Vol. 310 No. 3
(Cavan-Monaghan) asked the Minister for the Environment if he has sought a report from the National Building Agency on the failure of roof trusses in section 2 of the Finglas South housing scheme, Dublin; if so, if he will give particulars of the information received; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
17.
(Cavan-Monaghan) asked the Minister for the Environment if, in order to alleviate the fears of those living in section 2 of the Finglas South housing scheme, Dublin, in which there have been roofing defects, and those living in similar houses, he will have the houses inspected by independent consultants and get a report from them.
18.
(Cavan-Monaghan) asked the Minister for the Environment if the faults in section 2 of the Finglas South housing scheme, Dublin houses are due to the improper erection of timber roof trusses; and, if so, if these faulty trusses had any effect on the roof-covering materials.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 to 18 inclusive, together.
While this matter is one which concerns Dublin Corporation, who ordered and let the houses, the National Building Agency who organised their construction and the contractor who built them, I have kept in constant touch with developments regarding the investigations into the problems affecting the roof trusses in these houses.
I have received a copy of the final report of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, who were commissioned by the agency, in consultation with Dublin Corporation, to examine the houses, determine the causes of the roof movements and assess the adequacy of the remedial measures proposed by a firm of structural engineering consultants who had been specifically engaged by the agency. The institute consulted an expert from the British Building Research Station during the course of their investigations.
The investigations revealed that serious defects in the roofs of the houses at Finglas South, section 2, were confined to three house blocks, comprising 18 houses in all and that the remaining 328 dwelling were affected to a minor degree only. The report of the institute concluded "that the principal cause of the progressive roof movements encountered on site was the out-of-plumb of trusses as built". The report indicated that in 94 per cent of the dwellings, the movement of roof trusses did not exceed two inches. Copies of the report have been available in the Oireachtas Library since 16 November 1978.
The contractors for the scheme have been instructed by the National Building Agency to carry out the remedial works recommended by the structural engineering consultants and approved by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. This is a matter to be dealt with by the parties to the contract—the contractors, and the agency acting on behalf of the corporation. In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on that aspect of the matter.
I am satisfied from the investigations carried out and the remedial measures proposed by the specialist personnel that all necessary steps are being taken to remedy the defects in these houses and that the occupants have no cause for concern in regard to the structural stability of their houses.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Would the Minister not consider it advisable or indeed necessary to get a report from independent consultants rather than have these defects checked by people who were involved in the building of the houses?
I believe that the report is a factual one and it is now a matter to be dealt with by the parties to the contract, namely the contractor and the agency acting on behalf of the corporation.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Surely the money for the building of these houses was provided by the Minister's Department? Because of that the Minister should have an investigation carried out by independent consultants. Does he not agree that that would be a normal proposal?
The contractors for the scheme have been instructed by the National Building Agency to carry out the remedial works recommended by the structural engineering consultants and approved by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. The IIRS are a capable and competent organisation well able to assess a situation such as this.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I suggest that this whole business is a national scandal and the Minister should have a public inquiry into it.
Does the Deputy wish to ask a question?
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am asking a question.
The Deputy is making a speech.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not making a speech. I am asking the Minister of State if he will treat this as what it is, a national scandal, and have a public inquiry into the cause of the defects on these houses and also into many other houses in the same category.
Deputy Keating wishes to ask a question.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Let the Minister answer.
This is a matter to be dealt with by the parties to the contract—the contractors and the agency acting on behalf of the corporation. In the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on that aspect of the matter.
(Cavan-Monaghan): These were cheap houses built under the direction of the Minister for the Environment and I suggest that he should discharge his responsibility and see whether he got value for money.
Question No. 19.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Will he hold a public inquiry into it?
May I ask the Minister of State if he is aware that these houses were built in 1972 under what was then known as a low-cost housing scheme? If he is so aware does he accept now that the application of that standard to local authority housing is totally unacceptable and the cost is very substantial? Does he know that these low standards applied at that time and will he give a guarantee that they will never again be applied either for local authority tenants or any other kind of tenant? Secondly, who is going to pay for this major remedial work?
In reply to the first supplementary question from the Deputy, the position is that the standard of local authority housing has been improved substantially in recent years.
Will there ever be a reversion to this standard?
That is not a relevant question.
Will there ever again be a reversion to the lower standards which caused these problems?
I cannot say that these defects occurred directly——
Deputy Mitchell wishes to ask a question.
Who is paying for all the repairs? Is it the taxpayer or the ratepayer?
Or McInerneys?
Or McInerneys?
Quite recently, on Monday, 20 November, the agency's legal adviser wrote to the solicitors acting for the contractors instructing them to carry out the remedial works in accordance with the terms of the contract. This work will include whatever is necessary to rectify any impairment in the performance of the roof cladding due to the roof movements.
So McInerneys are paying for this.
Deputy Mitchell.
May I ask the Minister if McInerneys are going to pay the cost? A simple affirmative will do.
The Deputy should put down a separate question.
It is very relevant.
We are carrying on for a long time with this question. I am not going to permit any further questioning of the Minister of State in repetition or argument. Deputy Mitchell.
If the Minister would answer the first time there would be no problem.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Will the Minister have the houses inspected by an independent consultant?
The Deputy has asked that question three times. I am not permitting it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I did not ask the question three times. The Chair will not listen to me. I did not ask it before. I hope that the Chair——
I am not permitting the Deputy to continue in that strain.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I ask the Chair to listen to me.
The Chair is asking the Deputy to resume his seat.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am entitled to ask——
The Deputy has asked four questions——
They have not been answered at all. I asked who is paying the price.
(Cavan-Monaghan): There is far too much of this protection of Ministers.
That is an insinuation against the Chair. The Chair is permitting numerous answers and is being abused. I am going to be much stricter regarding Deputies' questioning.
(Cavan-Monaghan): There are three questions being taken together and I am asking the Chair——
I am not permitting the Deputy to continue in that strain.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am respectfully asking the Chair to do me the courtesy of hearing my question and he can then adjudicate upon it. I am asking the Minister of State if, when he is informed that the work requested has been done, he will have the houses inspected at that stage by an independent consultant to ensure that the contract has been complied with?
I can examine the Deputy's suggestion, but the position is that the contractors for the scheme have been instructed by the National Building Agency to carry out the remedial work recommended by the structural engineering consultants and approved by the IIRS. This is a matter to be dealt with by the parties to the contract—and there is a contract—who are the contractors and the agency acting on behalf of the corporation. In the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on that aspect of the matter.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am suggesting to the Minister——
Deputy Mitchell.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am suggesting to the Minister that the person who should see that the work is carried out satisfactorily is the man who pays the money.
I would suggest to Deputy Fitzpatrick that when he gets up to make suggestions to the Minister he is not complying with the rules. The Deputy may not get up to make suggestions.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is a recognised way of asking a question.
The Chair is the judge of that.
I would like more light to be thrown on this subject. Further arising out of the Minister's last reply, he says that it is a matter for the parties to the contract to see that work is carried out satisfactorily. Is the Minister not aware that the National Building Agency's role in this whole matter is disgraceful as it was in the Lakelands issue? Does it not give rise to the question as to whether or not in the NBA somebody's head should roll, if indeed the NBA itself should not roll because it approved the houses completed by McInerney? Will the Minister not agree that there is something radically wrong in the NBA? Who is going to pay for the cost of these repairs?
The position is, as I stated before on a few occasions, that this is a matter to be dealt with now by the parties to the contract, the contractors and the agency acting on behalf of the corporation. In the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to make any comment on that aspect of the matter. I also stated before that the agency's legal advisers wrote to the solicitors acting for the contractors instructing them to carry out the remedial work in accordance with the terms of the contract.
(Cavan-Monaghan): If they do not what will the Minister do?
There is a limit to the time that can be allotted to any question irrespective of what it concerns.
(Cavan-Monaghan): There is a limit to the taxpayers' money.
Would the Minister not concede that there is something radically wrong in the NBA?
I am calling the next question. We cannot have this interminable discussion.
