Before getting into the detail of this discussion, I want to acknowledge the difficult and distressing situations faced by people throughout the country who, through no fault of their own, are living with the legacy of building failures, including dwellings affected by pyrite. In the case of pyrite, many home owners have been disowned by all of the main stakeholders, including materials suppliers, builders, developers, banks and insurance companies. I have seen at first hand homes affected by pyrite and the anguish and upset it has caused people. Indeed, in that instance, such was the stigma attaching to the issue that owners did not wish it to be known that their home was affected by pyrite. I am sure all of us here empathise with those home owners, but empathy and sympathy are not sufficient as a policy response. Action is required and it was against this background that I set up the independent pyrite panel in September 2011 to assist in finding a resolution to the pyrite problem for home owners. It may be convenient for some people to try to shift the blame for all the failures, including pyrite, onto the State and on a supposedly light touch regulatory system, but that would totally ignore the role and responsibilities of the main stakeholders involved in the delivery of so-called fit for purpose building projects.
A strong statutory framework for the regulation of construction activity exists under the Building Control Acts 1990 and 2007. The building regulations set out the legal requirements for the design and construction of buildings, including houses and extensions. Detailed technical guidance documents outline how these standards can be achieved in practice, and the responsibility for compliance rests primarily with developers and builders who engage professionals as required to ensure statutory requirements are met. From a regulatory perspective, there is much that can be done to improve compliance with, and oversight of, building regulations, and in July 2011, I announced a number of measures to enhance the building control system. Following a recent public consultation process, I am currently finalising the new building control regulations, which will be signed into law. These new regulations will provide for the introduction of mandatory certificates of compliance by builders and designers of buildings confirming that the statutory requirements of the building regulations have been met in respect of the building concerned. In addition, registered professionals will be required to inspect works during construction and also to certify that completed buildings are in compliance with the requirements of the building regulations.
Some people have made the point that while the regulations may have been comparable with the other jurisdictions, the lack of enforcement by building control authorities was a major contributory factor to the pyrite problem. However, the panel concluded that, on balance, it would not have been reasonable to expect that the unprecedented issue of pyrite in hardcore could have been identified by building control officers during normal inspections. Another issue which has given rise to some debate is the level of knowledge of pyrite in Ireland prior to 2007, and this is dealt with in the report. Having considered this issue, the panel concluded that there was limited knowledge of pyrite prior to 2007 and, in fact, cracking resulting from pyritic heave was initially misdiagnosed. The general view among engineering professionals is that there was very little knowledge of pyrite prior to 2007 and there was only passing reference to it in third level engineering courses.
A pyrite problem occurred in Canada in the late 1990s and is often quoted as being a reason there should have been an awareness of the pyrite problem in Ireland. However, the Canadian problem only came to light consequent to the manifestation of pyrite problems here. I have stated on many occasions in the past that I did not believe the State was responsible for the pyrite problem, and this position has been vindicated in the pyrite report where those stakeholders identified as having responsibility include quarries, material suppliers, builders, developers, vendors and relevant insurance companies.
However, while the State is not responsible for the pyrite problem or liable for the costs of remediating pyrite affected dwellings, I believe it has a role and a duty to assist home owners find a solution to the pyrite problem, and this was one of the key objectives in setting up the independent pyrite panel. Indeed, the pyrite report points to the important role for the State in ensuring that responsible parties engage constructively in processes to deliver solutions for affected home owners. I am conscious of the considerable period of time that many home owners have spent trying to get a resolution to pyrite problems without success. It is now imperative that this waiting is brought to an end and that a move is made quickly to provide solutions for home owners. This is my focus.
A sizeable number of dwellings have been and continue to be remediated under various processes, including by some responsible builders who are undertaking remediation works themselves under structural defects insurance and other types of insurance. I welcome this progress and believe it is the route that should be embraced by many other responsible stakeholders. However, it is not a sustainable viewpoint that the taxpayer should be made liable for the costs associated with the remediation of pyrite-damaged dwellings. The costs should fall to those responsible and I welcome the panel's clear view on this matter. The panel was unambiguous in its view that the parties with direct or indirect responsibility for the pyrite problem should face up to those responsibilities and provide solutions for home owners, and that the State is not responsible for the pyrite problem or liable for remediation costs.
