Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate

Defective Block Scheme Regulations and Review of IS 465: Discussion

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome everyone to the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. There are two meetings today. We will split the session into 90 minutes each. We are meeting today to discuss the defective block scheme regulations and a review of IS 465. In the first session, we are joined from the expert group by Mr. Paul Forde, chair, Mr. Martin Lynch, general manager of the Pyrite Resolution Board; from Engineers Ireland, we are joined by Mr. Damien Owens, director general, and Mr. Keelan Keogh, policy officer; from the Society of Chartered Surveyors of Ireland, we are joined by Ms Shirley Coulter, chief executive officer, and Mr. Kevin Brady, chartered quantity surveyor; from the Mica Action Group Donegal, we are joined by Ms Lisa Hone. We are also joined, remotely, by Dr. Martina Cleary of the Clare Pyrite Action Group and Ms Martina Hegarty of the North Mayo Pyrite Group. They are very welcome.

The opening statements have been circulated. This is a 90-minute session. There are six opening statements, so if everybody could keep their opening statements as brief as possible, it will leave time for questions from members. The order for the opening statements is Mr. Forde, the expert group; Mr. Owens, Engineers Ireland; Ms Coulter, Society of Chartered Surveyors of Ireland; Ms Hone, Mica Action Group Donegal; Dr. Cleary, Clare Pyrite Action Group; and Ms Hegarty, North Mayo Pyrite Group.

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 where Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, to participate in public meetings. For those witnesses attending in the committee room, they 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.

Both members and witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege they enjoy. It is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction. Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. 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 person who is physically present in the Leinster House complex does.

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 a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The opening statements submitted to the committee will be published on our website after this meeting. I invite Mr. Forde to make his opening statement.

Mr. Paul Forde

I am the director and chair of DBFL Consulting Engineers. In January last year, I was appointed by the Department to chair the expert group on the enhanced defective concrete blocks grant scheme. I am happy to be here today with my colleague from that expert group, Martin Lynch, who has already been introduced. We thank the committee for inviting us here to assist in its discussions and deliberations on the scheme.

I have been in practice as a consulting engineer for more than 43 years and I am a founding partner of DBFL Consulting Engineers. The committee has previously been furnished with my qualifications and professional memberships, among which is being a fellow of Engineers Ireland and the Institution of Structural Engineers. I have extensive experience, more than 15 years, in investigating and resolving pyrite problems in a wide range of buildings. I was appointed a member of the original Pyrite Resolution Board. I chaired the technical committee in drafting the Irish Standard, IS 398-2:2013: Part 2. Of particular relevance here is the fact that this part of the standard deals with methodology for remediation works.

In January 2022, I was asked by the Minister to chair the expert group to advise on the proposed enhanced defective concrete blocks grant scheme. The expert group was established to consider and advise the Minister on the technical issues which needed to be resolved. These included issues such as the damage threshold for entry to the scheme, the parameters around a second grant application, an independent appeals process, a review of the certificate of remediation and reconsideration of the rebuilding costs prepared by the Society of Chartered Surveyors of Ireland, SCSI.

The expert group met for the first time on 27 January 2022. At the beginning of March 2022, another member of the expert group, John O’Connor, and I met with the representatives of the Mayo and Donegal homeowners, including Ms Hegarty, and we discussed the terms of reference of the expert group. We met again on 9 March 2022 during which the homeowners’ views on all relevant issues were discussed. In each meeting, we were impressed by their representations and understood their concerns.

The expert group issued its first report on the enhanced defective concrete blocks grant scheme, including advices to the Minister, on 16 March 2022. This report dealt with the short-term technical issues in respect of which the Minister required immediate recommendations. On 29 April 2022, the expert group issued its addendum report, including advices to the Minister, in respect of the SCSI rebuild costs. On 30 September 2022, the Department requested that I set up a subcommittee of expert group members to review some of the original short-term issues. These included: the damage threshold for entry to the defective concrete block grant scheme; the building condition assessment report; the remedial works plan; and the certificate of remediation.

This request from the Minister followed hearings during the passage of the Remediation of Dwellings Damaged by the Use of Defective Concrete Blocks Act 2022. During this process, the Minister indicated that he would ask the chairs of the original expert group working groups, and Housing Agency representatives to review the previously issued advices in relation to the four short-term issues I just mentioned. The Minister also requested that this group consider the various contributions to the Oireachtas joint committee hearings and the lessons learned since the original report of the expert group was issued on 16 March 2022. The Minister further requested that advices be provided in respect of an appropriate definition of "damage" for the purposes of the proposed regulations.

The expert group addendum subcommittee was composed of the following people. I was the chair, and the members were John O’Connor, the former CEO of the Housing Agency, and chair of the Commission on Housing, Fiona Fleming and Peadar Espey, both from the Housing Agency, and Martin Lynch, the general manager of the Pyrite Remediation Board, who is here today. The addendum subcommittee met on several occasions in October and November 2022. We issued our addendum report, with advices to the Minister, on 20 December 2022.

On 23 February 2023, the Minister requested that I reconstitute the expert group and undertake an updating of the expert group’s addendum report in respect of the rebuilding costs. These rebuilding costs had been updated and issued by the SCSI on 28 February 2023. The expert group then met and our updated advices to the Minister were issued on 6 April 2023. Subsequently, on 3 May 2023, the Minister requested that the expert group undertake a further updating of our addendum report on costs. This further updating of the expert group’s addendum report was required following the issuing by the SCSI of rebuild costs for the mid-west region. They had previously only related to the north-west region. These rebuild costs were set out in the SCSI’s letter to the Department dated 18 April 2023. The expert group’s updated advices to the Minister were issued on 9 May 2023. The expert group’s recommendations for the Minister’s consideration are set out in each of these five reports I mentioned. I understand that these reports have all been made available to the members. Mr. Lynch and I are happy to take questions in due course. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Forde. I invite Mr. Owens to give his opening statement. I would appreciate it if he would keep his contribution as close to five minutes as possible.

Mr. Damien Owens

I thank the committee for the invitation to give evidence to it on the operation of the defective concrete block scheme. As the Cathaoirleach said, I am a chartered engineer, as is Mr. Keogh. Engineers Ireland is one of the oldest and largest representative bodies on the island of Ireland, with more than 25,000 members, of which more than 9,000 are chartered engineers. This membership incorporates all the disciplines of the engineering profession in Ireland in consulting and contracting organisations, the public sector, semi-State bodies and educational institutes. Surveys indicate that 92% of the public place a high level of trust in the profession.

Engineers Ireland awards the professional title of chartered engineer in line with the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland (Charter Amendment) Act 1969. The registered professional title is recognised internationally and under Irish law. According to the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations, BCAR, 2014, chartered engineers are one of the three professions which may act as assigned certifiers. Engineers Ireland has also established and maintains registers of suitably qualified persons in specialist areas including: IS 398 pyrite assessment and remediation; historical landfill; and IS 465 mica and pyrite. Our members contribute to the development of national standards and policies with consultative groups across the industry. The views presented here combine the views of many of the practitioner chartered engineers on the IS 465 register maintained by Engineers Ireland.

The role of the registrant, an engineer on the IS 465 register, as set out, is purely to prescribe and oversee testing and provide guidance on appropriate remedial works. The background to the role of the registrant engineer was presented to this committee in 2022, together with the feedback in that regard. In the interest of time, we will not present this information again. Engineers Ireland has not received and does not receive any funding for the establishment and maintenance of the IS 465 register of engineers.

Since the inception of the IS 465 register, Engineers Ireland has provided constructive feedback based on the experience of the operation of the defective concrete block scheme. The most recent request for feedback from registrant engineers has highlighted a number of areas which are a continuing source of concern, including insurance risk.

To date Engineers Ireland has delivered six courses on the IS 465 standard for potential registrants over a three-year period to a total of 103 engineers. Today, the IS 465 register has 32 registrants, a figure that has not changed appreciably during the last three years. There are a number of reasons for the reluctance of engineers to join the register. A key factor is the risk profile of the scheme.

Registrants report difficulty in obtaining professional indemnity, PI, insurance without which an engineer cannot practice. Though PI insurance has become increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain, many registrants also report exclusions. One such exclusion states:

This policy shall not cover any Claim or Defence Costs:

arising out of, based upon or attributable to:

the use, specification, testing, remediation, remove or exposure to Pyrite or MICA or materials or products containing Pyrite or MICA whether or not there is another cause of loss which may have contributed concurrently or in any sequence to a loss.

The lack of professional indemnity insurance cover is especially acute for remediation options 2 to 5. The PI underwriters are unwilling to take the risk of the PI policy being called on if there are claims resulting from cracking of retained blockwork in the future. Insurers see the risk being entirely and unfairly taken by the engineer who carries out the remediation works. They believe the residual risk of retaining blocks combined with the number of houses affected is too great for them to take on.

The implications of the restrictions of PI insurance cover extends to potentially stifling innovation in the sector. I am aware of at least one company that has developed a novel solution for remediation which reduces the time and cost of remediation. However, the company is unwilling to deploy the solution at scale due to potential insurance liability issues. Innovative solutions which can rapidly address a homeowner’s remediation may therefore not be deployed and any savings to the State will not accrue.

Our understanding of the process of deterioration of defective concrete blocks continues to evolve. It is recognised that NSAI has undertaken work in this area. A recent online event hosted by Engineers Ireland provided an insight into these concerns. Some engineers are of the opinion that IS 465 is not fit for purpose as long as it does not consider sulphide oxidation in Donegal defective blockwork and that the standard should be updated as soon as possible based on available research. Almost ten years have passed since the defective concrete problem was raised with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Dwellings as far back as 1994 have been found to have muscovite mica and pyrrhotite equivalent total sulphur levels above allowable limits. There is still much debate about the causes. It is imperative that meaningful research is carried out and brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

The scheme will need to have flexibility to incorporate new findings as they arise. One such example of flexibility is that engineers have observed cases where homeowners, who need to test their property for house sale, have discovered the blockwork is defective even though there is no visual damage. These homeowners should be included in the scheme. Criteria must be put in place to allow remediated properties to be sold and mortgaged. This would provide certainty to homeowners and the conveyancing sector. The operation of the mundic scheme in the UK may provide an example of an enduring model to support commercial transactions of impacted properties.

There are a number of operational considerations. For example, engineers are concerned that the process for approval of interim payments at stage 3 could be very slow and unwieldy as currently envisaged. We suggest that a certified payment approach should be adopted. This is the construction industry norm and is accepted by financial institutions, whereby the value of the completed works is certified by a chartered engineer.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid I must interrupt Mr. Owens as we are up to six minutes and I need to keep strictly to time. I call Ms Coulter from the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, SCSI, and we can come back to the points we did not reach.

Ms Shirley Coulter

I am grateful for the invitation to participate at today's meeting. The SCSI is the leading professional body for chartered surveying professionals working in the property, construction and land sectors across Ireland, as well as operating the statutory register for the protected title of quantity surveyor and building surveyor. We undertake research on a wide range of economic, industry and practice-related issues in the public interest to produce regular reports, including those relating to construction costs.

In recognition of this construction cost expertise and the independence of the SCSI, we were requested by the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, to provide construction cost information for the Government’s defective concrete blocks grant scheme in late 2021. The terms of reference were agreed with the Department on 7 February 2022, which set out the parameters within which the SCSI would produce an independent, stand-alone construction cost report for the demolition and rebuilding of homes affected by defective concrete blocks, which was option 1, and to propose a cost methodology for the partial remediation, which were options 2 to 5. It is of particular note that the report is based on the parameters of the defective concrete blocks grant scheme as announced on 30 November 2021. The SCSI had and has no role in setting the parameters of the grant scheme, for example, which building regulations apply, exclusion of foundations, etc., and no role in the setting of the grant amount.

The SCSI Report on Construction Costs for the Defective Concrete Block Scheme was published on 3 March 2022 and was welcomed by all stakeholders. The SCSI undertook this extensive work pro bono in the public interest and was supported by a significant number of our volunteer chartered surveyor members. The report is appended to this submission.

I will now deal with the updated average rebuild costs. The terms of reference stipulate that SCSI will review the costs for the north west annually. The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage asked the SCSI to review the average rebuilding rates for the house types included within the terms of reference for the report on construction costs for the north west. The updated costs were submitted to the Department on 28 February 2023 and posted on the SCSI website on 2 March 2023. The average rebuilding rates are contained in the table accompanying this submission. They include demolition costs, excluding foundations, and are based on the pricing brief as shown within table 2 of the original report in February 2022. The average rates are informed by chartered quantity surveyors operating within the north-west region. The methodology and analysis are consistent with that of our report from February 2022.

Due to the multiplicity of house designs, sizes, choice of building materials, site typology, ground conditions, building finish quality and specification, to name but a few, there can be significant variances within construction costs. Construction costs will vary based on geographic location, availability of labour and materials and the competitive tender process. Therefore, the SCSI average rebuilding rates are based upon approximate house sizes specified within the terms of reference using non-complex house design plans sourced from chartered surveyors and built to basic specifications.

As stated in the terms of reference, the Department informed the SCSI that the building regulations to be applied in the context of specification are from pre 2008 on the basis that the scheme allows for "like-for-like" replacement and does not allow for "betterment". The average rebuild rates are produced within the parameters of the scheme. Therefore, we have provided construction costs for rebuilding homes at February 2023 material and labour rates, but at pre-2008 building regulations. While the parameters of the scheme are outside the scope of the SCSI’s cost report for the defective concrete block scheme, it remains the position of the SCSI that best practice is to build to current regulations or to exceed current regulations.

The average rebuild costs in the table include the costs for: demolition, excluding foundations, and reconstruction; concrete path around the house; disconnection and reconnection of utilities; making good to driveway and garden; professional fees; and VAT at 13.5% on building costs and 23% on professional fees. Costs do not include: new foundations; A-rated nearly zero energy building, NZEB, homes which is relevant to building regulations; and contents such as carpets, curtains, loose furniture and domestic appliances; and outbuildings, garages, boundary walls, driveways, except as relating to making good to driveway and garden, septic tanks, etc.

The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage requested that the SCSI produce average rebuild costs for the eight house types for the mid-west region. While this exercise was outside the scope of the terms of reference, in the public interest the SCSI agreed to undertake this additional cost exercise. The exact same methodology was used as for the north west, utilising the expertise of chartered quantity surveyors based in the mid-west, and the average rebuild rates were submitted to the Department on 18 April 2023 and posted on the SCSI website on 21 April 2023. The table is attached to the end of this statement.

The SCSI welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the resolution of this critical issue and undertakes this extensive work in good faith in the public interest. We wish the committee well in its continued scrutiny of the defective concrete blocks scheme.

Ms Lisa Hone

I am grateful for the opportunity to present to the housing committee. In the press release announcing the commencement of the defective concrete blocks scheme, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, stated it was a scheme that "can and will deliver for all concerned." On behalf of homeowners, I will outline why the scheme will not deliver for all concerned. Although there are some moves in a positive direction, Government’s refusal to genuinely listen means serious flaws persist.

In the public spotlight, Government representatives appear compassionate, yet at the same time they spin media stories which misinform the public and undermine victims. They pledge urgent action and then miss every deadline. They promise meaningful engagement then consciously ignore the lived experience of those affected and the scientific evidence, deny pre-legislative scrutiny on the false pretence of urgency, dismiss homeowner legislative and regulatory amendments, and inexplicably, reject zero-cost solutions which would bring much-needed flexibility to this rigid scheme.

The Minister also talks about schemes evolving. This is the Government’s second chance at getting the scheme right. The only reason this scheme needs to evolve is because of the lack of political ambition to get it right this time. Furthermore, the way in which tens of thousands of victims of defective homes throughout Ireland are treated seems to be based upon their geographical location, the type and cost of the damage and how many seats their constituencies are worth at the next general election.

This is now a civil rights issue as those affected are not being treated with equality. The Leinster pyrite scheme covers the removal of all deleterious materials and the work is managed and funded by the Housing Agency, which is reinstating all homes on a like-for-like basis. The defective apartment scheme promises to be nationwide and cover all costs incurred. This is in stark contrast to the defective concrete blocks, DCB, scheme, which leaves behind deleterious materials, forces homeowners to become project managers, exposes them to rampant construction inflation and excludes homes by county or type of ownership. All victims of defective homes find themselves in this horrendous situation for the same reason; the persistent failure of the State to enforce an effective regulatory and market surveillance system over the construction industry. To date, no operator has been brought to account by the Government. We recently witnessed headlines where the head of the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office, NBCMSO, declared a national emergency in market surveillance due to a lack of resources.

Although not exhaustive, the following underlines key homeowner concerns. On the science, the DCB scheme for homeowners in County Donegal is based upon an untested hypothesis as opposed to proven scientific research. In 2023, two independent scientific groups, Leemann et al. in March and Brough et al. in April, published internationally peer-reviewed research. They identified that the high-risk aggregate phyllite was used in the manufacture of concrete blocks. The phyllite rock hosts not only mica but also the iron sulphide pyrrhotite. Detailed scientific investigation reveals that oxidation of pyrrhotite causing internal sulphate attack is the primary mechanism of failure and not mica freeze thaw. Evidence from Quebec, Connecticut and Switzerland proves that if iron sulphides are present in quantities beyond regulatory standards, it can result in the degradation of even poured concrete.

All of this research was published prior to commencement of the scheme and initial research findings were presented to this committee in June 2022 before the legislation was passed in July. Yet, the DCB scheme still uses IS 465, designed around a mica freeze thaw hypothesis, to recommend remediation. To keep using this obsolete standard means decisions are based on solutions for the wrong damage mechanism. Options 2 to 5 of the scheme retain defective, unregulated blocks in homes and all options advise homeowners to build on existing foundations, yet such options are not proven to be permanently effective against the context of internal sulphate attack. The damage threshold focuses heavily on visual appearance, which may belie the deterioration of the concrete within, leaving homeowners locked out of the scheme and in limbo for years. It is inhuman to push homeowners to remediate homes without scientific assurance that the home will not fail again. It also raises questions about the responsible management of public funds, where hundreds of thousands of euro could be spent on a house destined to fail again.

I will address the failure to recognise and support homeowners in vulnerable and complex situations. How is it reasonable to ask a couple in their 80s, one with a serious illness and the other a carer, to deal with a demanding three-stage application process, the strip-down of a beloved home, a demolition, a rebuild and two house moves? How do a family with a disabled child who require a home adapted for wheelchair access move forward if it is impossible to find alternative accommodation? It is wholly unrealistic to think that two facilitators spread over thousands of affected homeowners, and an engineer with a multiplicity of clients, can provide the project management and support required. We have consistently asked for recognition of those in the most vulnerable and complex circumstances via the support of an end-to-end scheme, flexibility of side-by-side building, the provision of suitable alternative housing, or for people to be able to release themselves from this crisis via a transfer of eligibility, all of which has been denied.

On the finances, to distance itself from its central role in the origins of this crisis, the Government portrays itself as a benevolent body, carefully describing the scheme as a grant. To call it a grant scheme, which implies a partial cost contribution, and then declare it provides 100% cover is contradictory. Affected homeowners are exposed to the double whammy of a cost-of-living crisis plus double-digit construction inflation. Grant allowances are calculated on a basic build to pre-2008 regulations, no matter what year the house was built, to what finish or to what energy standards, despite the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, SCSI, recommendation that all construction should employ a minimum of current standards. In 2023, the SCSI reported a 14% annual increase in construction costs, yet there is no recognition of increasing costs in the overall cap set in November 2021. The Government, in full cognisance of the issues around construction inflation, wrote the cap into legislation, as opposed to regulations, knowing full well this makes it very difficult to amend. To demolish and rebuild, homeowners in County Donegal are currently being quoted between €205 and €220 per sq. ft compared with the grant rates of €190 for the first 1,900 sq. ft, and €116 per sq. ft thereafter, up to the maximum cap. A current example is a homeowner in a home of 1,250 sq. ft, with a rebuild allowance of €237,000, but who has a real build cost of €270,000, which is a shortfall of almost €33,000.

Homeowners will be tens of thousands of euro short in meeting the true materials and labour costs for a simple builder’s finish. In addition to this, the professional fees incurred for progression through the stages of the scheme will place huge upfront financial burdens on homeowners. Many will not have these resources nor access to loans to cover these, so the scheme will be, in effect, inaccessible for many. It falls far short in every aspect in restoring people’s homes.

With regard to the four- and five-bedroom typical rural family home, it is clear from the SCSI rates and calculations that the cap of €420,000, from which alternative accommodation, storage and professional fees must be deducted, will not cover the rebuild costs. The cap has not been raised in line with recent inflation. These homeowners, with typical four- and five-bedroom family homes, will be potentially facing shortfalls of €80,000 to €100,000.

Penalty-free downsizing or rightsizing, which was a recommendation voted down by the Government in July 2022, would have assisted many in the family homes bracket. This is also particularly relevant for those of advancing years who could downsize and redesign to meet current needs, and there are many of those coming forward in County Clare. These people will not be able to secure bank loans to bridge the current grant shortfall. Many are also depending on the value of their home to avail of the fair deal scheme. They are now discovering that this is no longer a possibility and many are now trapped physically in these homes, often having to live with their children. They are now physically and financially trapped in degenerating homes indefinitely.

Navigating the stages of this prohibitively complex scheme within the limitations of the current building environment will also be impossible for many. Retention of percentages of the grant at the various stages of drawdown, in addition to the many upfront payments for engineers, tradesmen, designers, architects, etc., will make this scheme even more financially inaccessible than the previous one.

There is a hugely burdensome, complex maze of schedules to be completed, with stringent timelines imposed on the homeowner to progress through the scheme. Deadlines placed on the homeowner at all stages are extremely tight, especially within the current climate, while those for the local authority, Housing Agency and appeals panel seem to be quite open-ended. The difference between this and the end-to-end project management of the pyrite remediation scheme is notable and discriminatory.

Overall project management is needed for this scheme, including a database of professionals, builders and trades who are available, knowledgeable and able to take on the rebuilding and remediation of these homes en masse and in a timely manner.

There is no facilitator in place in County Clare, though I was told yesterday that this is in progress. However, it highlights an ongoing inequality. There needs to be equality of resourcing and it must be provided for all designated counties currently in the scheme. This includes equal treatment with regard to all aspects of the administration and funding of the scheme including: establishment of a Housing Authority presence in the mid-west; prioritisation metrics, including fair distribution and allocation of houses entering the scheme; provision of information and support services; regional representation on assessment panels; and the processing and remediation of impacted homes in all counties must be simultaneous at the commencement of scheme and proportionate as well.

Fast-tracking for access to all aspects of SEAI grants must be implemented to assist the DCB homeowners. This includes full access to the one-stop shop option. This would go a long way in helping people to upgrade the heating and insulation requirements in line with current standards. It seems discrimination is already being built into that.

The issue of rebuilding on potentially faulty foundations is already presenting a problem with builders in County Clare. All approached for quotations have included €20,000 to 30,000 to remove and replace foundations as compulsory, not optional, because they are afraid of the potential liabilities if they leave them in place. Obviously, this is not included in the grant scheme.

The fact that there is no letter of assurance for option 1, the demolitions, is not acceptable. If the Government is so sure that leaving these foundations in place is viable, there should then be no difficulty or resistance in also including this letter of assurance for these homes.

There is no provision or consideration of the economic costs of the disposal of all the DCB materials. With potentially tens of thousands of homes impacted across the mid-west, this is an indicator of the total lack of long-term oversight and planning on the part of the Government. One can imagine the environmental impact of where all this material will go as well.

The only mention of litigation within these regulations are potential actions that will be taken against the homeowner. This is grossly offensive and against the principle of natural justice. Impacted homeowners are the victims of this unregulated industry and the non-enforcement of existing regulations. This should have been removed. In addition, there seems to be no movement forward in prosecuting the particular parties in this region.

I have enclosed a copy of the stakeholder feedback, which is 17 pages of feedback on the draft regulations. Little to none of this was taken on board in March.

In conclusion, County Clare is thankful to be in a scheme but we are extremely worried about how it will be rolled out. We are worried that the ongoing physical and mental health impacts are manifesting in this county after three years. We are in dread that we will be put through what Donegal and Mayo have been put through for more than a decade.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Dr. Cleary. I now invite Ms Healy from the Mayo group, who is online.

Ms Martina Hegarty

My home was built using defective concrete blocks in Mayo. I thank the committee for the opportunity to present.

Over a year ago, I joined this committee to document and discuss the failings of our Government to provide a fit-for-purpose defective concrete block scheme for homeowners in County Mayo - a redress scheme, not a grant. A year on, we are still discussing a defective scheme.

Today, I am not here as a campaigner or a homeowner representative. My purpose is to place members in the mindset of a homeowner - a person who is experiencing the mental and physical anguish of living with a defective home. I will keep this basic so everyone can follow.

You live each day seeing cracks in your home. You do not want to admit you have pyrite. You do not want to have to give up your home. Your life was built in these four walls. Your memories are here. There is a significant level of traumatic experience to come to the acceptance that your home has pyrite before you make that first phone call.

Do members realise that? None of us were ever supposed to be here.

Those of us who applied onto the previous scheme are told to sit, wait and have patience. After more than ten years of singing from the rooftops about the need for a defective scheme, we are told to have patience. A year after the scheme was rushed through the Dáil with no meaningful amendments from the Government, we are told to have patience. We are told the scheme is 100%, yet every single homeowner who has done the calculations is going to be paying in part to rebuild their homes.

The enhanced scheme was put into law on Monday, 3 July. The scheme was opened by the local authorities on 11 July. There was practically no announcement. A scheme of more than €2.2 billion was almost rolled out in the dead of night. The enhanced scheme was supposed to fix everything but instead it has created more roadblocks for homeowners.

Homeowners must sit, wait and watch their cracks widen until they reach a certain level to reach a meaningless damage threshold that has no interest in science. Homeowners asked to use a building professional to assess their home - individuals with no training, the vast majority of whom, without this experience, would consider some of our cracks incorrectly as settlement cracks. Homeowners no longer have an engineer in their corner - the one person homeowners could rely on to fight for their home. That is what this feels like. We are in constant fight mode - constant battle - to get what is needed to rebuild our homes and move on with our lives. Homeowners are relying on the impartiality of the engineers contracted to the Housing Agency to decide the fate of their homes. Will the science still be considered as priority? Homes in Mayo require full demolition and almost 400 homes have received this to date. Will this continue? We are not convinced.

If a homeowner needs to appeal, will they receive everything they need to do so, such as all of the test results and details of all those that made decisions? Who sits on the appeals panel? How transparent will this be?

Homeowners are required to project-manage the rebuild of their homes by collecting endless paperwork; contacting the local authorities; dealing with an online application; sourcing engineers, architects and builders; dealing with banks and insurance companies; and, worst of all, finding a location to rent in the midst of a housing crisis. How?

A homeowner is at the mercy of builder availability - builders who think we have a pot of gold and have been informed by the Government that each homeowner is getting 100%. In addition, these builders are under the false impression that each homeowner is going to have €420,000 available to them to rebuild their homes.

Homeowners have to ensure they can fund the rebuild of their home, yet they are under a timeline to do so. Homeowners have to apply for finance, many of whom are above the age and ability to be able to pay it back. Why do they have to apply for finance? Because it is not 100%.

There is a 10% retention. How will this work for a grant on offer to homeowners when it is not 100%? What happens when the builders come knocking or walk off site?

A homeowner is told he or she can apply to the SEAI, which is a separate process that requires further investigation and paperwork. That scheme is not open yet, but the Government wants people to move on and rebuild their homes. Worst of all, people are left in constant fear of what lies beneath, given that foundations are a major issue and are not covered by the scheme.

We have yet to hear the word "retrospective" mentioned. By this, I mean retrospective for those who had to remediate their homes prior to any scheme being launched. We heard commitments to deliver. Were those more soundbites? The Government continues to refer to the need for homeowners to move on. Has anyone taken the time to reach out to those who have already tried to see how much it cost them to rebuild their homes? A quote is at one point in time. The reality of the quote being delivered at cost is little to none. Was this even considered?

Have members listened to every point I have listed? They should now place themselves in the shoes of a pensioner, of a young mother with young kids or of those who require medical or physical assistance. How do they progress onto the scheme? How do they become project managers? How do they fund this? The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Housing Agency have decided to take control of every aspect of the scheme without the control that matters most. They are fully aware it is not 100%, which is the reason the scheme is not end to end. They know that they would need to offer more funds if they were to rebuild our homes. This scheme, after the second time of creation and more than ten years of fighting, has done nothing more than condemn homeowners to a bleak future, to building on faulty foundations, to homes that will not be fully remediated, and to debt. While the Government is waiting, assessing and seeking more information for the scheme to evolve, homeowners are being hospitalised and are on endless medication. Does the Government understand the mental torture homeowners are under? No dial-up service is going to remedy that. Did any of the committee’s members ever take the time to walk a step in the shoes of a defective concrete block homeowner? Did anyone ever think of the homeowners while this scheme was being created? Why are the most vulnerable families involved in this crisis not placed front and centre and enabled? Why do they continue to be condemned?

I thank the committee for its time.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Hegarty. I apologise, as I believe I called her by the wrong name when I invited her to contribute.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

I am in Leinster House. Unfortunately, though, I cannot be in the committee room.

I thank the witnesses, especially the homeowners, for giving of their time today to share with us their experience and for the work they are doing every other day as well. Their testimonies were passionate and compelling. Buying your first home is exciting, but it is also arguably the most stressful thing that any of us will ever do. It is up there with divorce, bankruptcy and the loss of a family member. I am in Dublin and am not living in the witnesses’ communities with them and their neighbours, so I can only imagine their stress and anxiety living with the uncertainty and the constant undermining of their sense of security in what should be the most secure place for them. I genuinely hear them. As a member of Fianna Fáil, I offer them apologies from my colleagues – the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, Senators Chambers and Blaney and others – for not being present, but I want the witnesses to know that they are heard. That is important. We are having this session with them and another session this afternoon with the Department, the County and City Management Association, CCMA, and the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI. We are raising the witnesses’ points on their behalf.

I will not go through each of the testimonies, as I appreciate that time is short and that the Cathaoirleach did what he needed to do to keep contributions equal, but each of the witnesses was critical. They spoke about civil rights and essentially described what they were experiencing as a humanitarian crisis. They have all been at this for a long time – it has been almost 20 years since the problem was first detected – but the revised scheme has been at least two years in the making and a large amount of public funds are being allocated. The criticisms the witnesses made were stark. Before our next session, I would like to hear from the three homeowner groups. Are they so critical as to believe that the scheme as it stands should be scrapped or is there scope within it to meet their needs and those of their communities? I would like to hear from Dr. Cleary, Ms Hegarty and Ms Hone.

An Cathaoirleach

We only have two minutes remaining, so I do not think we will get three replies. Will someone reply on behalf of the homeowners?

Dr. Martina Cleary

We have been going through this for three years. In our last meeting with homeowners, one spoke about having had a stroke. I know of a heart attack case. There was testimony of potentially four suicides. This problem is real and significant. The cost is being counted in bricks, mortar and materials, but the human impact will have considerable long-term effects. If we are looking at a 40-year trajectory for the remediation of all the homes, adding to the scheme’s complexity is just putting oil on the fire.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

Even after amendments, should the scheme be scrapped and should we return to the start?

Dr. Martina Cleary

Scrapping a scheme that has been in planning for two years is a non-runner. In March, I submitted 17 pages of responses. There were more than 300 submissions to the draft regulations as part of a large stakeholder survey. None of them was taken on board. That survey was a lengthy process. It delayed us in Clare by another year from the point of ratification to admission. It is about time that the Government started listening to and acting upon the work we have already put in and what we are saying, which we are saying again at this meeting. The whole thing cannot just be thrown out, but it can be changed. I understand that the Minister could make decisions in autumn around, for example, the cap, immediately installing a facilitator for County Clare and giving us an annual estimate of the number of houses that will be remediated. These real deliverables will also help people psychologically, as they will see that there is hope and that we can progress. That is what is needed.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I ask that the witnesses be brief in their responses to my first question, as I am conscious of the need for the homeowners – the victims – in particular to have their say about the issues with the scheme. I thank Mr. Owens and Mr. Keogh for their submission. I am not surprised, but I am alarmed by their frank outlining of how their members were struggling to get insurance and the limitations of the insurance they were getting. Clearly, the insurance industry does not have confidence in IS 465. The scheme, which the Government says involves billions of euro in taxpayers’ money, is based on a standard that is not fit for purpose. Mr. Owens made that clear when he said that some engineers – it is most of the engineers I interact with – did not believe the standard was fit for purpose. Will he elaborate on his concerns as a professional engineer about the standard and why we are continuing to insist that homeowners adhere to it when it is not fit for purpose?

Mr. Damien Owens

The key issue is that, when it was written, the standard focused on mica and pyrite as the mechanisms of deterioration.

Since then, samples were taken from homes and sent to laboratories for testing, and some of the results came back inconclusive. Strictly speaking, if testing against the standard, those homeowners are left in limbo because it could not be said with certainty that the deterioration of their properties was caused by the causes outlined in the standard. This gave rise to an exploration of mechanisms of the deterioration, which others here have alluded to. As we move forward, I understand research is ongoing by Geological Survey Ireland, GSI, and the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI. We need to progress it and bring it to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Some properties are now in the process of being demolished and remediated. That gives us a living laboratory. We can take samples from those properties and see what exactly the mechanism of deterioration is. Based on that knowledge, the standard could be amended and other mechanisms could be included.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

For the record, the members of Mr. Owen's organisation, who are professional engineers, have recommended that more than 200 homes be demolished in County Donegal. Those recommendations have not been agreed to and have been referred to the Housing Agency. That is the mess we are in. Engineers cannot agree how this should be resolved, but homeowners are supposed to work with the scheme.

My next question is for the homeowners. I thank them all for their presentations. It is harrowing listening to them. The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage will be before the committee later. It stresses, as does the Minister, the consultation with stakeholders and how much was taken on board. Will the homeowners guide us on what questions and immediate concerns we should prioritise when the Department is before the committee? What questions would they put to the Department representatives if they were here today?

Ms Lisa Hone

Due to time constraints, we have tried to concentrate on the key issues. The first thing is the 100%. We hear over and over again that it is 100%. It is categorically not 100%. The Government's 100% is 100% and then there is a big parenthesis after that, a big bracket, which says "except X, Y and Z". It is not 100%. That must be addressed because, as we have outlined, there is almost no one going through this process already who is not looking for additional finance. We are not talking about insignificant amounts of money. We are talking about tens of thousands of euro.

I gave the example of a homeowner who has slightly more than 1,200 sq. ft. That is a real-life example of someone who is going through the building process right now. It is as current as I can get. It is real. It is actually generous because it does not include some other costs the homeowner has taken on. The finances have to be bottomed out. They must be bottomed out or you have to come in and do an end-to-end scheme. You have to be able to allow people to move forward, because at the moment, people are cobbling things together and looking for additional finance.

We heard last week about the issues with the banks and so on. That is a roadblock. If it is not resolved, it will continue to be a roadblock, especially for those who have very limited access to savings or being able to raise a loan. They are absolutely trapped, as colleagues in other areas have said. What do they do? What is the answer from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage for somebody who is looking at maybe a €30,000, €40,000 or €50,000 shortfall, who does not have access to finance and yet they cannot progress through?

With regard to vulnerable people, we have people in situations where they are literally trapped in their homes because there are roadblocks that will not allow them to progress. We know alternative accommodation is an issue. For many people finding accommodation is an issue anyway, but for people who have any kind of special or complex need, it is almost impossible. Therefore they are trapped.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I omitted to acknowledge the presence of redress focus groups from County Donegal. Two members are in the Gallery.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I thank all the witnesses for being here today, especially the homeowners, for sharing not only their lived experiences but those of many of their neighbours. I also thank the representatives of the Society of Chartered Surveyors who volunteered their time and expertise to helping those homeowners who, as Dr. Cleary said, are going through mental torture.

Ms Martina Hegarty

Right now, we are in a situation where we do not understand what percentage of a scheme it is. Homeowners have just received the updated square foot or square metre rates associated with rebuilding a home. The Government is offering the homeowners a pot of money, which is supposed to be used by them to rebuild. Looking at the square foot rates that have been provided by the SCSI in particular, the SCSI was under strict terms of reference in relation to rebuilding a home as if it was to be rebuilt in 2007. The reality is none of us can find materials that were available in 2007. The cost of sourcing materials, labour and pretty much everything imaginable to build a home has increased and changed. The terms of reference restricted SCSI in relation to what it can offer as a basic rebuild cost for a home, as Ms Coulter mentioned. Even if we were to rebuild like for like, many of us have upgraded our homes and have homes that were built after 2007. We are not, therefore, in a situation where we can rebuild like for like which is what the scheme is basically asking us to do and provides for.

Last week's meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach gave great insights into the amount of funding that is taken from the €420,000 cap prior to putting down one block. The €25,000 grant will be gone, whether that is on rent, storage or patch works on the house, depending on the level of degradation. Then there is VAT and engineers fees of up to €18,000. Up to €100,000 will be taken from the money available under the scheme before a homeowner can do anything.

We will clarify that. I cannot allow witnesses to question other witnesses but perhaps a member will ask that question. I am out of time so I must be fair. I will move to the Independent slot and ask Deputy McHugh to speak.

Deputy Joe McHugh

It is by pure chance that I am getting to speak because I am not a member of the committee and as it happens, there are no Independent members here. As I do not have the Fine Gael Whip, I appreciate this opportunity. I also acknowledge the Chair's inquiries and his interest in the area. We sit beside each other in the Dáil Chamber and he is always asking about it. I thank the homeowners representatives for their contributions.

In the short time available, I will return to the exclusion of pyrite and mica from the professional indemnity following Deputy Mac Lochlainn's contribution. This is something we have heard about. People are talking about it and we see it written down here today. It is the kernel of the problem. People have gone taken off the outer leaf of their own accord or through the scheme. I share Mr. Forde's frustration with the delay in completing the standards, inquiries and research.

Let us cut to the chase. If there was a builder sitting in front of us, the science would be clear and in black and white. It would be that if there is pyrite or mica on the inner leaf of a house, which is what carries the roof, the weight and the bison slabs, that is a problem and no builder, never mind an engineer, would stand over it. I am glad to see Mr. Forde has put it down in black and white and reflected a concern among engineers. You can talk to any builder worth their salt. My father is a builder and has built many blocks over a long number of years. He keeps making the same point, namely, that the weakness in the inner block will not go away by just replacing the outer leaf.

We now have scheme that very much relies on an endless or unknown time threshold in terms of investigations and the inquiry. It will be good to have the group here in the next session. What the committee can do constructively today is ensure that the knowledge and science of the expert group is used. I share Mr. Forde's frustration about the inquiry, which was supposed to be completed at the end of last year. IS 465 is not fit for purpose. Every homeowner knows that. Maybe Mr. Forde or Mr. Owens can reflect on this, as could Ms Hone or another homeowner representative. How do we bring those two time constructs together? On the one hand, we are waiting on science and research but everyone in the room already knows what the science is. If there is pyrite or mica in an inner relief wall or in foundations, that is a weakness. Homeowners then find themselves in a vacuum in which trauma is compounded by further trauma. The words we use today adds to that trauma. How do we bring the two timeframes together given that people continue to go through the trauma every minute of every day?

It is intergenerational now, so how do we stop this by bringing forward the results and the science we already know? Therein lies the problem. The meeting today with Department officials must be very focused on this issue. It is not fair for one Department to try to carry the load of this €2 billion scheme, which I have said from day one. Officials within the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications are listening to officials from the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform saying, there is X amount of moneys and we must work within this timeframe. My question is for Mr. Owens. It remains a grant scheme - is that a question of culpability? Perhaps he is not in a position to answer. As it remains a grant scheme, does that mean it is not taking responsibility for the problem and is just repairing a house, even though many houses to date have been demolished?

Mr. Damien Owens

I cannot talk about whether it should be a grant scheme or whatever the method. As regards how we can move forward, we are looking for certainty where it does not exist at this point in time. Our mechanisms, be it the standard or whatever, must evolve. If we know of another mechanism of deterioration, it should be added in; we may discover more. We may not get information that all the mechanisms of deterioration at the same time but we must allow the situation to evolve and not look for certainty where it does not exist at the moment.

Ms Lisa Hone

It cannot be overstated how fundamental it is to get this science right. At the moment, homeowners cannot move forward because they cannot make informed decisions. The issue around foundations is a huge roadblock. We must have answers. If the Government, the NSAI and other bodies involved in the research cannot produce that research, a precautionary approach must be adopted. If you do not have the science or certainty and cannot guarantee to homeowners that the remediation to their house will actually give them a lasting, permanent repair, to the extent that this issue is eliminated from their lives entirely - it must be the aim of this scheme. If a cloud of uncertainty and anxiety hangs over homeowners for years to come because they do not think the scheme is credible and do not believe in what is being done - it sounds like the professionals do not either - that is inhuman. It is immoral. That knowledge is available right now and if you do not have the science - God, the Government has had more than enough time to do this.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank the homeowners in particular for the powerful and strong testimony they gave. The State is compounding the stress and trauma for homeowners instead of alleviating it. That is not forgivable. If there is one takeaway from this, it should be that we must listen to the homeowners who have been living through this. I want to ask about IS 465 and foundations. We were told that if a problem is seen with the foundations, it would be addressed. What if a problem with foundations is not seen? It is not going to be addressed. To take the analogy, if a house was on fire, had burned down and there was any question of the embers not being put out or a risk of the fire respreading, there would be no question of rebuilding until you were certain about the safety. Why are we in a situation in which there is no certainty?

Mr. Paul Forde

I thank Dr. Cleary. That concludes this session. We will start the next session shortly. I thank all the witnesses for their attendance and I apologise for having to restrict contributions. I think I was equally strict and annoying with everybody. We will start the next session in five minutes. The witnesses are welcome to remain in the Visitors' Gallery for that session.

Sitting suspended at 11.06 a.m. and resumed at 11.18 a.m.

An Cathaoirleach

The purpose of this second session is to consider the defective blocks scheme regulations and the review of IS 465. From the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, we are joined by: Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh, assistant secretary; Mr. Koen Verbruggen, director of Geological Survey Ireland; Mr. Derek Rafferty, principal officer; and Mr. John Wickham, senior adviser in building standards. From the County and City Management Association, CCMA, we are joined by: Mr. Kevin Kelly, chief executive of Mayo County Council; and Mr. Liam Ward, director of services, Donegal County Council. From the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, we are joined by: Ms Geraldine Larkin, chief executive officer; Dr. Ken Murphy, senior scientific officer; and Ms Yvonne Wylde, head of standards, technical.

I will read a note on privilege. Witnesses 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. Witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege they enjoy. It is my duty as Chair to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative they comply with any such direction. We do not have witnesses attending remotely. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The opening statements that have been submitted to the committee will be published on the Oireachtas website after this meeting.

For the opening statements, we will first go to Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh on behalf of the Department, then to Mr. Kelly on behalf of the CCMA and then Ms Larkin on behalf of the NSAI.

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

I thank the committee for the invitation to talk about the defective concrete blocks scheme. I am assistant secretary in the Department's housing policy legislation and governance division. In that role, I lead on housing remediation matters. I am accompanied by my colleagues, principal officer, Derek Rafferty, and senior adviser building standards, John Wickham, and by Koen Verbruggen, director of Geological Survey Ireland.

The new enhanced defective concrete blocks scheme was launched two weeks ago. It provides financial support to affected homeowners in counties Donegal, Mayo, Limerick, and Clare whose dwellings were damaged by the use of defective concrete blocks in their construction. The scheme provides for grants of up to €420,000 for affected homeowners, depending on the work required. The improved package of measures under this considerably enhanced scheme should help to mark a new beginning for those who need to remediate their homes. The vast majority of those who need help will get all the financial assistance they need. It is important to remember that the defective concrete blocks grant scheme is not a compensation or redress scheme. Rather, it is a grant scheme of last resort put in place by the Government in order to voluntarily assist homeowners in a very difficult position with no other apparent options open to them to remediate actual damage to their homes.

Key features of the new enhanced scheme include: 100% grants subject to an overall maximum grant of €420,000 per dwelling; grant rates in keeping with advice from the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland, SCSI; a government guarantee in the form of a second grant option if required for 40 years; a revised application process that removes the financial barrier to scheme entry; an independent appeals process for applicants; alternative accommodation and storage costs and immediate repair works to a maximum value of €25,000; the expertise of the Housing Agency in assessing applications; the inclusion of Residential Tenancies Board-registered rental properties; the inclusion of Clare and Limerick in the enhanced scheme upon commencement and the option for other counties to enter the scheme; and exempt development status for like-for-like remediation works completed under the scheme.

The scheme is now open to new applications. Transitional arrangements for transferring applicants from the current scheme, often called the 90/10 scheme, are in place. Existing applicants to the original scheme will also benefit retrospectively from the enhancements introduced under the new scheme. The enhanced scheme has been legislated for following extensive consultation with all relevant stakeholders. The Minister, departmental officials, and the relevant local authorities worked closely with affected homeowners on the development of the enhanced scheme. I would also like to thank John O’Connor, who acted as a liaison with local groups, for his great assistance. This engagement continued over the past months as we worked to finalise the implementing regulations and accompanying guidelines. The Department appreciates the patience and diligence of all those involved in this final stage. Discussions were always open, helpful, and constructive. As a result, the scheme now in place should deliver significant improvements for all concerned.

The positive working relationships developed during the process will hopefully be carried through to the implementation steering group, comprising officials from the relevant local authorities, the Department, the Housing Agency and the homeowners' liaison officer. Given the complex nature of the scheme, it will be essential to keep the operation of the regulations and guidelines under review. This group will meet in the coming weeks and help ensure the smooth and successful roll-out of the enhanced scheme. It will be tasked with further working through issues as they arise and making recommendations if further changes to the regulations or guidelines are needed. This group will also prepare a first report within six months on the operation of the scheme as requested by the Minister.

I understand that a focus of concern for some has been technical issues around what precise standard should or should not apply as assessments are made in terms of eligibility for the scheme. The IS 465 assessment standard dealing with testing and categorisation of damaged buildings incorporating concrete blocks containing certain deleterious materials is currently being reviewed by the National Standards Authority of Ireland. We will hear from the NSAI director, Ms Geraldine Larkin, shortly. The Department is supporting the NSAI to deliver a wide range of research in support of this review. An inter-agency defective concrete blocks technical matters steering group has been established to support and inform the NSAI standardisation programme about technical issues. The steering group includes representatives from the Department, NSAI, Geological Survey Ireland, GSI, 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. The GSI has also established a procurement framework for the provision of laboratory analysis services to support Geological Survey Ireland's Irish construction materials project on concrete products.

Research proposals developed by the relevant NSAI technical committees, including research to investigate pyrrhotite oxidation in concrete blocks and the potential impact of deleterious materials on foundations, have been commissioned and are making progress. The Department and NSAI are also working closely with Construct Innovate, Ireland's new national research centre for construction technology and innovation based in University of Galway, on several research topics to inform the technical advancement of standards relevant to concrete blocks. My colleagues and I will happily answer as many questions as possible today.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Ó Coigligh. I now invite Mr. Kelly and I ask him to keep to about five minutes. It would be much appreciated.

Mr. Kevin Kelly

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I was a little bit flaithiúileach in the opening statement that I had submitted, so I will not read out every paragraph of it.

I am the 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 Liam Ward, director of services at Donegal County Council. On behalf of the CCMA, I thank the committee for its invitation to contribute to the discussions regarding the defective concrete block scheme and the review of IS 465.

The distress that defective concrete blocks have caused to property owners, primarily in counties Donegal and Mayo to date, is widespread and palpable. This long-standing issue has impacted thousands of homes, consequently affecting families and entire communities.

The defective concrete blocks grant scheme, enacted on January 31, 2020 was exclusively aimed at mitigating the problem in counties Donegal and Mayo but the complexities inherent in the situation and the untested aspects of the scheme resulted in slower than anticipated progress. Appendix 1 in my accompanying statement sets out the position in respect of applications in both Donegal and Mayo. In response to this issue, Donegal County Council and Mayo County Council established local committees comprising 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 multifaceted complexities associated with this issue and its resolution.

As we advance the implementation of the new regulations, it is crucial that the functions of local authorities and the Housing Agency are streamlined as much as possible. While the frequently asked questions and ministerial guidelines set out the steps in some detail, issues will undoubtedly emerge during implementation and we must collectively work to resolve these issues quickly. In this regard, the establishment of 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, will be beneficial. The Minister has acknowledged that 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 implementation steering group will be tasked with working through issues as they arise and to make recommendations to the Minister if further changes to the regulations or guidelines are needed.

The setting up of an engineering team within the Housing Agency, supported by consultants, to focus and deal with engineering aspects of the enhanced scheme is a positive step to address some of the challenges within the existing scheme and is welcomed. This provides for a single engineering decision-maker for each application, on the eligibility of the dwelling, the appropriate remediation option and the grant amount. It remains to be seen if further recourse to the Housing Agency will be required at later stages of the process such as if there is any deviation by the homeowner from the agreed remediation plan.

Obtaining the Government grant and the payment of the actual moneys must be streamlined and timely in order to build confidence and to get through the workload. The quick turnaround of moneys to builders and suppliers will help maintain essential cash flow and retain those builders and suppliers in the marketplace. However, the spending of this level of funds must also stand up to audit and normal public scrutiny and the required oversight and certifications will be required at the necessary intervals by the responsible and accountable professionals. The professional engineering services for the enhanced scheme will be provided by the Housing Agency and its consultant engineering firms on behalf of the State. The professional engineering and architectural services for the homeowner will be provided by the homeowner's private engineer. It has been outlined that the Act requires designated local authorities to carry out a series of administrative checks only and at no stage does a local authority have to make any adjudication in relation to already certified engineering decisions, and therefore the role of the local authority is clear in this regard and it is important that all understand the reliance that will be placed on the engineers' certifications.

It is noted that there is a provision for the extension of the period for carrying out the works by up to 24 weeks due to exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the applicant.

It is important there is a clear and consistent approach across local authorities in this regard.

The homeowner is required to have their building construction professional provide a certificate of compliance with the planning permission for the existing dwelling. While is it clear that local authorities are entitled and expected to rely on such certification, the provision of same may be difficult for agents given that many developments may contain some modifications and queries may arise in respect of compliance or substantial compliance.

The funding for both storage and temporary accommodation, as part of the enhanced scheme is positive for homeowners but significant challenges may remain in securing temporary accommodation within a limited rental market. Given the level of funds that may be administered under the scheme a streamlined and efficient process for local authorities to receive reimbursement for any financial outlay without delay is essential and the CCMA supports any digitalisation of the application and processing systems to ensure speedy processing and communications thereby reducing confusion and delays.

The Act suggests that development consisting of the completion of an approved remediation option shall be exempted where, on its completion, it is not inconsistent with, or materially different from, the appearance and character of the relevant dwelling in respect of which the approved remediation option is to be or has been completed. This planning exemption is described as like for like and the guidance deals with issues around planning, building control, foundations, etc. This is an area that the implementation steering group may need to examine to ensure that the limits of the flexibility that appears to be intended by the scheme are correctly understood by homeowners and their agents in the context of planning law generally and in particular what deviations from the current building will attract the requirement for a planning application.

It was of concern that until now the scheme did not include social houses impacted by defective concrete blocks but it is noted that the Department have signalled the introduction of a scheme to Exchequer-fund local authority and approved housing body-owned social homes which have been damaged by defective concrete blocks and this is welcomed. The CCMA supports the initiative by Government in tasking the NSAI with a crucial role of reviewing the current IS 465 standards, supported by the inter-agency defective concrete blocks - technical matters steering group.

In conclusion, the remediation of property damage due to defective concrete blocks is a significant task. It necessitates a concerted effort across Government, local authorities, the Housing Agency and homeowners. With the right steps, including streamlining processes and clearly defined responsibilities, we can address this issue efficiently. The CCMA’s objective remains to deliver prompt and beneficial outcomes for the homeowners affected by this crisis.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Kelly and invite Ms Larkin of the NSAI to make her opening statement.

Ms Geraldine Larkin

I thank the committee for the invitation to assist in its deliberations on the issues before it. I am the CEO of the NSAI. I am accompanied by my colleagues, Ms. Yvonne Wylde and Dr. Ken Murphy. We are here today to assist the members in their work and address any questions they may have. In this session, we will give an overview of work that the NSAI was requested to undertake by Government, pursuant to its letter of 15 February 2022, including a review of IS 465. At the outset, I would like to acknowledge the homeowners, representatives of whom this committee has already heard from today, and the impact that issues with defective concrete blocks have had and continue to have on them and their families. I would like to assure all stakeholders that the NSAI and its technical committees, which comprise voluntary experts, have made and are continuing to make every effort to expedite work while maintaining integrity of the process.

On the review of IS 465:2018 and its application, at our previous appearance before this committee in December, the NSAI confirmed that work is under way by the relevant NSAI technical committees to inform the revision of IS 465:2018, and that this work would address requests by Government to consider matters related to deleterious materials such as pyrrhotite, and other matters including questions around foundations and insulation raised by the working group on the defective concrete block grant scheme, which comprised a broad range of stakeholders including homeowners representatives, local authorities and Government agencies. At that time, the NSAI also noted that the requested work is critically dependant on further technical information becoming available. The NSAI can now advise that substantive progress is being made through the defective concrete block technical matters steering group, chaired by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, to procure relevant data and research to advance knowledge for this work.

As a result, we can confirm that research programs are now under way to establish the long-term impact of pyrrhotite in walls, rising walls and foundations, which will inform consideration of the structural performance of retained blockwork post remediation. Analysis of the defective concrete blocks, DCB, grant scheme reports is under way and data-gathering and analysis is continuing. Following an open call to identify other data sources, substantive data relating to dwellings currently outside of the DCB grant scheme have been recently procured. This data will be analysed in conjunction with data available from the relevant local authorities from DCB grant scheme applicants. Modelling of behaviour of full-fill insulated walls has been carried out and those results are being considered. Substantive progress has been made on establishing a research programme to explore the long-term efficacy and longevity of alternative remediation options currently referenced in IS 465. The output from these research programmes will also be used to inform other questions raised by Government, including the question of consistency of interpretation of test reports, and criteria defining categories for remediation. In conjunction with this work a review of the guidance associated with the design and construction of masonry concrete block walls is also being carried out. Research referenced above will inform the evolution of associated European and national standards and-or guidance, by providing further technical insight into performance of aggregates, blocks, and blockwork construction.

The revision of SR 325, recommendations for the design of masonry structures in Ireland to Eurocode 6, will be informed by an extensive range of climate-related research and data procured, or being procured, including recently updated climatic data from Met Éireann; the modelling of moisture ingress through concrete block walls; and impact of freeze-thaw and other climatic conditions on the long-term integrity of masonry wall construction.

In its letter of February 2022, the Government also requested that the NSAI consider such other matters as the provision of guidance on procurement, certification and traceability of concrete blocks, consideration of a minimum cement content for blocks, consideration of a maximum specification for content of deleterious materials, and a review of the impact of pumped cavity fill and related guidance in the SR 54 code of practice for the energy efficient retrofit of dwellings. SR 54 is being revised following a systematic review and this, together with other work previously referred to will be informed by relevant learnings from the research programs under way.

It should also be noted at this point that experts serving on the NSAI technical committees for the above work are very conscious of the need for timely updates of work outcomes, and they therefore keep under continuous review the possibility of issuing interim guidance, should this be considered useful or proportionate. The NSAI understands fully its important role in relation to these standards and all standards developed by its technical committees right across the broad spectrum of standards for construction. I hope this statement has given members an overview of our work and we are happy to address any further questions they may have.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Ms Larkin. We will move to members now who will take six-minute slots. Because we started late, I am going to go to 12.50 p.m. with this meeting. Senator Fitzpatrick is first for the Fianna Fáil slot.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

I thank the officials for attending this morning. I do not know if they had the benefit of hearing the earlier part of our session. There were very strong and compelling testimonies from homeowners in Mayo, Donegal and Clare. While they appreciated the extensive work that has gone on now for many years from each of the organisations and Departments, which is all very welcome, there was a very clear direction from the homeowners that they have very real and significant concerns. While they made direct criticisms of the revised scheme, in parallel to addressing those concerns, they absolutely want to move ahead with a scheme.

My first question is to the Department, if Mr. Ó Coigligh could respond. I appreciate we have only got six minutes. I suspect my colleagues are going to be looking for answers to these questions as well. Perhaps we can work through the criticisms systematically, which range from the science of the scheme to its implementation. While I acknowledge the last contribution from the NSAI, the homeowners had criticisms of working from IS 465. We heard about the frustrations and challenges homeowners experience due to the complexity of the operation of the revised scheme.

They are concerned that it does not 100% cover of their costs. There are real concerns about the exclusion of foundations and downsizing from the scheme. They talk about the need for direct local co-ordination and project management. They repeatedly referenced a requirement for an end-to-end scheme. How does the Department respond to those criticisms?

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

I had the benefit of hearing the beginning of the session while we were in the Custom House before we left, but then travelled over here, so I only heard some of the second part of the very strong contributions from the people affected in Donegal, Clare and elsewhere.

For the people living with this distress, it has been a very long campaign. As the Senator pointed out, there is a tension between ongoing concerns and an impatience to get moving and I heard that this morning. There has been criticism of deadlines being missed because we promised to finalise regulations at a particular date and we lost a few weeks so there is an impatience to get going. Some of the concerns and criticisms that have been there from the beginning are still there. From the Department's point of view, we now have an Act to work with. The Oireachtas has laid down a scheme, a funding mechanism, certain limits and a mechanism to increase those limits in a particular fashion. Those are our operating instructions right now. The Act has a three-year review clause. The Department's focus is on getting the scheme up and running because people have been waiting very long time.

There is understandable frustration regarding the science. As we have gone through this, our knowledge has continued to deepen. We are funding a very deep research programme. This will inform not just our own standards, but probably European standards as well. We are going into territory and detail in respect of issues around pyrrhotite and sulfides more generally that has probably not been done before. We are breaking new ground here.

Regarding the criticism of IS 465 of 2018, Ms. Geraldine Larkin from NSAI can talk about that. Our view, and that of the Housing Agency, is that there is sufficient flexibility within IS 465 to address any issues around mica, pyrite and pyrrhotite and the previously mentioned interim guidelines may also helpful. We can work through these issues. It is in nobody's interest to hide anything or not to uncover something. It is in nobody's interest to deny points of view from other technical experts. They all have to be investigated thoroughly and bottomed out. Sometimes the argument is set out as mica versus pyrrhotite. It does not really matter. We have to get to the bottom of this and ensure that houses are fixed and that these issues do not arise again. It is not as if a huge amount has not been done to prevent issues arising again but we can we can get into that in a little bit more detail.

The guidelines and the schedules are quite complex but they are there to serve as a guide for people. The Housing Agency is now involved, which will be very helpful.

Regarding issues about foundations, to date, there has been no evidence of failure in foundations, but research is ongoing.

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

I think I have explained the position to the Deputy.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Deputy Emer Higgins

To pick up on a point made by Deputy Conway-Walsh, there are many people across Donegal, Mayo and Donegal who are currently calculating on the basis of estimated costs and the new SCSI rates that they are not going to get even 90%, let alone 100%. Rather than having a row with our guests as to whether that is going to happen, the report they are going to produce should record the gap between the full cost of remediation as set out in the regulations and legislation and the grant level. If the six-monthly report had that information, we would not be speculating and arguing on anecdotal evidence; we would have hard facts.

To pick up on Deputy Higgins's point on insurance, the Housing Agency has research functions at close proximity to this and could assist. Perhaps there could be a record of where there are insurance issues where remediation is completed or where engineers or certifiers are having difficulty with their professional indemnity insurance. That would be important data. I am not accusing Mr. Ó Coigligh of this but it would be a shame if the report only highlighted the positives, and I am sure there are going to be positives for many people, without also highlighting the issues. What was clear from the homeowners today is that they want the scheme open because they want in but they also have a long list of concerns. If the evidence as we go through this scheme validates some or all of those concerns, the scheme is going to have to change. The Department's report will be key. I make that opening point.

My questions are not going to relate to the legislation because that is a battle we will have with the Government and the members of the Government who voted for that legislation so I will save our guests that pain.

I am particularly concerned with the transitional arrangements and new entrants to the scheme in terms of the potential level of bureaucracy for applicants and local authorities. I am particularly concerned about the staffing requirements and additional staffing requirements for local authorities given the significant pressures they are under. How can the Department give comfort to this committee that those in the existing scheme will be able to seamlessly and effortlessly transition across to the new scheme? What assurance can the Department provide that new applicants will not have the same experience as applicants for the existing scheme in terms of the processing?

Is the CCMA satisfied that it has the staff? I am particularly concerned about Donegal because the scale of cases is much larger. We all know the pressures housing, planning and building control departments are under. I ask the witnesses from the CCMA to speak to that as well.

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

It is probably a good idea to come back after the operation report. I assure the Deputy that the review of the operation of the scheme is not to say everything is fine. The review of the operation of the scheme is to say we are now operating and we have hit these bumps in the road. We have solved some of the issues, for example, we might be tweaking the guidelines. Some need the regulation to change and we will be reporting to the Minister on that basis. It is not a report to tell us this is how wonderful the scheme is going. It is a case of the Housing Agency and local authorities all working together to try to implement the scheme ourselves and having faced a number of these issues, we think tweaks are needed. That is what we are doing.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Regarding the issue of foundations, if core testing by the Housing Agency and engineers starts to find that it is a problem, part of the difficulty is that this is not covered under the grant, whatever the grant is. Will those reports also have the scope to be able to make recommendations to Government regarding changing the legislative basis of the scheme from a policy point of view in light of new issues that may emerge?

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

If new issues emerge, they will go into the system and will be considered by the Minister. The Act calls for a three-year review of the Act. We will have a six-month review of the regulations and a three-year review of the Act. Should something significant change regarding, for example, foundations, we would have to deal with that information as it comes in. The issues around insurance and access to funding from financial institutions were engaged with. They are outside the technical implementation group but in terms of the Department reporting to the Minister in six months, I do not see why we would not update the Minister on those issues and come back to the committee to discuss them with it.

Regarding transitional arrangements, the documents we sent out are very extensive. The idea is to try to guide people through the process as far as possible. I wrote to the chief executive in Donegal a few weeks ago and said we want to help and if there were issues around resourcing, the local authority should talk to us. We are very mindful of that because it is in our interests to make this scheme work.

Mr. Liam Ward

There are two issues there. In the context of the transitional arrangements, local authorities are very much committed to making the scheme work in as efficient a manner as possible for the benefit of the homeowners. We have a number of applications. I think the number is of the order of 850. Under the previous scheme, applicants received confirmation of eligibility so they have gone past stage one approval and must receive revised calculations based on the new scheme. It will take a bit of time to do that. We have already commenced work on it and have determined a priority order in which those applications will be considered. We will look at those further down the line to see who may need actual money to pay for work that is ongoing. That is the order in which we have decided to tackle the issue.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Regarding the transitional arrangements for those who were stuck in stage one, because there now appears to be flexibility which did not exist then, applicants are obviously going to the Housing Agency. What is the expectation and timeline for decisions on those applications based on discussions with the agency?

Mr. Liam Ward

I do not have a clear line of sight on the timelines within the Housing Agency. I think in excess of 350 applications have been transferred to the agency. We have received three new applications as of the new scheme being available. It was opened on Monday this week. We are receiving a considerable volume of calls and queries, as we had expected.

Regarding staffing, I acknowledge what Mr. Ó Coigligh said about Department support. We have an existing complement of staff that we know will be under pressure. Additional staff have been recruited and are due to join the team in light of the expected increase in applications. It is something we will keep under review with the Department in terms of additional resources.

Deputy Joe McHugh

I welcome our witnesses. Some of the faces are familiar as we worked together in the past. I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to speak as I am not a member of this committee. I welcome Mr. Ó Coigligh's statement that the Department has nothing to hide. The public needs to hear those words. On page 3 of his presentation, Mr. Ó Coigligh said the implementation steering group will be tasked with working through issues as they arise and making recommendations if further changes to the regulations or guidelines are needed. It is obvious from this presentation this morning that this scheme will evolve. It has to evolve because there are plenty of shortcomings. While I understand that we must have a scheme and must try to get it moving, there are so many areas that need to be addressed. My suggestion is that the voice of the homeowners be included on the implementation steering group. I am not looking for a "Yes" or "No" answer today. I am making it based on everyone's bona fides and the assumption that there is nothing to hide.

We have been listening to the voice of the homeowners for so long now at committee level and at public demonstrations. I do not have mica. I try to understand it. I have been involved in this area for ten years. My neighbours have mica, as do relations. I know some people who are going through trauma but I cannot fully understand what that is until I actually live with it. My suggestion would be to have a voice from the homeowners. Let them decide who the individuals should be on the implementation steering group. The group is very lucky that it has a homeowners liaison officer in John O'Connor, whose credibility among homeowners is very high. He is very sincere and excellent at his job but I also think the group needs the voice of the homeowners. If the group is going to produce reports at six-monthly intervals, that voice must be there.

One of the major failings of this campaign was communication. It did not feel as though the voice of the homeowners was part of the solution. That creates antagonism, bad feeling and a vacuum. Given my brief knowledge as a result of being in various Departments, my fear is that once a box is ticked and a scheme is introduced, the Department is so busy with a range of housing issues it becomes a case of "that bit is done, let us move on". We cannot allow this to happen with this scheme because the scheme is too complex, big, wide, varied and challenging. I ask Mr. Ó Coigligh to ensure the voice of the homeowner is represented on the implementation steering group. Out of respect, which I gained for Mr. Ó Coigligh in the years I worked with him, I will not ask him for an answer today.

It was great because I was speaking to Mr. Verbruggen earlier who told me that Dr. Paul Dunlop is represented on the technical matters steering group. That is very important and that the public know about that as well.

My second question, briefly, concerns the recommendation made today by Engineers Ireland for five to ten engineers to go to each local authority to provide more oversight of the sector. This is a no-brainer and the campaign groups have been calling for this for years. I am not looking for a "Yes" or "No" answer from Mr. Ward or Mr. Kelly today because I know they will say that they will have to bring it back to the council. I ask them to bring that suggestion back to the council. Mr. Ó Coigligh's team is the one which has to pay the money and write the cheques but I believe it would be a prudent and worthwhile suggestion for five to ten engineers to be appointed within the relevant local authorities to provide that much-needed oversight, which was missing.

Finally, Ms Larkin is the messenger here today and this is not a personal criticism of her in any way, because she happens to be the voice here. Eighteen months is too long. It is outrageously long. You must put your feet into the shoes of the homeowner. The biggest fear of the people I have had contact with over the years is to face into another winter. Mica and pyrrhotite homeowners are facing into another winter and we are telling them here today to face into another two winters before that is put to bed. It is not acceptable. The National Standards Authority of Ireland has widened its brief to bring in the Eurocode 6, which is all good and important, together with climatic data from Met Éireann and the impact of freeze-thaw and other climatic conditions. That has nothing to do with sulphur. This particular job needs to be compartmentalised in a shorter timeframe. I know that there are constraints, resource issues and I know where the science must be carried out.

Ms Hone talked this morning about the science having to be right. I completely understand that but if people are expected in good faith to go into a scheme; to take option 2 to 5; to take off their outer leaf and perhaps the inner block might be okay and, fingers crossed, the foundation will be all right that is no way to treat people, especially those who have lived and continue to live this nightmare They completely dread facing into another winter because doing that means that they are thinking of a chimney on a two-storey house and what might happen if it falls on the bison slabs, and what happens when the bison slabs come in on the lower bedroom.

I say to Ms Larkin that to contemplate what it is like for those homeowners, to be telling them here today that we will get this sorted but then to ask these homeowners for a further two winters, morally and in every way that is wrong. This is not a criticism of Ms Larkin, as she is the messenger here today, but I ask her to go back to her colleagues and to the Department to see if there is some way to compartmentalise this piece of work away from the wider work that it also needs to do.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Deputy McHugh. We are almost out of time on so if anybody wishes to make a brief contribution or to consider the recommendations, I ask them to do so now, please.

Mr. Kevin Kelly

I will make a brief contribution, please. I am just not clear on the oversight piece. There are a number of things. Different local authorities have taken a slightly different approaches with a view to addressing-----

Deputy Joe McHugh

My apologies to Mr. Kelly for interrupting him but I will give him the script from Engineers Ireland as there is a specific request-----

Mr. Kevin Kelly

But just to explain to the Deputy, our future role is not a technical one but is more administrative. I do not know where the oversight comes in. We have used external assistance to date for that technical piece.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I completely accept that the Department operates the legislation which is passed by the Oireachtas. That is completely reasonable.

That is Mr. Ó Coigligh's view.

On the trauma and stress that homeowners have clearly gone through, it is very important - and I do not expect everybody to have the same views on all of these things - that these homeowners are listened to and respected. Given what they have gone through and what they have said, for Mr. Ó Coigligh to come into the committee and to reject what they have been saying-----

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Sorry Deputy, I did not reject what they said-----

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Mr. Ó Coigligh said that the vast majority of those who need help-----

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

That is unfair of the Deputy.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Fair enough, but he said that "The vast majority of those who need help will get all the financial assistance they need."

This is something the individual house owners have to deal with. Ideally, in this scenario, people would work together but, theoretically, there could be a scenario where one house is being done and the other house is not. We can certainly get the information on the breakdown between house types and, even in my own planning lists, quite a few that I have seen are typical estate houses, and are semi-detached and so forth. We can get that information.

There is no co-ordination mechanism at the moment. If there are ten houses in an estate, they could all be having work done individually as opposed to there being some sort of collective mechanism because it is a private issue for the homeowner.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Martina Hegarty, who gave testimony, lives in a terrace of three. Her end house and the other end house are both in the scheme but the middle house is not eligible for the scheme because the house is not affected by pyrite. That is obviously a very precarious position because there will be two new houses, given the end houses are going to be demolished and rebuilt, that are going to rest on a property that will not be eligible even under the new scheme, as I understand it.

I have a couple of specific technical questions. With respect to social housing and local authorities, I would like to have an update on the pilot. My question also relates to the nature of the testing under the scheme. For example, if a local authority or an approved housing body has a social housing scheme of 20 or 30 units, under the terms of the pilot, will every individual unit have to be surveyed and will funding be allocated on the basis of individual surveys? What is the plan? That is my first question.

The second question is for Mr. Ó Coigligh because I think there might have been some confusion between him and my colleague, Deputy Conway-Walsh. Her question was not why the SCSI was asked to do the job because it is most qualified. The terms of reference were decided by the Department and the SCSI made it very clear that it had some issues. I do not see in the statutory instrument where the 2008 building regulations requirement is. From memory, it is not in the legislation and it is not in the statutory instrument. I know that Mr. Ó Coigligh knows this stuff inside out. I would just like some guidance so everybody is clear on the legal basis of that 2008 building regulations requirement and where it sits in the legislation.

What about the other three?

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

The joint committee adjourned at 12.54 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 19 September 2023.

Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate - Thursday, 13 Jul 2023

Defective Block Scheme Regulations and Review of IS 465: Discussion

Mr. Paul Forde

Mr. Damien Owens

Ms Shirley Coulter

Ms Lisa Hone

Ms Lisa Hone

Ms Lisa Hone

Dr. Martina Cleary

Ms Martina Hegarty

Dr. Martina Cleary

Dr. Martina Cleary

Mr. Damien Owens

Ms Lisa Hone

Mr. Damien Owens

Mr. Damien Owens

Mr. Damien Owens

Mr. Paul Forde

Mr. Damien Owens

Mr. Damien Owens

Mr. Paul Forde

Ms Martina Hegarty

Ms Martina Hegarty

Mr. Kevin Brady

Mr. Paul Forde

Mr. Damien Owens

Ms Lisa Hone

Mr. Paul Forde

Ms Martina Hegarty

Ms Lisa Hone

Ms Lisa Hone

Ms Lisa Hone

Ms Lisa Hone

Ms Martina Hegarty

Dr. Martina Cleary

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Kevin Kelly

Ms Geraldine Larkin

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Kevin Kelly

Mr. Kevin Kelly

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Ms Geraldine Larkin

Mr. Koen Verbruggen

Mr. Koen Verbruggen

Ms Geraldine Larkin

Ms Geraldine Larkin

Mr. Kevin Kelly

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Ms Geraldine Larkin

Ms Geraldine Larkin

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh

Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate -
Thursday, 13 Jul 2023