indemnification to all persons working under the auspices of the scheme, with the exception of building professionals not employed by the State carrying out duties under the Act. Section 45(2)(d) provides for the indemnification of “any competent building professional as described in section 12 and carrying out their duties under this Act”. However, this paragraph is not yet commenced. Engineers Ireland is calling for this paragraph to be commenced immediately to address this lacuna in indemnification. While this will not address issues related to the ongoing review of IS 465, it can provide protection to professionals working in an area where the scientific understanding of the issue continues to evolve.

I thank members for their time and am happy to answer any questions.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

I thank Mr. Owens and all those who have contributed so far. We will now move on to questions from members. I ask members to try to keep their comments and questions to seven minutes.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I will start with the Department. I do not want to distract from my own line of questioning, but what Mr. Owens outlined is of particular concern. I wonder if the Department would like to take the opportunity to respond to that first.

Ms Áine Stapleton

Mr. Owens touched on a few issues. One was the issue of the Housing Agency applying an assessment where a previous assessment had taken place. I might ask the Housing Agency to comment on that in more detail. Essentially, the Housing Agency is now managing that aspect of the scheme and it is bringing consistency to the approach in terms of the work of the inspections. I think there is a value in the Housing Agency having an overarching view and oversight of that. Notwithstanding there may be a small number of instances where there is a difference of opinion, there is a value in that role being taken by the Housing Agency to bring consistency to the process.

Mr. Owens also touched on the commencement of section 45(2)(d) in respect of professional indemnity insurance. My understanding is the amendment was taken as the Bill went through the Houses. Our legal advice is that there are some challenges with interpretation of the wording in that provision and we would be challenged to commence it without looking again at the wording of the section. That is our current challenge around that provision of the Act.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

That would require an additional amendment.

Ms Áine Stapleton

It would require primary legislation to amend the wording and bring clarity to the interpretation.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Okay. I might let my colleagues take up that portion of the debate because I want to focus on a different element. There are many things in this House that we vote for or in favour of and we get frustrated in its administration and application, and I think the defective concrete block scheme is one of those. Therefore, I wish to try to identify some of the challenges that are happening to try to see where we can address them. Mr. Kelly’s contribution on the local committee in the local authority sounds interesting and I might come back to him on that. Mr. Jordan talked about a number of properties that had been remediated to date. Was that a figure of 2,000? How many properties have been remediated to date?

Mr. Bob Jordan

I refer to the remediation option determinations that have been issued so far.

Mr. Peadar Espey

The Housing Agency has issued 195 remediation option determinations under the enhanced scheme. However, I think the Deputy’s question is in respect of the previous scheme.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Yes.

Mr. Peadar Espey

That figure is probably with the local authorities in their administration.

Mr. Kevin Kelly

I understand the figure of full completion is around 43 in Donegal and 18 in Mayo, but those figures have started to move up quite significantly. We expect there will be at least 50 completed in Mayo before the end of this year and a corresponding increase in the Donegal numbers as well.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

How many have made applications?

Mr. Kevin Kelly

For Mayo, it is 373.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Mr. Kelly previously indicated there is a figure of 800 in Mayo that he thought-----

Mr. Kevin Kelly

Estimated.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

There is then a discrepancy between the 800 and the 350 applications so far. Can we identify what the issue is with those people who have not yet applied? Has that been considered? Has the reference group considered that? Why are people not applying?

Mr. Michael McGarvey

That is something I have learned in Donegal in my time. People are looking for peace of mind in some cases. Once they have been approved for an option, if their homes are not at risk, some people are happy to wait for two, three, four or five years before they are in a position, with kids going to college, etc., where even relocation-----

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Would it be fair to say that the financial burden on their own family and the upfront nature of it is a factor in the late applications?

Mr. Michael McGarvey

No, I would actually turn it around and say it is a lifestyle choice in some places. As the Deputy and the Cathaoirleach know, some homes are in pressing need of remediation but other homes are not. Once people have peace of mind, they are making a lifestyle choice in some cases

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I am uncomfortable with the phrase "lifestyle choice". Mr. McGarvey might use a different phrase because I do not think it accurately reflects the position people are in.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

I am sorry. It is certainly not meant to reflect that in any way.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

Mr. McGarvey is saying that people are deferring the decision to undertake the works.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

That is the feedback we are getting both through the defective concrete blocks committee and through members. That would be one of the reasons.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I suppose the upfront nature of the costs and the financial outlay for the individuals is a factor.

Mr. Kevin Kelly

It may well be but, in truth, the issues relating to people not coming forward have not manifested themselves in any detail in terms of the discussions locally. The focus of activity to date has been on those who have made applications and getting them through the system. It is a reasonable point as to identifying the reasons there is a gap. We do not have details on that at the moment.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

As it is not an issue in my constituency, I do not have the direct day-to-day contact. There remains some unhappiness with the scheme. As regards those who have not yet engaged or made an application, either there is not an understanding of the full options available, which I doubt because it is has been well covered, or they are not in a position to make an application. We need to examine that. As Mr. Kelly has said, the scheme needs to be reviewed and constantly considered. It would be useful to the committee to identify those who have not yet made an application and why.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins) That was spot on seven minutes. I do not know how the Deputy managed to do it to the second but maybe everyone else will take a leaf out of his book.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I thank all the witnesses for their presentations. There is a lot of data in the CCMA's presentation but it is not necessarily presented in a way that I find easy to understand. I have some very specific questions on the numbers. The representatives of the CCMA or the other organisations may wish to answer. How many new applications have been made since the enhanced scheme opened?

Mr. Kevin Kelly

I will try to pull out that figure for Mayo. We have 373 applications and the vast majority of them came in under the old scheme.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I will come to that. It is reasonable for us, as committee members, to ask a very simple question which is: since this revised scheme opened the year ago, how many applications have been made? A reply to a parliamentary question in January advised that 236 applications had been made as of January. Does anybody know the total number of new applications?

Ms Áine Stapleton

We have some data on that here.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

That figure is now 436 applications under the new scheme as of 1 May .

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Of those, how many have been deemed valid?

Mr. Derek Rafferty

We do not know as yet.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

How many have been refused?

Mr. Derek Rafferty

The Housing Agency would be in a better position to answer that question.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Does Mr. Jordan know how many have been refused?

Mr. Bob Jordan

We do not know.

Mr. Peadar Espey

In terms of applications that have been validated and transferred over to the Housing Agency, the Housing Agency has-----

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

At the moment I only want to know about new applications. Of the 436 new applications that have come in, how many have progressed? Can Mr. Espey give us any information on the status of those applications?

Mr. Peadar Espey

On the status of those applications, 16 have not met the damage threshold and will not progress any further.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

That means 16 have been excluded. What about the others?

Mr. Peadar Espey

They are at various stages in the process.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Can Mr. Espey give us some information in that regard?

Mr. Peadar Espey

A total of 195 have received remediation option grant determinations and grant amounts.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Of those, how many have drawn down any of that grant?

Mr. Peadar Espey

The CCMA might be able to answer that.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

These are pretty basic questions. I know people work really hard on this scheme, but it is really important that we are able to get a sense of what is happening. A total of 195 of those 436 have been offered or awarded a grant of some form based on remediation option. How many of them have drawn down any of that money?

Mr. Kevin Kelly

The figures that we provided are combined figures for both schemes. We are certainly-----

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

When the legislation was rammed through the Dáil last year, we were told that it would fix many of the problems. The expectation was that we would start to see a significant increase in the number of applications and applications being processed more quickly. I am not hearing anything to tell me that we have a higher rate of applications or a quicker processing time of those new applications. I will come to the transferees shortly. Nobody can tell me how many of the 195 applications that have received a determination have received money. That is okay. If nobody can tell me now, someone can come back to us in writing.

Of the applications that have been transferred from the previous scheme, how many were transferred in total?

Mr. Derek Rafferty

That number is 1,644.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

When many of those applications were transferred over, a considerable chunk were stuck in the old decision-making process. The idea was that the consistency of approach Ms Stapleton outlined would have helped to expedite them. Of those 1,644, how many have moved to a grant determination?

Mr. Peadar Espey

It is 192.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Only 192. Does that mean everyone else is stuck somewhere else in the process waiting for a decision?

Mr. Peadar Espey

The number referred to the Housing Agency is 399 from Donegal and 14 from Mayo.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Can somebody explain the 1,644 figure versus the two figures Mr. Espey has just given me? Is the difference down to ones that had already progressed on to stage 2 or had a remediation option? How many did the Housing Agency have to consider?

Mr. Peadar Espey

The Housing Agency has received 399 from Donegal under the transitional arrangements to date and 14 from Mayo.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

On how many of those has the Housing Agency made determinations?

Mr. Peadar Espey

It is 192, with 10 for Mayo and 182 for Donegal homeowners.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

The figures here show total payments made at 1,242. This relates to Deputy McAuliffe's question. What is the total number of households that have received the full grant determination, whether from the older scheme or the revised scheme?

Mr. Kevin Kelly

I can only say that 18 have been fully completed. I cannot say whether they have received the maximum grant.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

It is 18 completed and 43 in Donegal. Therefore, it is likely that they have got the bulk of that cash.

Mr. Kevin Kelly

Yes.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I wish to make a brief comment in the minutes remaining to me. Mr. Kelly has given us an update on the local authority houses. My understanding was there were to have been some pilot or Pathfinder projects. Have any of those projects commenced any work on remediating social housing stock?

Mr. Kevin Kelly

While it is not in recent past, to my knowledge we have completed one house in Mayo. That was probably three years ago. We have been awaiting the scheme for social housing.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Has anything been done in Donegal to remediate local authority social housing stock or AHB stock? Have any homes been remediated?

Mr. Michael McGarvey

No, the homes have not been remediated.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

We are years into this scheme. The working group report came out in 2017. I am now being told that only 40, 50 or 60 homes have received their full grant. Only 192 of the ones that were stuck in the old scheme have progressed and only 195 of the new applications have had an offer. There have only been 436 applications.

I will come back to the matter on a subsequent round but that says to me that the scheme is not working at all.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

I am going to ask two supplementary questions and will then come to Senator Boyhan.

In regard to the revised scheme, the figures given a moment ago were that 195 had been approved and 16 not having met the threshold. I am assuming that 225 are still in process. Is that what the witnesses are saying?

Mr. Peadar Espey

Correct.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Okay. In the context of decision-making, is there an expectation regarding those 225 in terms of them not meeting the threshold or being approved?

Mr. Peadar Espey

If they meet the threshold, they will move to the next stage of the process, which is the prioritisation, and the Housing Agency-----

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

To be clear, that is what is meant by "approved".

Mr. Peadar Espey

They have been approved; they have met the damage threshold-----

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

They have met the damage threshold. So we have 225 at the moment under the new scheme in respect of which it has not been determined whether they have met the threshold. Is that what the witnesses are saying? Mr. Rafferty said there were 436 as of 1 May, but 16 had not met the threshold as determined and 195 were approved. That leaves 225 that are at various stages of the process. When are we going to get decisions on those 225 applications, whether that is to move on or that they have not met the threshold?

Mr. Peadar Espey

It is a rolling process.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

I am sure.

Mr. Peadar Espey

As of this week, for example, we should have another ten issued to Donegal County Council and so forth, Clare County Council and Limerick City and County Council. We are at various stages of the assessment, sampling and testing. By the end of the year we anticipate that for 2024 there will be between 500 and 600 remediation option determinations.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Approximately ten determinations are being made each. Is that a target? Does it vary?

Mr. Peadar Espey

It is a target based on an overall programme and on the basis of applications on hand and projected applications.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Is that target of ten a week being met at the moment?

Mr. Peadar Espey

We are meeting it.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Is there capacity to increase the ten a week to 15 a week?

Mr. Peadar Espey

We are constantly reviewing the applications as they come in. It is a demand-led scheme.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Sure. However, there are 225 on hand.

Mr. Peadar Espey

We have two frameworks of consultant engineers. We are meeting that programme at the moment.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

To follow on, I wish to ask the Department about the social housing schemes that are affected. What is the barrier being faced in that regard? Why has progress not been made on some of these? Obviously, investigation works are required in many instances but, where there are definitive defective block impacts, what is the barrier to progression?

Ms Áine Stapleton

We have progressed the scheme for social housing and we will have it finalised in the coming weeks. We had prioritised work on the homeowners first and then moved to the social housing scheme. Indeed, the learnings from that will be incorporated but essentially the scheme will mirror the existing scheme for homeowners. We will be working with the CCMA shortly to work through the implementation arrangements.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

What is the timeline in that regard?

Ms Áine Stapleton

It will be a matter of weeks. It is imminent.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Is that a matter of weeks to finalise the scheme or a matter of weeks before applications are taken? What exactly is Ms Stapleton saying there?

Ms Áine Stapleton

We will have the scheme finalised and then local authorities will be in a position where they have already identified units that might be suitable for coming in the scheme. It will depend on how much of that prior work has been done. However, we will be beginning to work on the active implementation phase once we have the scheme in place.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Would it be safe to say that the scheme will be finalised by the end of May?

Ms Áine Stapleton

Certainly that would be within our gift, yes.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

It is within your gift. Okay. We will hold the Department to that. I call Senator Boyhan.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I welcome the witnesses. I would not like to be in County Donegal or County Clare and listening to these proceedings. The witnesses are a group of experts invited in here today, knowing what they were coming in to do and to say, knowing that we are policymakers here and were inevitably going to ask them questions. It is very despondent. If this were another forum or classroom, I would ask the witnesses to leave, to go away, do their work and come back in two weeks. That is my gut feeling and I have put it as respectfully as I can. A few minutes ago, I received a text from a man in Donegal who asked what the hell is going on. That was his language, not mine. I can understand why people would be terribly despondent in the context of what is a crisis for people in homes that are literally crumbling in front of them. They have no money in their pockets and they have nowhere else to go. We have been talking about this for years. Let us call a spade a spade. It is an exceptionally disappointing day for this committee. I do not understand how anyone could have got up this morning and come in here with such vague responses to the questions asked. I say that respectfully. I am not having a pop at anyone. As assistant secretary at the Department, I want Ms Stapleton to take that back to her officials.

I understand the Cabinet today agreed to include County Sligo. She might just confirm whether that is the case. I am conscious of time.

Reference was made to the interagency defective concrete blocks technical matters steering group. I ask for a sentence or two on that issue, to be followed up with a detailed written summary of what it is all about. What are the findings? Let those of us on this side of the room try to understand what the issues and problems are and the impediments. I ask for a commitment to share that information with us in due course.

I thank Mr. Jordan for the work the Housing Agency does. Ms Stapleton made the valid point that consistency in approach is important and that the Housing Agency has that role. That is important. It is obvious from this meeting and from hearing what the witnesses have brought to the table that we need a dashboard scheme to be updated monthly with all the various categories of where we are and where the progress is right across the whole country in the context of the scheme. I ask for that suggestion to be taken back to the Department. I am seeking a collaborative approach, involving all the agencies, on the provision of a dashboard. We have such a dashboard for forestry. Every month we receive a dashboard on the targets, deliveries and various categories. Clearly there is a lack of understanding of what is going on.

Mr. Jordan referred about resources. I will wrap up in a few minutes and he can then respond. Are there sufficient resources in the agency to deal with the problems in hand?

I thank Mr. Kelly of the CCMA for his comprehensive presentation. I note that the scheme for social housing impacted on by defective blocks is in draft form. The committee is dealing with this. When is the deadline? Is there a period of consultation? I am not suggesting we need more consultations. We need to get action. We need to get these houses up and running and remediated. Mr. Kelly might share with us where we are in respect of all of that. The committee would greatly benefit from having sight of that draft, if possible. Mr. Kelly might comment on that.

Finally, Engineers Ireland made a particularly interesting point relating to the ongoing review of IS 465. Mr. Owens stated: "Given the quantum of remediated properties and the total sum of grants awarded under the scheme may exceed €2 billion, it is unreasonable to expect a relatively small number of professionals to shoulder the potential indemnification costs". That is a challenge to us. He might elaborate on that, and its implications for his industry.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Senator Boyhan has asked a number of questions. Does he wish to direct them to particular witnesses?

Senator Victor Boyhan

Yes, we will start with Ms Stapleton, who might confirm she will take these concerns back to the Department. She is assistant secretary at the Department. Is she happy to share with us more explanatory detail on the interagency defective concrete blocks technical matters steering group?

Ms Áine Stapleton

Yes, we will touch on a number of those points. I am happy to take back the views of members. It is regrettable that we do not have all the detail they are seeking to hand but we will certainly supply that.

Senator Victor Boyhan

That is halfway. Ms Stapleton has accepted that, which is fair. Will she take back the idea for a dashboard?

Ms Áine Stapleton

We are happy to do so and to work with a model we could share with the committee on a regular basis. That is not a difficulty.

Senator Victor Boyhan

We can all work together on it. I really appreciate that.

The question on the resources of the Housing Agency is very important. Will Mr. Jordan confirm the situation in that regard?

Mr. Bob Jordan

The only Housing Agency office outside Dublin is our office in the north west, which deals with the defective concrete blocks grant scheme. We have six staff members there who are supported, it has to be said, by the entire agency, including administration and IT support staff. We have an operational budget of €3.2 million for this year. Of this, 85% to 90% will go to framework consultants. We have two panels. One is a panel of chartered engineers who do the assessment sampling, testing and categorisation-----

Senator Victor Boyhan

I apologise for cutting across Mr. Jordan but I am conscious of time. Does the Housing Agency have sufficient resources this year-----

Mr. Bob Jordan

Yes, we have sufficient resources.

Senator Victor Boyhan

-----to get on and get working on these projects?

Mr. Bob Jordan

I just want to say the €3.2 million budget will be spent this year. We have spent approximately €450,000 so far. Resources are kept under regular review with the Department. Should demand increase, resources will increase.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank Mr. Jordan. My next question is for Mr. Kelly. With regard to local authority houses and the draft that is before the Department, is Mr. Kelly in a position to share the draft with us?

Mr. Kevin Kelly

No, the issue of a draft scheme is a matter for the Department. Its issuance is a matter for the Department.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Has the Department engaged with the CCMA? Mr. Kelly is the head of the CCMA. Has the Department engaged with the CCMA on this?

Mr. Kevin Kelly

Yes, it has engaged with my committee.

Senator Victor Boyhan

What are Mr. Kelly's comments in that regard?

Mr. Kevin Kelly

The scheme is very similar to the scheme that is available generally.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Mr. Kelly is endorsing it and he is happy with it. We will see it eventually.

Mr. Kevin Kelly

It is an ongoing process.

Senator Victor Boyhan

When is the process due to be completed?

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

It has just been said that it is 1 June.

Senator Victor Boyhan

We will see it then, that is great. With regard to engineers' indemnity and the issues in terms of the €2 billion, will Engineers Ireland share its serious concerns with us?

Mr. Damien Owens

Engineers operate as individual companies or individual members. They hold professional indemnity insurance as part of their work. As they retire, they typically have tail-off insurance for a period of approximately seven years. In this instance, there is a small number of approximately 30 engineers on the scheme. If we look at the quantum of €2 billion, a good deal of liability could potentially fall to them. Equally, given the length of the scheme the set remediation timeframe could be up to 40 years. Many of these engineers may have retired and the insurance will not exist.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Effectively, it is not worth the paper it is written on once time moves on.

Mr. Damien Owens

Time moves on and there would be a lacuna of coverage there.

Senator Victor Boyhan

How are we going to address that? What would Mr. Owens propose?

Mr. Damien Owens

I would propose that the engineers working on the scheme for homeowners should be indemnified.

Senator Victor Boyhan

Will Mr. Owens send us on some documentation or correspondence to support this proposition?

Mr. Damien Owens

Yes.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I appreciate that. I thank the witnesses.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank all of our contributors. My first question is for the Department. A commitment was given that a senior counsel would be appointed to pursue accountability from the suppliers of defective concrete blocks. This has not happened yet. Will the Department give us a timeline on when a senior counsel will be appointed to carry out this important work?

Ms Áine Stapleton

Deputy O'Callaghan is right that a Government commitment was given to assign a senior counsel. We are working on the terms of reference with our legal advisers. We hope to have it concluded shortly. The work is ongoing. We had prioritised the implementation of the scheme. I acknowledge that this has taken a little longer than we had intended ,but work is advanced at this point.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

The commitment was given more than a year ago.

Ms Áine Stapleton

It may well have been.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

It is hard to understand, given the seriousness of the issues involved, that it has not happened yet. The accountability aspect is very important.

The opening statement from Engineers Ireland is very strong on the NSAI review of IS 465. It calls on the Government to divert all necessary resources to the NSAI to ensure that the revision is completed by the end of this year. I want to ask the NSAI about its statement on this. It states that research projects relating to IS 465 are expected to be concluded by the end of this year or the first quarter of next year. This means the revision will not be completed by the end of this year. Is it a case that more resources are needed? A great deal rests on this revision. Could it be done quicker? What is the situation?

Ms Geraldine Larkin

Can I check that those in the committee room can hear me?

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

It is still not the clearest but go ahead. We will interrupt if we have to.

Ms Geraldine Larkin

I apologise. I thought I had everything sorted to facilitate me joining remotely. I thank Deputy O'Callaghan for his question on resources. To step back a little, we will be doing two things with IS 465. The first is that we will make an amendment based on what we have at present. This will largely impact the testing protocol, and colleagues can provide further details on this should Deputy O'Callaghan wish. The second part relates to the external long-term accelerated ageing of the blocks and the samples taken. This still requires a period of time before the experts can make a scientific assessment of the process. In this particular instance it is not only about resources. There is a body of research external to us that is required to be completed. This is why we have taken the decision at this juncture to start with an interim amendment IS 465, which will focus on the matters we know of up to now. As soon as we get additional information that can be considered by the experts, we will go immediately to examining it and getting it considered by the experts, such that they can advise on further amendment to IS 465. As I committed to last year, we will do this as the information becomes available and is considered by the experts.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank Ms Larkin. I have another question I want to ask but before I do I would like to know whether Engineers Ireland has a view on this. Is it proceeding quickly enough?

Mr. Damien Owens

It is important that we get it right. The existing standard was adequate for what it was designed to do. Since we have started taking samples and engineers have compiled reports, however, other mechanisms of deterioration have become visible. In this instance, when we are dealing with uncertainty, the standard becomes less reliable shall we say. If an interim standard is issued or there is an interim statement it would be most welcome. We welcome anything that can provide clarity as we move forward.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank Mr. Owens. My next question is for the Housing Agency in respect of an issue raised by Engineers Ireland. Issues have arisen with regard to recommendations for mediation where the option of an engineer employed by a homeowner differs from the option determined by the Housing Agency. It suggests that given the research and the fact the review of IS 465 is not completed, the higher option of the two should be preferred to provide greater assurance to homeowners and building professionals working on remediation. Does the Housing Agency have a view on this? How is this concern being dealt with?

Mr. Bob Jordan

The solution put forward is not provided for in the legislation. With regard to the issue, we are fully aware of the views of Engineers Ireland and homeowners on this. We have discussed it with individual homeowners, the homeowners' chartered engineers and chairpersons of various action groups. It is important to say that four out of every five remediation option determinations from the Housing Agency are either the same as the homeowners' engineers or even higher in some cases. We are speaking about a small number of determinations under the transitional arrangements. Where a range of remediation options exists we must understand that there can be some differences. To be fair to homeowners and engineers, they are probably taking a path of caution. Under the framework contracts we have, our Housing Agency chartered engineers have the benefit of reviewing IS 465 reports in bulk and, therefore, adopting a more standardised approach. This is as good an answer as I can give on this.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Can I ask for a quick response from Engineers Ireland. What is its view on the issue I have raised?

Mr. Damien Owens

To proceed with caution and go with the most conservative option would probably be the order of the day.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

That is not allowed under the legislation.

Mr. Damien Owens

It is not under the legislation.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

That means it is important that the review on IS 465 concludes as quickly as possible.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

I have a question about indemnification for Ms Stapleton. Is there a view within the Department on that issue? We are looking at a long horizon for this scheme and for when people will ultimately start and complete a project, and the outcome of a project. Typically in a scheme house that is developed at the moment, there is a home bond certificate in place for ten or more years. What is the view on the indemnification piece? If a significant number of engineers retire or something else happens to them, and we are talking about a 40-year horizon, as Mr. Owens suggested, what is the view?

Ms Áine Stapleton

As I mentioned, there is a difficulty with section 45(2)(d) in the Act. The advice is that the interpretation of that provision is unclear. As it stands, it is not possible for us to commence that provision of the Act. It would require a review of that portion of the legislation.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Is that review ongoing?

Ms Áine Stapleton

We have been engaging on the interpretation of the provision.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Has the Department been engaging with the Attorney General?

Ms Áine Stapleton

That is where it is at this point. We have been engaging with our own legal team. I am not 100% sure if we referred it to the Attorney General but we have had the benefit of our own legal advice.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

We have identified a problem but do not yet have a fix.

Ms Áine Stapleton

That is the position.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

When did we identify the problem?

Ms Áine Stapleton

I will have to refer to my colleague, Mr. Rafferty, on timelines.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

I am looking for the advice and the date we got it. I ask the committee to bear with me. I do not have that information to hand.

Ms Áine Stapleton

We can come back to the committee.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

We will come back to the committee on that point. I am sorry.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Perhaps our guests will come back on that point. I do not want to labour the point but a significant period has elapsed since the advice was given that there is an issue and no amendment has been brought before the Houses. It is unsatisfactory. I ask for that to be expedited without delay. If this is an issue, it needs to be addressed urgently.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

We received that advice in April 2023.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

A significant period of time has elapsed in that case. How is it that advice was received more than 12 months ago and no legislative fix has been brought to either of the Houses of the Oireachtas?

Ms Áine Stapleton

We will take that away for further consideration.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

That response does not answer the question. How is it that we have left an issue open for 12 months?

Ms Áine Stapleton

There have been some discussions with Engineers Ireland on the issue during that period. It is an issue on which we will reflect.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

I ask our guests to reflect on it. When can we expect a legislative fix from the Department?

Ms Áine Stapleton

I am not in a position to give a view on that today but it is an issue on which we can come back to the committee.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

I thank Ms Stapleton.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I thank our guests for their statements. One of the statements, perhaps Ms Larkin's, suggested there is an urgency to this issue but there is no urgency if we have been sitting on something for 12 months and nothing has been done.

The first point I want to speak about is why people are not applying and there are such low numbers of applicants for the scheme in Mayo. Mr. Kelly has correspondence from the North Mayo Pyrite Group that outlines exactly what is wrong with the scheme and what needs to be done in order for people to be able to proceed and access the scheme. The Taoiseach and the Minister for housing also have that correspondence. There is no excuse and people cannot say they are trying to second guess why people are either not applying or not proceeding with the scheme. One of the main issues is with the foundations and the fact the foundations are not included. Is there anybody in this room who thinks it is okay for people to go ahead and rebuild houses without testing the foundations? Does anybody think it is okay to do that without the foundations being tested? I include Ms Larkin in that question. Does she think it is advisable for people to go ahead and rebuild houses without at least testing the foundations? Perhaps Ms Larkin could answer that question.

Ms Geraldine Larkin

I thank the Deputy. I will refer to the programme of ongoing research I mentioned earlier. One of the component parts of that is in connection with the area of foundations and, indeed, how foundations are impacted. From the perspective of the NSAI, our mandate is to look at the science and see what it is telling us. That is the piece on which we are awaiting the results of research. As soon as we get the GSI findings in that space, we will, of course, take it on board.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Should people who are starting work on their houses today, tomorrow, next week or next month go ahead without testing the foundations? I am asking for a "Yes" or "No" answer. People need guidance and we have all the experts, the people who have dealing with this issue for years, in the room. People in Mayo want to know if they should go ahead without having the foundations tested.

Ms Geraldine Larkin

From an NSAI perspective, we need to find the results of the research.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Nobody can give us that answer. Nobody in the room can guarantee what will happen if people go ahead. We have been with the Central Bank and Insurance Ireland and we cannot have guarantees that those houses will be mortgageable or insurable, going forward, or that they can be signed off and certified without the foundations being done, but the foundations are excluded from this scheme. That is an enormous problem. It is the elephant in the room that is not going to go away. There needs to be absolute urgency not only for the homeowners but also for the citizens of Ireland who are investing this amount of money to make repairs for the injustices that have been done to these homeowners.

I have so many questions that they will not all be answered in seven minutes.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

The Deputy will be able to come in again.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Okay. I wish to raise another issue relating to boundary walls while Mr. Kelly and Mr. McGarvey are before the committee. They will know what I am talking about in respect of the estates in Ballina and Castlebar. The boundary walls are not included in the scheme and the local authorities say the boundary walls are nothing to do with them. I know that the repairs to one boundary wall on an estate in Ballina are costing €30,000. Do our guests think it is fair to ask the homeowner to pay for that boundary wall? It is obviously public property, going into an estate.

Mr. Kevin Kelly

I am not dodging the question but we can only implement the scheme-----

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

As it is.

Mr. Kevin Kelly

-----as adopted by the Oireachtas.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

The scheme is obviously flawed for all the reasons that have been repeatedly outlined. The houses at Lios na Circe in Westport were sold by the local authority through a housing body. There were 52 houses. One house at a time is being looked at when we know that all the houses are likely to have been impacted.

Can those houses be looked at as a whole, knowing that? Why are we continuing to treat each house individually if we know that all of the houses in an estate have pyrite? Can anyone answer that?

Mr. Peadar Espey

I can come in on that. The Housing Agency receives valid applications. In terms of the Housing Agency programme and our assessment, it is on the basis of demand-led and valid applications. For whatever reason, if there are dwellings within an estate that do not meet the validity criteria of the scheme, they do not come to the Housing Agency. We look at the geographical locations and estates in particular in terms of prioritising assessment.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

What if there are semi-detached houses where one meets the threshold and the other does not?

Mr. Peadar Espey

Unfortunately, we cannot take that scheme if it is not referred to the Housing Agency.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

If there are two houses, they are tested visually or whatever, and one meets the threshold because the cracks are wider while the other one does not, what happens in that case?

Mr. Peadar Espey

We cannot even assess the house if it has not been referred to us, if it is not valid.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Even though it is a semi-detached house, so Mr. Espey is stopping the one that does pass. Come on. We really need some common sense. The homeowners have provided the common sense. That needs to be looked at.

Why are we putting the cart before the horse here in recommending remedial options 2 to 5 when none of those options is based on any specific science research? Mayo homeowners have been testing these for years and all of them have failed. Why are we offering those options?

Mr. Peadar Espey

In respect of the ten remediation options issued to Mayo County Council, they were option 1s. The Housing Agency has not issued an option 2 to 5 in County Mayo.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

That is right. Will it always be an option 1 for Mayo and its pyrite?

Mr. Peadar Espey

I cannot say that. It would be subject to the chartered engineer's assessment of damage and the geotechnical information.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Where there is a discrepancy between the engineers, the engineer from the Housing Agency supersedes the other one. If a test has been done, say under the old scheme, and the chartered engineer submits that, the Housing Agency can overrule them. Is that how it is?

Mr. Peadar Espey

Yes. That has yet to happen in Mayo.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

I am going to bring in the Deputy's party colleague or he will be upset with me. I have given Deputy Conway-Walsh a lot of latitude. Even though he is her party colleague, I have to be fair.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I have another point but I will come in again. Thank you.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

We have plenty of time anyway, do we not? We have until 6 o'clock. My first question is to Michael McGarvey of Donegal County Council. As a TD for Donegal I have worked with Michael for years. I want to clarify a comment that was made earlier. I am getting messages and people are very angry. I do not think it is truly representative of Mr. McGarvey's view so I am going to put it again. There were 800 people at a public meeting in Burt earlier this year. At the subsequent meeting there were almost 1,400 people. There were about 500 or 600 at a meeting in Mayo. I thank the Department of housing officials for not repeating in their opening statement that this is a 100% scheme. I thank them for listening to us last week and not doing that again. Would Mr. McGarvey agree most people in Donegal who we are dealing with day to day are telling us they cannot afford to access this scheme because it will cost tens of thousands of euro and that is the real reason we do not have a big number applying right now? Does Mr. McGarvey agree with that statement?

Mr. Michael McGarvey

I thank the Deputy for the opportunity to clarify. I certainly did not mean to give the impression in any way. I think we made that message clear in Donegal in any of our engagements with any of the groups that our focus is on the homeowners and trying to make this as simple as possible. I did not mean to misrepresent anything. We absolutely empathise and try to work with those who are going through very tough times and whom we want to help do that. We are absolutely convinced we can overcome some of the operational issues we have experienced and we will continue to do that.

In terms of working with the Department and others on ancillary grant payments and other matters, we have made good progress in recent weeks and we hope we will be able to make an announcement very shortly in making it easier for people where they have costs for alternative accommodation, storage and other matters. I am happy to continue to do that. I acknowledge that there are challenges. We will continue to work within the scheme and with the Department, stakeholders and action groups to try to overcome issues. We are listening. We are making improvements and we will continue to do that. I thank the for the opportunity.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Would Mr. McGarvey accept as a Donegal man who lives in the county and talks to people every day that the reality is that very large numbers, I would say the substantial majority of homeowners, cannot access the scheme because it will cost them tens of thousands of euro to do so. Would he accept there is a big discrepancy and that is why there were huge numbers at those public meetings?

Mr. Michael McGarvey

I am happy to say we will continue to work to overcome what we can. We will work with the Department, the Housing Agency----

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

With respect, the comment was made earlier about lifestyle reasons.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

I totally take that back, please.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

That is why I am asking Mr. McGarvey to clarify because I know him and have worked with him and I do not think that is his view. I think he and the officials from Donegal County Council I work with are implementing the scheme as it is. They are not defending the scheme and they are not saying people are excluded from the scheme for reasons of their own choice.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

Absolutely.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

That is not my experience. I do not think it is Mr. McGarvey's either.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

No, it is not. I am glad to get the opportunity to clarify that. I did say there may be some people who might defer the work. That is all; that is my only comment. Without a doubt there are challenges and it is to be hoped we will continue to try to make it easier for people to access the scheme.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I appreciate that because I would not believe that to be Mr. McGarvey's view from conversations we have on a professional basis. I appreciate his clarifying that. I do not think it is the view of Donegal County Council. I think it is dealing with the reality on the ground of a Government scheme it has to implement. It is very important we hear people who are excluded from the scheme in Mayo, Donegal, Clare, Limerick and now in Sligo and that we understand the limitations of the scheme. I thank the Department of housing for not repeating the statement about 100% and for listening to the public representatives.

We have plenty of time. I want to start a conversation and come back to it later. This question is for the National Standards Authority of Ireland. When was the authority first asked to undertake a review of IS 465 by the Minister, Deputy O'Brien?

Ms Geraldine Larkin

The request was originally made in 2022.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Was it not November 2021? That is what is on the Dáil record.

Ms Geraldine Larkin

If that is what is on the Dáil record, then I stand corrected on that point.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

In terms of the original standard the NSAI panel put forward, which is the existing standard IS 465, would Ms Larkin accept it was not based on internationally peer-researched scientific evidence but was essentially a desktop study?

Ms Geraldine Larkin

It was a desktop study. That being said, the standard and the test protocols that were developed at the time did in fact lead to the identification of deleterious materials. The current revision is taking the subsequent learning from that and simplifying the testing protocol. The original tests prescribed in IS 465 did identify deleterious materials, notwithstanding the fact that, as the Deputy says, it was based on a desktop study at the time available. That reflects the evolution of the knowledge and information that is coming towards the NSAI and indeed coming to the committee.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Is Ms Larkin comfortable that this is, in the words of the Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, a multi-billion euro redress scheme, the biggest redress scheme in the history of the State, and yet it is based on a desktop study?

Ms Geraldine Larkin

The identification of deleterious material was possible from the original version of IS 465.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Does Ms Larkin think it is acceptable there are engineers affiliated to Engineers Ireland who work with the Housing Agency who are overruling other engineers affiliated to Engineers Ireland because they are working on a desktop study rather than internationally peer-researched evidence?

Ms Geraldine Larkin

The NSAI is working and has worked based on the research that has become available to us from GSI. We are now taking those research results and upgrading the detecting protocol. It is in light of the research findings that have happened since then.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I will have more questions later on.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I wish to go back to figures, although I presume we will continue the conversation about the review of the industry standard. I have been looking back at the Estimates. In 2021, 2022 and 2023, €146 million was allocated to pyrite and mica remediation. Obviously a portion of that is to the Leinster pyrite scheme. Would Ms Stapleton know, even notionally, how much of that €146 million would have been estimated for the defective blocks schemes, particularly in 2022 and 2023? It was probably about €40 million a year across the two years, would it not?

Ms Áine Stapleton

I will ask Mr. Rafferty for those figures.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

I do not have the exact figures in front of me. With regard to the €146 million, the Deputy is referring to the years 2021, 2022 and 2023.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Yes.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

Approximately €100 million of the €146 million would have been allocated to DCB. That is approximate. We will check that for the Deputy.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

In real terms, because the scheme only opened in 2021, expenditure would not really have occurred in 2021, so that €100 million is over 2022 and 2023. Am I correct in saying the total expenditure to date on the scheme is only €25 million?

Mr. Derek Rafferty

No. From June 2020 until basically 1 May, it is €44.4 million.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

All on defective blocks.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

Yes.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

That means approximately €60 million was unspent over that period.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

Against profile, yes. There was an estimate made of what would be required and it was not spent for various reasons.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Less than half of the money that could have been spent on home remediation was spent. I accept that, in the early years of the scheme, there will not be much spend. Remind the committee the date the defective blocks scheme first opened for applicants.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

The original scheme?

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Yes.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

I think it was June 2020. I do not have an exact date.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

The scheme opened in June 2020. There would not be any expenditure from June 2020 even into the end of 2021. Can Mr. Rafferty understand how not just us in committee but affected homeowners or the local authorities who have defective stock would feel that €60 million that should have been spent fixing homes has not been spent?

Mr. Derek Rafferty

It is a demand-led scheme. If the demand does not come forward, the money that is allocated is not spent and it is just subsumed back into the housing Vote and back into the Department of public exenditure.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

But there has been a demand. I am looking at the CCMA’s report. The total number of online registrations to the current scheme is 2,661. I presume that is people just logging online, checking the scheme out and seeing what is available. Regarding the total number of applications received, there is a discrepancy between the CCMA’s figures and a parliamentary question I got previously. The figures we have in front of us from the CCMA state that 1,598 applications were received and 1,488 applications were deemed valid. The total number of properties that have received some level of grant – I am trying to find the exact figure – is a portion of that. Then, of course, there are the figures of the total number of homes that received the full grant. The demand is there. There is a sufficient quantum of applications deemed valid in the system to spend the money. Is there not a concern at the departmental level that, notwithstanding the fact there are many applications, so little of this money has been spent and we are now four years into the original scheme and a year into the new scheme?

Mr. Derek Rafferty

Our concern is to provide the funding that is needed and that is called upon to remediate the homes. Obviously, the ultimate objective is to get those homes back to what they would have been had they not been affected by DCB. We make the money available each year for that to happen. The scheme is then administered on our behalf by the local authorities and it is a demand-led scheme. I cannot comment any more than that on the way the money is profiled or ends up being spent.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Let me rephrase the question. It was not the local authorities or the Housing Agency that decided the design of the scheme. Ultimately, that was a policy question for Government in terms of the legislation that was provided. Given there is such a discrepancy between applications, applications deemed valid and drawdowns, and given such a significant amount money is not being spent, is that something the Department is looking at? Is it asking whether there are aspects with the design of the scheme that would fall within the Department’s remit? Are there aspects with the administrative scheme which would fall between the Department and the two agencies? Given the urgency of this, I would have thought senior people in the Department would be trying to fix the fact that 60% of an allocation was unspent. Is that even being looked at or examined at present?

Ms Áine Stapleton

I will come in on that. There are a number of aspects to it. The nature of the process itself has a number of stages to it, so it is inevitable that the payments will ramp up as we work through the stages of the process and the construction work gets under way. We are also engaging with the homeowners and looking at some of the issues around implementation that are of concern to them. At our meeting of the subgroup at the end of April, we discussed the flexibility within the scheme to have more upfront payments to cover upfront costs such as professional fees. It is hoped some of that will give a little bit more discretion to homeowners in respect of their ability to manage some of those upfront costs.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Regarding this year’s allocation, €65 million is allocated again for both schemes. One assumes the Leinster pyrite scheme will take less than €20 million of that, perhaps between €10 million and-----

Mr. Derek Rafferty

It is €15 million.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

That leaves a remainder of €50 million for defective block.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

No.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Do the witnesses think that will be spent?

Mr. Derek Rafferty

Some of that will also be for apartment defects as well. That is included in that.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

That is if any of that money actually gets drawn down. Is there an estimate of what would be for the defective block of the remaining €50 million?

Mr. Derek Rafferty

We put it at €45 million.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

On the basis of what Ms Stapleton said, how much do the witnesses think will be spent this year?

Ms Áine Stapleton

We are hopeful the expenditure will ramp up as the year progresses.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

How much was spent on defective block in total last year?

Ms Áine Stapleton

I will check with Mr. Rafferty.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

We spent almost €22 million.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

That is about half of the total spend up to that point. The expenditure will need to more than double this year. Notwithstanding the fact Mr. Espey outlined the number of determinations that will be made, I am not hearing anything from the figures we were given with regard to the pipeline that suggests there will be a big jump in approvals, works done or drawdowns.

Ms Áine Stapleton

If we look to the 2023 spend, it is important to remember the new scheme only commenced in July, so we are now looking at a full year in 2024. We will keep a close eye on it and we are keen to make sure the implementation of the scheme is progressing well.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

There are only 195 determinations of the new applications.

Ms Áine Stapleton

As the Housing Agency outlined, there will be increases week on week as applications are processed. We expect to see those figures go up.

We will engage with all of our partners here if there are any challenges around resourcing or other issues that are proving to be barriers to timelines. We will keep a close eye on that. We are keen to have this scheme implemented.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

The witnesses from the Housing Agency were looking to come in. I appreciate Ms Stapleton's reply. I do not doubt her comments at all.

Mr. Peadar Espey

Regarding the 195 remediation option determinations, the monetary value of those is €66 million, or an average of approximately €341,000.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

After it makes a determination decision, does the Housing Agency have a mechanism to track when a project is likely to go to construction and drawdown? Does the agency have a read of that yet or are we still too early in the scheme?

Mr. Peadar Espey

Unfortunately, we do not have a read on that. It is with the local authorities in terms of the applicants and their commencement notices.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

What is the total value of the determination decisions for applicants from the previous scheme and those from the new scheme? Do we have a figure for that?

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Mr. McGarvey and Mr. Kelly wish to make points as well.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

In Donegal, the value of the grants decided by the Housing Agency to date is in the region of €62.5 million. The value of the grant amounts from the previous scheme and as recalculated under the new scheme is €132 million.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

In addition to the approximately €62 million.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

Yes.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

That is just Donegal.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

Yes.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Do we have a comparable figure for Mayo?

Mr. Kevin Kelly

There were 346 applications under the old scheme and there have been 27 under the new one. Around the time of the implementation of the new scheme, there had been a spend of €6.6 million. That is now €29.36 million.

On the Deputy’s question, we will take two steps. First, we will provide comparable figures for each county. The figures Deputy Ó Broin quoted when referring to the discrepancy were actually Donegal’s figures as opposed to totals, so we will provide the information in the same way across each of the local authorities. Second, we will endeavour to set out the split between the old scheme and the new scheme. We were concentrating on the combined effort.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Perfect. I thank Mr. Kelly for pointing that out. I was wondering about it.

Mr. Kevin Kelly

I will make a further point. According to the feedback I am getting from the team on the ground, the work has been slow, but there is a greater understanding now. We have had 18 completions, but it is expected that there will be 50 by the end of the year. Progress is being made, and we believe that the spend will increase. That is not to ignore the issues that have been raised about the scheme, but the team is indicating that there is positive movement in the amount of action and spend.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Let me see if I have these figures correct. Housing Agency determination decisions amount to €62 million. In Donegal, the existing scheme amounts to €132 million. What is the quantum of approvals that have yet to be drawn down in Mayo?

Mr. Kevin Kelly

I do not have the figure for the current scheme. I have it for the previous scheme. The payments made to date amount to €29.36 million.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

No, I am looking for where approvals have not been drawn down yet.

Mr. Kevin Kelly

We will get that information for the committee.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Mr. Rafferty made the point that this was a demand-led scheme. Here we have at least €200 million in approvals in the system, and the Mayo figure will bring it to over €200 million. That is €200 million that people are waiting for and we have €50 million or so in the pot, with €24 million spent last year. Could the committee get regular information in order that we might track this? There also needs to be a mechanism so that, if we are nowhere near reaching a spend of €50 million halfway through the year, something can be done about it. We cannot have a situation where people are out €200 million in approvals and we are giving the witnesses’ organisations a hard time at the end of the year if the spend has only been €20 million or €30 million. Ultimately, €50 million is nowhere near enough, given what has been approved to date after a relatively small number of applications. I would like us to return to this point.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

I will ask a couple of follow-on questions. Will the witnesses talk me through the process from when the Housing Agency approves a figure for a certain fix in terms of threshold damage and so on to when the house is completed? At what point does the drawdown occur?

Mr. Michael McGarvey

All notifications to the applicants – the homeowners – go through the local authority. The Housing Agency advises the local authority and we advise the homeowners. An application made on a commencement notice is then received. The homeowners can then submit claims for ancillary payments and remediation works. As the works progress on site, they can submit regular payment claims. We are working towards trying to turn those around as soon as we can. There are operational issues. Having listened to some of the cases, we have worked up examples on our website to try to demystify the process for people. We find that the process is improving, but we want to continue working on it to make it as easy as possible for people to claim their moneys and get paid.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Presumably, if there are to be 50 completions by year’s end and 18 are fully done, 32 projects are currently underway on site.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

I will give an indication. I am sorry, as this information just relates to Donegal. The figures the Chair referenced represent a large percentage.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

It is just the process.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

Some 580 grants have been decided in Donegal. Commencement notices have been received and 43 works have been completed, but there are remediation works ongoing at 143 properties in Donegal. I cannot say now what stage they will be at by year’s end, but the number will be greater than the figure of 20 or 30 that was mentioned.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Of course. What about the drawdown? There is a discrepancy between it and the number of approvals. I understand that. The same situation obtains in terms of the vacant property refurbishment grant. The money has been committed and approved and the drawdown only comes once the project has been completed. In this case, though, there is also drawdown throughout the process. It does not have to be front-loaded.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

No.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

How often do we make “stage payments” in a typical build?

Mr. Michael McGarvey

In Donegal alone, 1,240 payments have been made in the form of various ancillary grants, remediation works, etc. People can submit regular claims, for example, for accommodation works and storage works. We listen to homeowners because they give us some very good, and very obvious, ideas. There was a point where a homeowner could only submit one ancillary claim at a time. We changed that in the past three weeks to make the claims process a bit easier for people in terms of cash flow, etc.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Give us a working example of that. Notwithstanding the fact that people speak to one another and there are campaign groups involved in the process, there are many who are outside the process and not as heavily engaged but who still have problems and want to hear what is there for them. Not everyone listens to the radio, watches the television or reads the newspaper.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

I will give an example. Someone applying for storage or alternative accommodation costs is making what is called an ancillary claim. Until recently, the homeowner could only submit one claim at a time and, once it was approved, he or she could submit another. We have changed that now so that people can submit multiple claims simultaneously.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Is Mr. McGarvey satisfied that the process is working?

Mr. Michael McGarvey

It is better for the homeowner. We have to try to make the process easier for homeowners.

I will give another example, one we are discussing with Mr. Rafferty and his team, namely the cost of alternative accommodation. That has been a challenge for homeowners, including in terms of coming up with the cost. We have been discussing how we can pay such costs earlier in the process where they have been demonstrated with sufficient evidence.

We have come up with something we have agreed with the Department. We hope to be able to make an announcement. We are also working with our colleagues in County Mayo to ensure there is consistency.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

What does this look like?

Mr. Michael McGarvey

People who need alternative accommodation or storage, who secure it but struggle to pay for it and who can provide evidence of expected delivery invoices will be given an opportunity to get that money to allow them to pay the cost, just like they are now for remediation.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

If people can get invoices upfront for the costs of accommodation they will occupy, the council will process them.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

We are again working within the regulations and the Act. They must be costs that have been incurred. The evidence must be of costs that have been committed to. This is exactly the evidence that is required.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

That would be a committed-to cost. Someone would have entered into a lease arrangement, per se, and would have an invoice for the cost.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

That is what we are working through. We hope to be in a position to do it. We are in close contact with the Department and the other local authorities represented here to ensure we are bringing consistency to this aspect. It is something we are doing. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach asked for a working example.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

Yes, and this is helpful because it is an example of how the council is adapting.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Senator John Cummins)

I call Deputy Conway-Walsh.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

That point is crucial. It is one of the points that the homeowners in County Mayo have been making. Obviously, what they are asking for is a 20% payment upfront. We have discussed this before and with the Department. The bottom line for this scheme is that it needs to be affordable for everybody. It should be ensured that people are not locked out of the scheme because they cannot afford to take it up. If even that could be done as quickly as possible, it would be good.

Of course, the owners of the homes that will need the maximum payable amount of €420,000 will lose out. They will not have any of these costs, namely the €15,000 for accommodation or the €5,000 for storage, because they will already have reached the maximum payable amount. Is that not the case?

Mr. Michael McGarvey

Yes. We must work within the scheme. Where people are able to demonstrate these costs early on, they can recover them. It is obviously a cashflow issue for them. Under the current scheme, these costs are deducted from the €420,000 payment made to the people involved at the end. It does mean that they could still avail of it earlier when they incur those costs.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

The council has departmental approval for that at this point in terms of what it is trying to do.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

Even people whose costs reach €350,000, or €420,000 if they incur storage or accommodation costs, and who are able to provide the required evidence needed can get that paid. For those who are at the threshold of €420,000, that would be deducted.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Okay, but that is all within the context of the €420,000.

Mr. Michael McGarvey

Yes.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

It is not in addition to it, because these are the parameters of the scheme. That is fine. Turning to the number of co-ordinators in County Mayo, was it stated that there are two co-ordinators in place?

Mr. Kevin Kelly

Technically, there is only one now. One position is vacant. In talking with the team, it is clear that we do need more people to work with Ms Gleeson on the processing of this scheme. We are going to put an additional resource in place there. Consideration is being given to whether one or two facilitators are needed now. There is no issue in terms of the resources. It has worked effectively.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

This needs to be done urgently. I commend Ms Gleeson for all the work she has done. Single-handedly, she has done her very best to help every impacted homeowner in County Mayo. I commend her for this. We cannot, though, get away from the fact that we are working to standards that are not fit for purpose, which is an aspect of deep concern for me and for all the homeowners too. I do not think, though, that we are going to get the answers to this here today.

Turning to Ms Larkin, when did the NSAI first become aware of the issue of pyrrhotite?

Ms Geraldine Larkin

I am sorry. I heard the Deputy's question, and I will refer the query to my colleagues in terms of the actual operations of the working group. Certainly, it was coming forward from the original IS 465 standard.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I have documentation dating back to 2003 and 2005, when concerns about pyrrhotite were raised. What I am really trying to get my head around is why it was decided in IS 465 that pyrite was in County Mayo and mica was in County Donegal. Who is Ms Larkin handing over to?

Ms Geraldine Larkin

I will defer to Dr. Murphy.

Dr. Ken Murphy

Which question would the Deputy like me to address first?

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Why did IS 465 not ask for the testing of pyrrhotite? Why was there a test for mica and pyrite?

Dr. Ken Murphy

I suppose the original standard did set out the two types of deleterious materials. That was primarily based on the information given in the report of the expert panel. As was alluded to earlier, the testing and sampling that was carried out to support the original scheme did start to identify other deleterious materials, principally the pyrrhotite. That came to the attention of the TC63 working group in the summer of 2002, approximately.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

It was as far back as 2002.

Dr. Ken Murphy

Yes. That was when we were initially made aware as the scheme reports were coming into us. I am sorry. It was 2022. My apologies.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

It was 2022. In terms of the European standards, and their transposition, was pyrrhotite referred to in them?

Dr. Ken Murphy

It is referred to in aggregate product standards.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

So it was? We were aware of it at that time.

Dr. Ken Murphy

It is a known deleterious material, because, as the Deputy pointed out, it is in the European standard for aggregates.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Why was it not included then? Who decided that it would not be included?

Dr. Ken Murphy

It would not originally have been identified as a deleterious material within the blocks that were primarily based in County Donegal.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin took the Chair.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I am sorry. Who decided that it was not identified?

Dr. Ken Murphy

No, it was not identified through the original testing that was done. This was how it happened. It was a case of any person having made a decision. It was just based on the testing that was provided.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Who undertook that testing?

Dr. Ken Murphy

Testing was carried out by several organisations to inform the original standard. This would have been where the test data would have identified the pyrite and the mica.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I am sorry. I am just confused in this regard. I will tell Dr. Murphy why. In 2002, EN 12620 had a special precaution for pyrrhotite, an unstable iron sulphide mineral. If the mineral is known to be present, then a maximum sulphur content of 0.1% shall apply. I wonder why this was not a red flag in terms of who made the decision around just testing for pyrite.

Dr. Ken Murphy

As I outlined originally, the guidance would have been based on the expert panel report and also the initial sample of tests carried out and the reports that were provided to the committee in drafting the original IS 465 standard. What the Deputy is referring to there is testing for aggregate-----

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Yes.

Dr. Ken Murphy

-----which did not come under and is not under the remit of IS 465.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Does Dr. Murphy now think it was too narrow in the first instance?

Dr. Ken Murphy

The original standard did what it was designed to do in that it helped to identify deleterious materials over and above what was originally identified or perceived to be the key issues and defective minerals within the material.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

In July 2022, almost two years ago now, Dr. Andreas Leemann, a recognised international expert on concrete products, testified before this committee on his findings on testing of blocks. He talked about iron sulphate attacks and pyrrhotite as being the dominant cause. I would have put those questions to the witnesses at that time. Can the National Standards Authority of Ireland confirm that it is aware of that evidence having been given in July 2022 to this housing committee by an international expert on the matter?

Mr. Ken Murphy

Yes, we would be aware of that.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

In July of last year, Engineers Ireland presented to this committee and outlined the view of some, I would argue of most, engineers on the ground that what they were seeing did not tally with just limiting their testing to looking for mica. They felt the standard was not fit for purpose. That was almost a year ago. Is the National Standards Authority of Ireland aware of that? In fact Ms Larkin and Mr. Murphy were present, but do they recall that evidence?

Mr. Ken Murphy

Yes, I am aware of that.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

The NSAI was asked in November 2021 to review what was a desktop study. Be mindful that right now, families are being asked to remove the outer leaf of their homes and leave internal leaves intact that potentially contain defective products. They are being asked not to test their foundations, based on the desktop study. Taxpayers who are not affected at all are being asked to put forward their money based on a desktop study. Is that an acceptable state of affairs?

Mr. Ken Murphy

The testing that is under way in respect of the foundations will be very informative in understanding what is required in respect of foundations.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Do you think it is acceptable that we are now two and a half years on from the Minister asking the National Standards Authority of Ireland to review this? We have testimony from an international expert based on actual laboratory tests carried out. We have a number of submissions made of research and still the National Standards Authority of Ireland as we speak here today tells us that when it factors in public consultation, we are talking about midway through 2025 before it can make recommendations for change. Is that acceptable?

Mr. Ken Murphy

We are taking on board the research that is coming forward as the Deputy outlined. Dr. Leemann is involved in one of those research projects. That research has been very informative. We still need to understand the long-term implications of what he has detected and put forward with respect to internal sulphate attack. That is critical to providing a comprehensive and robust standard. It will take that time.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

When he was asked on Highland Radio, the chief executive of Donegal County Council said it was his professional opinion that one would have to remove the foundations from a house. We have Engineers Ireland talking about their engineers understandably taking a conservative approach when they do not trust the standard. Engineers Ireland today are asking the Housing Agency engineers to use a higher threshold when they are assessing, or a conservative threshold, to refer to a previous contribution. I am layperson; I am just listening to these experts. Does Mr. Murphy not find it really alarming that all this range of experts, qualified engineers, are advising that we should not be saying to people to build on existing foundations if we have not tested them? We should not be overruling engineers who are taking an understandably conservative approach when they do not trust the standard. Does Mr. Murphy understand the dilemma we have here?

Mr. Ken Murphy

I understand. With respect to overruling other engineers' judgments, I cannot comment on that. We provide the guidance and the standard. How it is applied is up to the professionals who are applying it.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I am from the Inishowen Peninsula, from Buncrana. It is literally the epicentre of what is called a slow-moving earthquake. In my age cohort, for pretty much all of my friends and family, it has utterly devastated their lives. They are lay people like me. Of the engineers who are trained up and are now representing families, I cannot think of one who believes in the current standard. I repeat that the current standard is underpinning a multi-billion euro redress scheme. As we speak, tens of millions of euro will be spent again and again. I asked the Minister in early 2022, and I was not the only TD who asked the question, if it was prudent to pursue a scheme based on a standard that we knew at that stage not to be fit for purpose. Here we are two years later and we literally have a standard that no professional would say they believe in or would ask any homeowner to implement. What are we doing here? I find today's committee meeting and the previous two deeply troubling. I am a layperson but I am listening to qualified engineers who are saying they would not recommend anything other than demolition under this standard right now. They are not indemnified. However, the engineers who are indemnified and working for the Housing Agency will recommend something else because they have to implement the letter of the law. Again I will ask Mr. Murphy what is his sense of the situation and how he feels from the NSAI perspective? Does he feel the Government could have resourced the NSAI better to make speedier decisions on this?

Ms Geraldine Larkin

Deputy, apologies, I was trying to come in for a little while. I am equally a layperson in this respect. However, I am also very mindful of the task that NSAI has, which is to provide certainty to homeowners in terms of longevity, what might happen to foundations, what might happen to homes and walls. We cannot do that without the findings of the research. We have taken all of the expert advice, our own committee members who are experts. Those committees are made up of all the stakeholders. They have had a contribution into shaping the research that is being conducted by GSI and others, such that we can bring that scientific knowledge to bear and bring about certainty. While I know the Deputy talks about the first version of IS 465 being a desktop study, it did identify the deleterious materials. Now what we are trying to do is progress the knowledge that we had within the first version of IS 465. We are going to go forward immediately with the information we have to hand in terms of the testing protocol, as quickly as the research becomes available, to give certainty to homeowners. From an NSAI perspective, we have to make sure that the scientific evidence supports the decisions that are to be made. It is a very difficult position for us. Obviously we would like to be able to provide a scientific answer much faster but we are not there yet. We are getting indications but we have to be sure that when we bring the research to the technical committees, they can reach decisions on it and do so categorically. I appreciate that it is incredibly frustrating for the homeowners listening today that the NSAI cannot give that answer today.

From our perspective we are looking to push the science to give a full answer and not incur any risk to the homeowner, but this does take time.

Ms Áine Stapleton

I am conscious that Senator Boyhan directed a question to the Department earlier about the work of TC73, the technical committee. My colleague Mr. Wickham chairs this and perhaps he wants to add something to the general discussion with regard to the work of the committee.

Mr. John Wickham

In terms of the commitment the Department has with regard to pursuing the research on these unknowns that will lead to technical advancement for the standard, it is making good progress. We hope we will have more information available shortly. Dr. Leemann's research findings will be supplemented by findings from other organisations and individuals. These will help to inform the decisions. We hope these will be coming shortly with respect to foundations.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

I have a small number of questions and then there will be a final slot for Deputy Mac Lochlainn, after which we will conclude.

Ms Stapleton said section 45, which indemnifies any public professional working on the scheme, could not be commenced. Are there other sections of the 2022 Act that have not been commenced for similar reasons or is this the only one?

Ms Áine Stapleton

I will double-check with my colleagues but it is the only one I am aware of that has this problem with regard to the interpretation of the provision itself.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

Has any other section of the Act not yet been commenced?

Mr. Derek Rafferty

No.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

The entirety of the Act has been commenced bar section 45. In plain English will the departmental officials explain for the benefit of the committee what the interpretation problem is?

Ms Áine Stapleton

For clarity, the reference is to section 45(2)(d).

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

Perfect.

Ms Áine Stapleton

The advice is that the wording of the section is open to a number of different interpretations because the cross-referencing seems to be incorrect.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

This is with regard to who could be indemnified under what circumstances and something could be open to-----

Ms Áine Stapleton

It is unclear about the scope of the section. There is a lack of precision with regard to the wording of the subsection as I understand it.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

When Ms Stapleton says "scope", is this the scope of the persons covered by the indemnification or the works they have carried out?

Ms Áine Stapleton

My understanding is that it may cast doubt on both.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

Is there any plan to bring forward amending legislation on this before the summer recess? I presume not.

Ms Áine Stapleton

We have no plan in place but we will reflect on it. We have been engaging with Engineers Ireland on this issue.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

With a note to the Minister and senior officials not to rush legislation.

Mr. John Garrett

The Regulation, Risk and Conveyancing in Irish Defective Concrete study carried out by Petrolab concludes there is now a necessity to formulate a long-term testing regime for properties not currently displaying damage which are to be bought and sold in the conveyancing market and which were themselves constructed between 1990 and 2020. The testing regime used for the conveyancing market needs to provide certainty to buyers and lenders that their purchase is safe and give homeowners more clarity on how they can sell or, if necessary, remediate their property. The testing regime needs to account for the fact that almost one third of properties tested so far have been built from more than one concrete type. Where variations occur, they are often between inner leaf, outer leaf and below the DPC.

As well as this there should be more training for those providing the service of prepurchase property inspection reports so they are able to consider circumstantial evidence, recognise the pattern of cracking associated with concrete blocks containing excessive deleterious material, and be aware that small cracks can signal the early stages of damage.

This week, from today until 17 May, an international conference on iron sulphide reactions in concrete is taking place in Université Laval in Quebec City, Canada. I am aware that Petrolab will be making three presentations at it. These are on pyrite and pyrrhotite in concrete blocks and petrographic observations from south-west England and north-west Ireland; framboidal pyrite in concrete block and reassessing EN 12620 in light of the degradation observed across the Republic of Ireland; and high-risk architectural concrete masonry units in County Donegal and insights from the mass IS 465 dataset macroscopic quantification of pyrrhotite risk and the petrographic atlas. There will be an awful lot of information at this conference. I am sure there will be several other contributors to it. Perhaps it will add to the education of all parties.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

I thank Mr. Garrett. I want to pick up a point made by Mr. Espey earlier. Am I correct that he said four out of five of the decisions made by the Housing Agency are either in line with or an improved option, if I can use that phrase, on the initial reports?

Mr. Peadar Espey

That is right.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

This means one in five is not. In plain English, or in non-engineer speak, will Mr. Espey explain to us what is the problem with the one in five? Is there is a discrepancy between what the industry standard allows for and what the engineer recommended? In plain English will Mr. Espey explain what this conflict is about?

Mr. Peadar Espey

It can be across a variety of reasons and Mr. Garrett has just touched on it with regard to Petrolab. In some of the dwellings there can be different types of concrete blocks. There can be a different type of concrete block below ground compared with the outer leaf and inner leaf. Therefore there are different levels of damage or low levels of damage, and there are different levels of deleterious material. There is a variety of information. Our chartered engineers assess this in bulk in various project groups. We might have 20 or 25 reports and we are assessing them. We see patterns and standardisation across them and in the backdrop we are applying the IS 465 standard.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

Is it Mr. Espey's view that when the interim guidelines or the revised standard is produced, we should see a significant reduction in these conflicts? Should this be addressed in the main?

Mr. Peadar Espey

It is hoped it will address it.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

With regard to the NSAI and interim guidelines versus the final revised standard, is there hope that some interim guidelines could be made available earlier which might reduce the number of the decisions we have just been speaking about? What is the timeline for this? It is just so that we are clear.

Ms Geraldine Larkin

The intention is that we will go to public consultation, most likely in the third quarter of the year. Depending on the number of comments and observations we get on the text, we hope to be able to close it out shortly thereafter. The one caveat I will make to this is that if at any point along the process there were to be significant changes in the research coming through to us which would cause us to pivot towards a full substantial amendment, we would consider it. We are at all times trying to ensure we balance the interest of time on the one hand against bringing about the most comprehensive as possible next edition of IS 465.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

I thank Ms Larkin. To go back to Mr. Espey, what happens to the one in five applications? Does the Housing Agency recommend a different remediation option but it is left to the homeowners to decide whether they want to proceed with it, given they have two separate sets of engineers' recommendations?

Mr. Peadar Espey

Under the legislation the homeowner has an avenue to appeal the decision. The homeowner could also not proceed.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

Do we know how many of these have gone to appeal, have been lost on appeal, or where the homeowner is not proceeding or has indicated they are not proceeding? Is there a growing number with regard to the previous scheme?

Mr. Peadar Espey

I will pass this over to the Department.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

About half of the 40 appeals received so far are appealing the remediation option. The appeals panel is about to convene for the first time later this week.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

So no appeals have been heard to date.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

No appeals have been heard yet.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

So we have no sense of whether there is a potentially growing number of applicants who are unsatisfied with what has been recommended for them and are not willing to proceed on that basis. We do not know that number at this point.

Mr. Peadar Espey

Correct.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

Does anybody think we should know that number or if it would be worthwhile trying to quantify that?

Mr. Peadar Espey

It is due to timelines too. From a remediation option determination, a homeowner has 90 days to appeal, so it is hard to quantify specifically.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

Am I right that there was to be a review of the scheme in the Department a year on from it being opened? I remember when we had the hearings last year, in and around the time of the scheme being opened, there was talk of a one-year review.

Ms Áine Stapleton

There are a few requirements under the Act. There is a requirement for a three-year review and a requirement for a review within three months of the NSAI having revised the standard. Separately, there is an annual review of the cost. We have asked the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, SCSI, to present a report to us, which we have received and which will now go to the expert panel for a review of costs in light of cost inflation. That is ongoing.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

When do the witnesses expect that process of the cost review to be completed?

Mr. Derek Rafferty

Later in the summer.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

Am I incorrect in saying there was to be an internal review within the Department one year into the scheme to see how it was operating, separate to the cost review? If I remember correctly, when we were doing the legislation, we were saying there could be a review of the scheme at least within three years, but it could be done earlier. There seemed to be an indication that there would be one within the first 12 months.

Ms Áine Stapleton

I will just double-check with my colleague.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

I think what the Deputy is referring to is that the Minister had asked us to review the progress and the first six months of the operation of the scheme. He set up an implementation steering group to do that, chaired by me from the Department, with representatives from the four designated local authorities, the Housing Agency and the homeowner representative liaison officer, John O'Connor. The group produced that report in February this year and submitted it to the Minister.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

It has not been published yet, has it?

Mr. Derek Rafferty

No.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

But it is with the Minister.

Mr. Derek Rafferty

The Minister has noted the contents.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

I thank the witnesses.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Will the NSAI clarify what sampling and laboratory analysis was carried out in developing the existing standard, IS 465?

Dr. Ken Murphy

A number of test reports were provided for the original IS 465 standard. I think chemistry testing and compressive strength testing were the principal tests carried out, from what I understand.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Was any sampling or lab testing done for pyrrhotite or internal sulphate attack as part of the development of that standard?

Dr. Ken Murphy

Not for internal sulphate attack. In some cases, hydrographic analysis might have been done, but I do not think identification or reports of internal sulphate attack were included in those test reports.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Even though this was subject to European law, that was not considered as part of the development of the existing standard.

Dr. Ken Murphy

As I may have mentioned previously, the focus would have been on pyrite and mica, which were identified as the principal issues at the time.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

What has been said to me by experts, because this is particularly relevant to Donegal, is that what is happening in Donegal is that our homeowners have been diagnosed with the wrong cancer. I am sorry to use that phrase. Because they are being diagnosed with the wrong cancer, they have the wrong prognosis and the wrong cure. Is that an acceptable statement to make? If the emerging evidence is that it is not actually mica but pyrrhotite and internal sulphate attack, is it fair to say these homes have been diagnosed with the wrong cancer?

Dr. Ken Murphy

I can understand the sentiment.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I thank Dr. Murphy. That is the view.

Ms Geraldine Larkin

The Deputy is right. Its origin had a different focus. Nonetheless, the test as structured identified that there were other deleterious materials coming forward. While the test started from a different perspective, it identified those matters. The purpose of the current amendment to the text is to simplify that matter so that we take into account the experiences and go straight to a more direct means of that test.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

The emerging evidence is that the deleterious material, or the cancer, that is causing what is happening to homes in Donegal is not actually mica but pyrrhotite and internal sulphate attack. Is that fair to say?

Ms Geraldine Larkin

The test that is being proposed as part of the amended version of IS 465 reflects the more recent findings and is being revised to identify that in a more straightforward and faster manner to make it easier for homeowners.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Last year, the NSAI said it would consider an interim recommendation if it was deemed necessary. As the witnesses know, since the legislation was drafted for the enhanced defective concrete blocks scheme and it was finally rushed through the Houses in July 2022, homeowners have repeatedly asked about this. Why have the foundations not been tested? Why has there not been an interim recommendation as a point of caution, where the foundations are at least tested? As the witnesses know, there were major schemes across North America where there was pyrrhotite in foundations. Those foundations had to be replaced. Why is there not a recommendation to at least test the foundations and give people peace of mind?

Ms Geraldine Larkin

I would say to the Deputy that, at the moment, we do not have the answer about what the impact might be if deleterious materials are found in foundations. That is the issue I understand the research is actively working on at the moment, to look at what accelerated ageing might mean.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

All the representatives of the NSAI here today will know that we are in a serious situation, as identified by Engineers Ireland for a second time before this committee. There is a significant dilemma. It is deeply unfair, mostly to the homeowners but also to engineers to compete with and contradict each other based on a standard that none of them have confidence in. I leave that as stated. It has to be accepted by everybody that that is a terrible state of affairs, but particularly for homeowners.

My final questions are to the Department of housing. Would the witnesses agree that ideally there would be a scheme that would prioritise the worst homes to be remediated first?

Ms Áine Stapleton

My understanding is there is a prioritisation in the process the Housing Agency has put in place and the intention is to focus on those most in need of assistance first.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

Is that happening, in Ms Stapleton's view?

Ms Áine Stapleton

That is my understanding.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

How can that be Ms Stapleton's understanding? I am just giving her absolute, clear feedback from my own county that there is a large number of homeowners in their sixties and seventies. I invited her colleague, Mr. Derek Rafferty. There are facilitators who work at the coalface for the Inishowen Development Partnership. They work for Donegal Local Development Company. Their job is to assist homeowners to make the applications and that is very welcome. There is not enough of them. There needs to be more. They tell us there are homeowners in their fifties, sixties and seventies who cannot access tens of thousands of euro, even though their houses are worse, and they cannot avail of the scheme. That is not prioritisation. It is prioritisation of those who can access tens of thousands of euro. Is that fair?

Ms Áine Stapleton

We have been listening to the issues homeowners have raised with us. I fully accept there are challenges around this. We have been working with them in terms of some flexibilities that we can bring, particularly around the upfront payment of items such as professional fees, that do not infringe on some of the core requirements of the grant. We are subject to some of the restrictions of the requirements of the grant not being paid in advance. We have some flexibilities. As Mr. Michael McGarvey from Donegal said as well, we are looking at some of those ancillary payments and how we might be able to improve the early payment of those. We are very aware there are challenges there and we are looking, within the parameters of the scheme, to bring as much flexibility as possible to help those people access the scheme.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

I am going to give the Deputy a final question.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

This is my final question and it is for everybody. Do the witnesses know of anybody who is in their late fifties, sixties or seventies who would be loaned anything between €50,000 and €150,000 by any financial institution in the State? Is anybody aware of a financial institution that would be in a position to lend such an amount to people of that age?

Ms Áine Stapleton

This is a particular challenge. We fully understand that. We have been listening to what the homeowners have been saying. We have raised with the BPFI whether it could look at some of the issues around provision of working capital to contractors and suppliers, so that they might be able to work through the retail banks to make that capital available and that the work can get under way. The BPFI said it will certainly look at that. We are looking at ways of trying to bring more support to the homeowners. It is a challenging issue but we are certainly open to looking at ways of trying to improve it, and working with our partners such as BPFI to see if there is any more scope to bring flexibility.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Eoin Ó Broin)

No doubt these are issues we will return to both in this committee and indeed, for that last issue, in the finance committee. I thank all of the witnesses for their attendance and their patience in answering our questions. We genuinely appreciate it.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.33 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 21 May 2024.