Deputy Browne received permission to raise on the adjournment the subject matter of a question of his, No. 16 of 9 May 1978 asking the Minister for the Environment if he will conduct a public inquiry into the state of houses constructed by the National Building Agency in the South Finglas area of Dublin.
Adjournment Debate: Finglas South (Dublin) Houses
The condition of about 2,000 houses in South Finglas at first glance appears to have many of the components of quite a serious scandal, because many families are living in houses which are clearly defective to varying degrees. The main defects in those houses are structural faults, cracks in the exterior and interior walls. In 18 of the houses there are major defects in the roofs as they have almost slid off. The possibility of this happening one's house is dreadful to think of, but this is apparently what very nearly happened in some of the houses. The movement of the roof has been so significant that people have been afraid that this could happen. They have no reason to think that it might not happen. There has also been widespread dampness in the houses, flooding, lack of fireplaces for instance, and there are electrical faults. The extraordinary thing about these houses is that they were built by three leading builders who would be called in Ibsen's terms "pillars of society", the McInerneys, the Sisk's and the Crampton's who are well known for the amount of building they have done over the years. They are not small builders but are well established, extremely wealthy people with an enormous hinterland of expertise and building capacity behind them.
The strange thing is that the position in regard to these unfortunate people living in these houses is that this has gone on over a number of years. Deputy Keating, Deputy Quinn and Deputy Fitzpatrick and myself asked the Minister as far back as last May what he proposed to do about this and in Volume 306, Column 519, of the Official Report dated 9 May 1978 the Minister replied:
I expect to receive a full report within the next few weeks from the agency on the finding of the technical experts and on their detailed evaluation of the probable causes of the movement of the roof trusses and barges, following their inspection of all the houses in this section of the Finglas estate.
When the detailed findings of the technical experts have been submitted to me, I will have them evaluated by my own technical advisers. In the meantime I do not intend to conduct a public inquiry into the matter.
Most of us felt at that time that a public inquiry was merited by the seriousness of their obviously gerry-built houses which had been provided for Dublin Corporation tenants. The houses belong to the corporation but the National Building Agency was commissioned to build them. The National Building Agency simply contracted out to these three companies. The corporation's position now is, as we Deputies know, that we can go to the corporation and get defects such as dampness and so on in houses remedied. On this occasion the corporation says that they are not liable and that the responsibility rests with the NBA. Would the Minister of State let us know what is the position about responsibility in this matter? One wonders whether the corporation can completely wash their hands of responsibility in this sort of situation. The corporation have enormous experience of house building and the standards expected. How can they take what appears to be a Pontius Pilate approach to the thing and say that it is all the responsibility of the NBA. Is it the responsibility of the NBA? Before they accepted delivery of the houses should the corporation not have made sure that they measured up to the standards which they expect from anybody supplying them with houses in this sort of situation? The NBA took up the same position as the Minister when they said that they were waiting for a report from the IIRS. What is the truth of that situation? Did the NBA get a report? Did they submit it to the Minister and what are the contents of the report? Who will take responsibility?
There are many strange features in this case, the fact that a national building agency can take up such a cavalier approach to this whole thing, that they can provide this service of building houses, put them out to tender and then accept the finished houses, presumably having inspected them. Do they not inspect them and if not why not? Do they simply take the word of the McInerneys, the Sisks and the Cramptons, these three gerry builders —a charge that they must accept—that the houses are solid substantial and worth the money? What will the NBA do about these companies in this sort of situation? In some countries these people would be jailed, they would be treated as criminals for taking public money under false pretences. Will they go on building houses for people, for the various local authorities as they have done through the years? Are these major powers in society above the law? Can they do this sort of thing and get away with it? Why have the National Building Agency done nothing? Why have the corporation done nothing and why have these three major companies with enormous profits from house building stood aside since last May or before it and taken no remedial action? Do they feel they have no responsibility? Have they no responsibility? Are we completely helpless in this sort of situation, and can they do the same again? Have they done it again in other types of low cost building? Is Finglas South a current contemporary feature and will we get this type of thing throughout the various local authority building enterprises? What kind of supervision if any has there been arising out of this incident? Has the Minister taken any action to see whether the National Building Agency are a crowd of imcompetents who should not be there and who should be sacked? Has the Minister done anything to see that the names of McInerney, Sisk and Crampton are blacked?
The Chair feels at this stage that the Deputy can make his case very well without making very serious allegations against named firms who cannot come in here and defend themselves.
That is one of the problems of this place. The people outside have much more power than we have inside.
That may be so but it has always been the ruling of the House that serious allegations should not be made against private companies or individuals who have not the right to defend themselves within the House.
That is why they have continued to get away with it.
The Deputy can make a very good case without going into depth in that sort of thing.
This is a matter of extreme urgency. Something must be done because winter is approaching and these people who live in the 2,000 houses involved must put up with the varying degrees of defects in them. What is going to happen? Obviously, the people concerned cannot take McInerney, Crampton or Sisk to law. They cannot afford to go to the courts because of the way our courts are organised in our society. Only the wealthy can go to court.
The Deputy should not make charges against the courts and he is aware that that is completely out of order. The Deputy should make his case on the question.
The Minister is the only person with real power and I should like to know if it is his intention to exercise his responsibility by coming between the people and these very powerful and wealthy organisations in our society. Does he intend to take a stand on behalf of the people to see to it that the defects in the houses are put right? How can this be done? The corporation have said—I do not know if they have a right to say it—that they are not going to pay out the money. I understand that a considerable sum of money is involved, something in the region of £1 million or £2 million. Some people hold that these houses cannot be put right, that there is no way in which the basic defects in the more seriously defective houses can be remedied with the result that the only thing that can be done is to pull them down.
What does the Minister propose to do in those circumstances? It has been suggested that the builders be paid to repair the houses and that we, the taxpayers, either through rates or through taxes, should be made liable for any cost of such repair. It would be wrong if taxpayers were asked to provide the money to put these houses in good repair, if that is possible. The Minister should pay the corporation to carry out this work by direct labour and then take the responsibility of suing the companies, McInerney, Crampton and Sisk, to get the money back from them so that the taxpayer would not have to pay for their scandalously defective work in this sort of situation.
I understand that an attempt has been made to repair the houses by means of steel girders. That is something which the tenants, obviously, do not want. They are afraid of such work for reasons best known to themselves. Naturally, they are extremely frightened living in such houses. We saw the appalling tragedy in Skerries the other night where defects in the electrical wiring caused the death of young children. The people in these houses no longer have any faith in the three companies concerned. It would be better if the Minister took it upon himself to facilitate the corporation by providing them with the capital to see that the work is done by direct labour.
It is difficult for anybody to take seriously the likelihood that the work would be done competently if, in the first instance, so little of this kind of work was done with the result that the houses are as defective as they are at present. It is difficult to understand why they should be allowed to make more money available at the taxpayers' expense and still not give us a guarantee that the houses which are damp, have electrical defects and which, in certain cases, have roofs which are tending to slide off will be properly repaired. Will we get a guarantee that this will not happen again? The Minister has a responsibility to do something about this.
In May last the Minister told us that he would do something about this matter within a few weeks. What has the Minister done since? Is he not showing the same indifference to this tragedy? This is a tragedy because many of these people are mortgaged to the hilt, have hire-purchase commitments of one kind or another and not only can they not take McInerney, Crampton or sisk to court but they cannot afford to get these repairs done themselves. They want somebody else to do something for them. The NBA refused to do anything and Dublin Corporation have also refused. It appears that the builders are not doing anything. What has the only person with real power, the Minister, done? Why has he allowed the period since last May to pass without taking remedial action? It is fair to accuse the Minister of being indifferent, of being complacent and of showing contempt for the unfortunate people who live in these houses.
Because these people have such a standing in our community, have such authority and financial resources, surely it is a situation where a public inquiry should be held into what happened in the erection of these houses. Obviously, the findings of such an inquiry should be made available as should the findings of the inquiry of the IIRS be made available to Members. If such an inquiry was held we would be in a position to know what went wrong and what was defective. Was it bad design or bad workmanship? Was it simply the fact that the supervision was wrong and that these people were housed without any serious concern for their welfare? There is no community hall, health centre, post office, playgrounds or facilities such as shops in this estate. It is a small Irish town with only dwellinghouses and no concern for the community or social needs of the people. Is it not time that we gave more consideration to the serious dangers inherent in this kind of carelessness, about the way people are housed, the way people live, the way children grow up? Will the Minister hold a public inquiry into the situation in this estate?
In replies to Parliamentary Questions on this subject tabled by Deputy Browne, Deputy Keating and Deputy Quinn, and in relation to supplementaries raised by Deputies on this matter, I made it clear that the question of defects in the Finglas South Houses was one for settlement between the National Building Agency, which provided the houses, and Dublin Corporation, the principal who ordered the houses and let them to the tenants. In this context the matter of obtaining the best expert advice available to guide us in dealing with the rectification of the defects was decided between the agency and the corporation. My responsibility in the matter will arise when the report commissioned by the agency, on behalf of the corporation, becomes available. I will decide on the basis of their reports and on the advice of my technical advisers whether or not a public or other inquiry into the houses is warranted or necessary. I understand that the expert report commissioned by the agency is being typed and will be made available within the next few days, and in turn will be made available by the agency to the corporation. It will be a matter then for the city manager to decide how the report should be publicised.
As the question of responsibility for roof movements or other defects in the houses may well be the subject of arbitration or litigation between the contractor concerned and the agency it would be out of place for me to express any views on this aspect of the matter. However, I can say I have received categoric assurance from the agency that any remedial works found necessary to these houses will be carried out at no cost to Dublin Corporation, and that if compensation becomes payable to a tenant as a consequence of his furniture or other property being damaged as a result of remedial works, responsibility for the compensation will not fall on the corporation.
Or the taxpayer.
While the state of repair and structural stability of the houses was not raised in the Deputy's question and is not the responsibility of the Minister I should like to make it clear, especially for the peace of mind of the tenants concerned, that there is absolutely no danger to life or limb arising from the houses. Temporary measures to eliminate any such danger were taken immediately the roof defects were discovered following an inspection by maintenance personnel of the corporation. The best possible professional advice has been obtained in regard to the long-term remedial measures which should be taken. I can assure the Deputy and the House that these measures will be implemented.
I would particularly request the tenants concerned, in their own interests, to co-operate with and facilitate the contractors who will move in to carry out the necessary works. I am certain that, for their part, the contractors will keep the disturbance to tenants to a minimum.
For the record I should stress that the trouble regarding roofs in Finglas South is confined to section two of that scheme. I did not like the suggestion of Deputy Browne that other sections of the development are affected also, or his naming contractors whose work gave rise to no such problems. It is unfair that such fear should be instilled in the tenants of those houses.
The report, which will be available within a few days, has been prepared following a study carried out by the IIRS and other leading experts, probably the best experts available to us in the country. This report will be examined first by the corporation and the city manager then will be making recommendations on the matter to the corporation.
On a point of information in regard to an irrelevant matter mentioned by Deputy Browne I must state that there is no evidence whatsoever that the recent fire in houses in Skerries was due to defective electrical wiring. I am quite satisfied that the report, when submitted, will be carefully examined by the corporation, the necessary recommendations implemented and, with cooperation all round, there will be no undue hardship on anybody. I am particularly interested in this matter at Finglas South. I shall study this report very carefully also. As was stated in reply to the Parliamentary Questions tabled originally, the reports will be made available to everyone concerned.
Does that include the Dáil?
Yes, to Members interested. I should say that it is of no benefit to the situation that the Deputy should have mentioned certain building firms and contractors in relation to this scheme. We must await the outcome of the report, which will be published within a few days.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 November 1978.