One of my constituents, Ms Caroline Keane of the Lusk Pyrite Action Group, has expressed concern that the categorisation of structures as red, amber and green will by its very nature require evidence of deterioration before remedial action is sanctioned. When this problem emerged in Quebec and Ontario in Canada in the 1970s and 1980s, detailed plans were rapidly developed following the collapse of a government in Quebec to implement a full-scale and systematic remediation programme instead of pursuing a legal and insurance model based on individual claims and proofs of structural damage. The Lusk group is concerned about the operation of these categories, given that pyritic damage to a building emerges over a period of up to four decades, particularly where the necessary barrier is not constructed in the floor infill before the concrete slabs are laid. The various estimates made by spokespersons yesterday, with 70,000 units as the highest figure, reflect the concerns that people have expressed. I ask the Minister to clarify that issue.
Pyrite Resolution Bill 2013 [Seanad]: Committee and Remaining Stages
I ask that care be taken to ensure the categorisation scheme is consistent and is managed by highly qualified experts, because there is disagreement in certain places about the extent of pyritic damage. The problem needs to be properly assessed. I am concerned that properties assigned to the second category will be left on the long finger because funding will be prioritised to repair the most serious damage.
In regard to section 4(b), those who paid considerable sums, amounting to thousands of euro in many cases, on tests to confirm the presence of pyrite prior to the introduction of the new standards should not have to undergo any further testing under the scheme's criteria. I ask the Minister to clarify whether that will be the case. These people have spent a considerable amount of money and would be unnecessarily duplicating their efforts if they have found already that pyrite is present in their homes.
The cost of testing will be covered by the pyrite remediation board. I acknowledge that the Deputy was referring to a test that may already have been carried out, but if the test conforms with the conditions set down by the board, I am sure common sense will prevail. I am sure the chairman of the board would be satisfied that further expense would not be required. Costs in relation to testing are covered and, needless to say, the board will be frugal in deploying its funds. If the tests to which the Deputy referred are sufficient to prove that pyrite is present I am sure they will be taken into account.
Section 4 provides for the critical definition of "significant pyritic damage". The house must have suffered damage before it can be considered. In respect of a dwelling, significant pyritic damage means a damage condition rating of 1, with progression - if pyrite is evident it will progress quite quickly - or a damage condition rating of 2 established on foot of a building condition assessment carried out by a competent person in accordance with Irish Standard 398-1:2013. If a competent person believes after carrying out an assessment that pyrite is present, he or she will proceed to administer more expensive tests. All of those costs are covered. Significant pyritic damage also means hardcore classified by a competent person under Standard 398-1:2013 as susceptible to significant or limited expansion.
Those are the conditions attached with regard to what constitutes and is defined as "significant pyritic damage", which must be evident before an application for remediation under this scheme qualifies.
The building assessment is carried out by a competent person. Obviously, that will show clearly whether pyrite is evident, and one then goes on to the more detailed testing that must prove the presence of pyrite in its own right. All of the costs will be covered under the scheme.
It was my understanding - perhaps the Minister will make it clear - that the costs are covered if the level of pyrite evident is above the threshold set. Will the costs be covered if there is pyrite in evidence at all?
If the building condition assessment proves that there is pyrite there, it will be covered.
Of any degree.
Yes. The Pyrite Resolution Board is laying down the protocols and conditions attached to the building assessment.
The building condition assessment deals only with quantifying damage. A house must reach a certain level or threshold before it can go further in the scheme. The problem here is that there are home owners who have expended thousands of euro in demonstrating the presence of pyrite above levels that would be justified. Do they have to undertake another test to gain access to this scheme? Why would that be necessary? Do they have to get a rating of 2 on the building condition assessment even though they have already established that pyrite is there and have spent thousands of euro doing that?
Everybody has to do a building condition assessment and there are certain indicators laid down by the Pyrite Resolution Board which will show that they can go on to the next level of testing. If Deputy Clare Daly's suggestion is that home owners already have a test done, we can take that into account. If the Pyrite Resolution Board is satisfied that such a test shows definitively that pyrite is present, that should cover it.
Deputy Broughan's amendment is out of order.
Given that there is a reference in the amendment to the invigilation of quarries and that one of the most important recommendations in the report of the pyrite panel is recommendation 16, requirements for quarries supplying hardcore - a detailed recommendation - and given that we are dealing with damage caused to homes through invested hardcore, surely it should be incumbent on the Minister to include some reference to the invigilation of quarries in the Bill, not merely to have these other regulations which he makes by statutory instrument.
The Ceann Comhairle ruled that it is not relevant to the provisions of the Bill.
Unfortunately, it is absolutely relevant.
Deputy Broughan's amendment proposes the making of regulations for the periodic inspection of quarries to determine the presence of pyrite and related matters. The ruling is that it is not relevant to the provisions of the Bill.
Before the Leas-Cheann Comhairle puts the question, I merely want to ask why some of the amendments have been ruled out of order. In the past, we have been told such amendments involve a cost to the Exchequer, etc. A number of amendments - Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 17 - are being discussed together.
We will come to those.
I merely want an explanation, because we are all not happy about the process and the way this has gone. The Bill is being rushed through. We want to get this through, but following a proper debate, because there are many issues that we all raised on the last occasion here in the Dáil. It is clear that this is going through, much like the previous Bill, the Water Services (No. 2) Bill. We are not getting enough time.
I can give the reasons each amendment is out of order but, at present, we are on section 5.
Two amendments are out of order - those in the names of Deputies Higgins and Broughan, respectively - due to a potential charge on the people.
This also goes to the heart of the Bill. I note that our colleague is trying to give the Leas-Cheann Comhairle good advice.
We can discuss the amendment when we come to the section, but if it is ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle - Deputy Broughan himself will be aware of the rules under Standing Orders - we do not discuss the amendment at this time.
On the section, as I outlined in my speech last night, it has been incumbent on the Minister, in the three years he has held office, to ensure that the construction sector and the allied insurance, financial and construction supply sectors all took direct responsibility for what had happened to these householders, and he should have found a mechanism. He told us repeatedly, through the pyrite panel process and all the consultations, that that was precisely what he would do. As I stated, he had it on the clár at this session that he would come forward with a levy on the sector.
This scandal of pyrite-damaged homes, as I also stated last night, is reminiscent of the scale of the scandal in the banking sector. It was incumbent on the Minister to face up to the powerful vested interests who seemed to be opposed to providing funding under this area rather than allowing it to become merely an Exchequer cost, as is now emerging.
I repeat my call on the Minister, who has backed away. It is a little like what the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, did with Mr. Trichet. I do not think Deputy Noonan even eyeballed him on banking. He says he did but I do not really think he did. He merely backed down and did what he was told. Unfortunately, the same is the case with this Minister. Deputy Hogan has allowed the powerful vested interest, represented in this House, unfortunately, by his own party and, in particular, Fianna Fáil, to tell this House what to do, and it is disgraceful.
The Minister indicated that there was opposition and that the Cabinet had sat down to discuss the levy and who would pay for it. We have received no explanation as to who was objecting to this levy and the legal reasons behind it. I do not know whether he is in a position to elaborate. Was it the insurance sector, the building sector or representatives of the quarries, or was it a combination of them all? I am still baffled as to where the problem lies and I would like to get some indication.
The courts have adjudicated that the legal liability for this rests with the quarries, as having sold goods that were not fit for purpose, and that judgment is on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Minister indicated yesterday that should it be deemed that the decision is upheld, he will then be in a position to pursue and get back some of this money, or set up a new system of funding, presumably, that would insure those who were responsible.
Deputy Wallace made relevant points yesterday about the insurance companies, and the Minister might clarify them.
With regard to home owners who have initiated legal action - to be honest, out of absolute desperation, because nobody would choose to do that otherwise - are they excluded from the terms of this scheme merely because they themselves tried to remedy this through legal action when they had no other way out?
If a quarry can supply stone that is not fit for purpose and it causes incredible damage to a dwelling, and if the quarry cannot be held responsible, that is obviously a problem. If the law protects them in such a way that the Minister cannot hold these private entities responsible for their part in this pyrite issue, does the Government intend to address that weakness in the law, and if he were to do so, could it be retrospectively applied to these entities?
Broadly on the same issue, if the Supreme Court decision found against the quarries and we were talking of having a source of funding that was linked to the problem to fund the remediation works, would the Minister be willing to consider providing a compensation element in the legislation, as opposed to providing purely for remediation?
I am glad Deputies Clare Daly, Wallace and Catherine Murphy understands my legal position, unlike Deputy Broughan.
I well understand it.
There are court cases in the system-----
I was threatened by Lagan's solicitors. I well understand it. I have a solicitor's letter here in my file.
That does not give me the legal cover to do what the Deputy asked me to do. I have to get my advice from the Attorney General. There are cases before the Supreme Court and home owners are also taking cases. We have to await the outcome of those cases, which the Deputy, as a legislator, should know. However, I am prepared to re-examine this matter once we know the outcome of those cases. I had informed the construction and quarrying sectors quite explicitly all along that there would be a levy on those industries but, regrettably, because of cases in the courts and the legal advice I have been given by the Attorney General I could not proceed with that without risking home owners having to wait three or four more years for remediation because of the current backlog in the court system. I was not prepared to allow that to happen and I asked the Government about this and, despite the difficult financial situation, it agreed with my analysis that we would provide Exchequer funding for this and try to clawback some money from the industry in the future if we could. I thought that was quite a generous outcome and I am surprised at Deputy Broughan's negativity about this matter. In a difficult situation, financially, I am putting the people first.
We have been waiting seven years.
I am only in office a little while.
The Minister is there three years.
I do not appreciate the Deputy's negativity on behalf of the home owners.
Three years is the average life of a Government.
The Deputy's rhetoric does not do him any justice.
In response to Deputy Clare Daly's question, home owners will be excluded until the litigation ends. These are difficult legal situations for some people. We have to exclude them if they are taking cases until such time as the litigation ends. That might be an issue we would have to take up with the Pyrite Resolution Board and discuss how we can get around It. I would be glad to work with the Deputy on that.
What about the other question I raised?
No, I will not have a compensation fund. We have a remediation scheme. Obviously, the remediation scheme will be determined by what money we can accrue from Government for it. I have €10 million of an initial down-payment for this scheme, I will get more money in 2014 and we will see how we get on as the scheme progresses over the two-year period. I want to make it perfectly clear and I do not want to give anybody false hope. This is a remediation scheme, not a compensation scheme.
Amendment No. 4 is in the name of Deputy Cowen. Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 11 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 10, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"(6) The Chairperson of the Board shall if requested, 12 months from the establishment day and at least once per annum thereafter come before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment to provide a report including financial details on the implementation of the pyrite remediation scheme and other matters relating to the Board.".
I will not delay the House on this amendment in the hope that the Minister might accede to a request. It would only be fair and right that the chairperson of the board would come before the joint committee on a annual basis in order to ascertain the success, or otherwise, of the scheme and adjudicate, if possible, on the issues the Minister has raised, especially in regard to outstanding litigation, the results of which may be known during the course of the year and based on those results recommendations could be forthcoming at that stage.
I tabled amendments proposing that the chairperson of the board would report regularly to the Oireachtas joint committee. The Minister indicated that he might consider accepting that proposal and the reporting could be on a yearly or other basis. I am not doubting the Minister's commitment or what he has said but it would useful for us to be advised of how matters are progressing.
There are established practices for the chairpersons of any statutory body to appear upon request to the Oireachtas committee and, accordingly, there is no specific requirement for including this as an amendment to the Bill. It is also absolutely implicit that the chairperson would attend on receipt of a request from the committee. Therefore, there should no reason a chairperson should refuse to do so. In addition to that, when I get quarterly reports from the chairperson of the Pyrite Resolution Board I will make them available to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
On that point, and it relates to an amendment I tabled that was ruled out of order, I welcome that the Minister will lay the details of the scheme before the House, but I was trying to facilitate a provision that the House would be able to discuss it, rather than simply being presented with it. I was advised that my amendment was ruled out of order as it was not in the spirit of the Bill, which is a bit insulting to the Minister's Bill because he was promoting the idea of transparency, involvement and accountability. I was trying to say this is a good measure but was asking the Minister to ensure we get a chance to discuss it when he presents it to the House.
It is a matter for the Whips to arrange what happens before the House but all I am saying is that, in addition to the normal arrangements for any statutory body to come before the relevant Oireachtas committee, which the Deputy can attend, the chairperson of the Pyrite Resolution Board will submit a report to me on a quarterly basis and I will submit it to all Deputies and Senators in the House. I am sure if there are some issues that need clarification or have to be discussed that the chairperson of the Oireachtas committee will be glad to make an arrangement for the chairperson of the board to come in. I am going beyond what I thought the Deputy would reasonably expect from any other statutory body.
Is Amendment No. 11 included in this grouping?
No, amendments Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 17 are in this grouping.
Okay.
Is Deputy Cowen pressing his amendment?
Amendment No. 6 is in the name of Deputy Ellis. Amendments Nos. 6 and 18 to 23, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 11, line 3, after "Minister" to insert "with approval of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment".
I am just getting my papers.
The Deputy has only two minutes remaining as I am obliged by an order of the House to put the question at 4.40 p.m.
Are we on section 11? I did not catch the numbers.
We are on section 11.
That is what I meant. It was to include additional wording to the effect that the appointment of the board should have the approval of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht. That is common sense. We tend to examine the appointments of chairmen and other people to different boards and this is just a similar request, which is a simple one.
The amendments proposed are not required having regard to what is already in the Bill. The Bill provides for the appointment of persons to the Pyrite Resolution Board, the appointment of appeals officers, the establishment of procedures for appeals to an appeals officer, the removal of a person from a board, the filling of a vacancy on the board and the circumstances under which these matters can occur. These matters will be subject to the approval of the Minister of the day, having regard to the relevant provisions in the Bill, and I will be accountable to the House. In addition, appeals officers are required to prepare reports on the performance of their functions, which shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
Amendment No. 19 would have the effect of restricting the number of people who could be considered for this role and could have the unintended consequence of conflict of interest issues arising. Professionals on the building condition assessors register would most likely be involved in carrying out assessments under the scheme and could not also be involved in hearing appeals. The requirement in the scheme for the appeals officer to have an expertise or knowledge of fair procedures, structural or civil engineering and construction or damage caused by pyrite and knowledge of the pyrite scheme is considered to be adequate to undertake the process.
On Amendment No. 22, the disqualification of persons adjudicated bankrupt from statutory boards is a standard provision for reasons that are well known. Such persons may be susceptible to influence from their creditors and may not be considered independent in their functions.
Is Deputy Ellis pressing his amendment?
Yes, I will press it.
In accordance with the Order of the House today, I must put the following question: "That in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Schedule and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee, and the Bill is, accordingly, reported to the House without amendment, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
I thank all Members of the House for their co-operation in this important matter for home owners. As I said on Second Stage, this problem affects many people in the Leinster area and all sides of the House have been co-operative with the departmental officials and the Pyrite Resolution Board. We will be in a position to ensure the Pyrite Resolution Board can give as much information as possible on a representational basis for the Deputies involved. I am particularly pleased that the Bill is a monument to the memory and the work of our great friend, the late Shane McEntee, and to the people affected by pyrite.
I join with the Minister in expressing those sentiments, particularly in respect of Shane McEntee, who worked very hard with the Deputies present in the Chamber to try to resolve the matter. The Minister spoke earlier about being negative but, after seven years of slogging by many Members, it is a historic day. It has taken such a long time to get to this stage that people who represent constituents feel it heavily. With regard to the pyrite remediation scheme, where we had to cut off debate, I hope the Minister will keep the House well-informed about progress on the scheme and the necessary information we require for our constituents.
I thank the Minister and his officials for their work. Much more is needed to address the issue, but this is a major step and it is important that the step be taken. I thank the Pyrite Action Group and people such as Ms Sandra Lewis, who worked tirelessly to get it to this point. I acknowledge that Shane McEntee did great work in this area, as did many others. I hope the Minister will keep us informed so that we can keep up to date with the process and move as fast as we can. Hopefully we will keep looking for more money, because we will need it to tackle this.
I join other speakers in commending the Minister, his staff and the Members who contributed to bringing this issue to the fore with a view to publishing legislation. Legislation is a starting point by which the issue may be resolved so that people can receive compensation and rectification of their homes. I acknowledge that the Minister said during the process that he is open to amendments to the legislation, if necessary, when ongoing legal cases come to a conclusion. I acknowledge the input of the late Shane McEntee. We commend him on the work he did in this area. I thank the Minister and look forward to his impressing upon the Government the need for further funding, which, as other speakers have said, will be inevitable when the board concludes its work.
This is a start. It must have been very tough for people who have suffered because of pyrite. Today is Shane McEntee's birthday, so it is fitting that it coincides with the passing of this Bill.
In respect of examining the law to see why it is difficult to hold private entities responsible and the manner in which the law is challenged, it would be good if the process were transparent so that we could see the argument from both sides. This goes beyond pyrite and is a crucial issue for the State. It has an impact on many aspects of how the State is organised. It is important that transparency applies to how the Government challenges this and how private entities look to defend their position on it.
A message shall be sent to the Seanad acquainting it accordingly.