Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 10 Feb 2015

Pyrite Remediation Programme: Pyrite Resolution Board

Chairman

I welcome the following witnesses from the Pyrite Resolution Board to the meeting: Mr. John O'Connor, chairman, Mr. Noel Carroll, general manager, and Ms Sarah Neary, programme manager. Thank you for your attendance today. I propose to hear the witnesses in the order in which I have announced them. I must read out the warning about what you can and cannot say. It is a little technical, so bear with me.

I draw your attention to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against a person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also wish to advise you that any documentation you provide with your opening statement may be published on the committee website once the meeting has concluded.

Members 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.

I call on the representatives of the Pyrite Resolution Board to give an opening address.

Mr. John O'Connor

My colleagues and I are pleased to accept the invitation to discuss the operations of the Pyrite Resolution Board. With the indulgence of the committee, I will use the acronym PRB for brevity as I go through my statement. The board is now a little over a year in existence.

The Pyrite Resolution Act 2013 was commenced by the then Minister on 10 January 2014 and the board was appointed immediately thereafter. The board consists of myself as chairman and three other members. It has a small staff supplied from existing staff of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Housing Agency. The board does not employ any staff directly. Some administrative, information and communications technology and legal services are provided by or through the Housing Agency.

At the request of the clerk to the committee we supplied in advance an opening statement for the information of the committee. We hope the committee finds this helpful. It sets out in detail the provisions of the pyrite remediation scheme and the arrangements in place for the implementation of remediation of eligible dwellings, current activity levels, funding and other significant aspects.

The Oireachtas passed the Pyrite Resolution Act with the purpose of providing for Exchequer-funded remediation of houses and apartments suffering significant damage due to pyritic heave of floors in cases where the owners have no other practicable option. The PRB, which had previously been operating on an informal basis, was appointed under the Act and mandated to draw up a scheme for the remediation of pyritic damage to dwellings, accept applications from affected homeowners and direct and oversee the implementation of a pyrite remediation programme. Responsibility for the testing of dwellings and the execution of remediation works is assigned to the Housing Agency.

The pyrite remediation scheme sets out the conditions that must be satisfied to qualify for remediation under the scheme. They require, inter alia, that a dwelling must be assessed and certified in accordance with the relevant Irish standards as having a damage condition rating of 2, attributable to pyritic heave; a dwelling must be located in Dublin city, Fingal, Meath, Kildare or Offaly, although this has now been extended to include South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire local authority areas; a dwelling must have been constructed and completed between 1 January 1997 and 12 December 2013; and the applicant must be able to satisfy the PRB that he or she has no other practicable option to remediate the dwelling.

The terms and conditions of the pyrite remediation scheme were produced by the PRB on 13 February 2014 with the approval of the Minister. They are bound by the parameters set out in the Act and have regard to the findings of the pyrite panel that reported to the then Minister in June 2012. Following consideration of representations and evidence from affected homeowners in locations outside the remit of the original scheme, the board has now amended the scheme, with the Minister's approval, to include South Dublin and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown areas.

For a dwelling included in the scheme, the costs to be met out of public funds in addition to remediation works include the services of a building professional to specify and supervise the works, the general cost of managing the programme and necessary vouched costs incurred by the applicant on alternative accommodation as well as removal and storage of belongings. The building condition assessment will also be met within stated limits.

As I have said, the Act sets out the respective functions of the PRB and the Housing Agency. I am pleased to note that the two bodies have been working together efficiently and effectively. This co-operation is underpinned by a memorandum of agreement that sets out the respective roles in the interests of clarity and accountability. Financial accountability is vested by the Act in the Housing Agency. The PRB and the Housing Agency have collaborated in the design and installation of an online system for the making, receipt and processing of applications. The system is working efficiently, it is user-friendly and enables applicants to track the progress of their applications online.

The PRB has secured an agreement with the HomeBond company, under which the company is committed to provide staffing and services to the value of €2 million towards the implementation and administration of the pyrite remediation scheme. These arrangements, which include the provision of testing of hard core, are working satisfactorily.

The PRB is acutely conscious of the need to ensure that the draw on public funds is kept to a minimum consistent with achieving the scheme's objectives. To ensure value for money, framework panels have been set up for building professionals and contractors following open tendering. Contracts for individual projects are subject to further tendering from these panels. There will be strict control on cost overruns. Individual applications, when approved, are grouped into projects to secure maximum efficiencies consistent with the need to ensure that the works are not unnecessarily prolonged for the homeowners. The Act recognises that it will not be possible to carry out all these remediation works at once and provides that the PRB will progress the remediation programme in accordance with a system of priorities based on given criteria. The pyrite remediation scheme makes provision for the ordering and prioritisation of works in accordance with these provisions. The PRB and the Housing Agency have put in place procedures for the creation of an orderly schedule of projects to be progressed through the implementation stages of the scheme. We are keen for this to be seen as an informative, objective and fair process.

With regard to activity in terms of applications received by the PRB, up to end January 2015 632 applications had been received, of which 146 are still awaiting validation - stage 1 - mainly due to the issue of alternative practicable options not being resolved. A further 158 cases are at the testing and verification for pyrite stage and 328 applicants have been notified of inclusion in the scheme, of which 230 are in the process of having remedial works plans prepared. A further 73 cases are in the tendering process and work is about to commence on a project covering 20 dwellings. Five dwellings have been already remediated and I am glad to say that this pilot project was completed on time and within budget. The homeowners concerned have expressed satisfaction with the process. The stated aim of our strategy and business plan is the remediation of 600 dwellings over this year and next year.

On funding, total expenditure on the process in 2014 was €1.1 million. This money was made available, as required, through the Department's Vote and at year end the PRB was allocated a further €1.1 million to cover contractual commitments at the end of the year. The Department's Estimates for 2015 provide a capital allocation of an additional €10 million to fund the programme going forward. The availability of funding has not been an issue that in any way affected progress on the scheme.

The legislation provides that the PRB will recover from any party with a liability and the capacity to pay all or part of the cost of remediating a dwelling. While the PRB does not consider the initiation of legal proceedings to be a practicable option for homeowners it is taking action where considered appropriate to pursue builders or developers for a contribution towards the cost of the works. The level of co-operation forthcoming from builders and developers varies but some success has been achieved, thus reducing the burden on public funds. This is a legally complex and demanding area.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd took the Chair.

Mr. John O'Connor

The PRB and the Housing Agency are acutely aware at all times of the difficulties and distress endured by homeowners whose homes have been damaged by pyrite. We have set out to provide a service to them that is sympathetic and transparent and will restore properly habitable houses to them in the shortest time possible. At all times our aim is to work closely with homeowners. For example, through consultation with them on the remedial work plan and by providing good notice for vacation of the dwelling etc. There is a right of appeal for those whose applications have been refused and there are procedures in place for the resolution of disputes and the making of complaints. To date, two appeals have been made. The PRB website contains extensive information on eligibility for the scheme, to help homeowners in considering whether they have pyritic damage and to inform those who apply of the process involved. Furthermore, each approved applicant is provided with a suite of documents, including a guide setting out what is expected of each homeowner and the Housing Agency.

I am happy to listen to members' comments and to respond to any questions they may have.

Deputy James Bannon

I welcome Mr. O'Connor and his personnel to the meeting. This problem has been ongoing for the past number of years. A number of homes throughout the country are affected. It is a problem more prevalent in some counties than others. Are the local authorities still involved in testing of infill materials used in the construction of houses? It is important that they are if we are to ensure similar problems do not occur in the future. The current cost to the State of rectifying the problems caused as a result of light regulation over many years is huge. I accept this may not be a matter relevant to the PRB. However, perhaps Mr. O'Connor would provide some clarity on it.

Mr. John O'Connor

It is not a question for the PRB. However, one of my colleagues might be able to reply as they have some knowledge of the building regulations.

Ms Sarah Neary

The National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, recently revised standard recommendation No. 21 which deals with underground granular fill used beneath concrete floors in houses. That recommendation provides a great deal of detail on the physical and chemical performances of hard core and a grading structure for it. The material is well specified. An example specification is provided in Annex E of that standard recommendation, which is available to all designers and builders, in regard to the procurement and use of underground floor bearing slabs.

Deputy James Bannon

Will this ensure similar problems will not arise in the future?

Ms Sarah Neary

To comply with SR 21, manufacturers need to have a factory production control process in place. There is also a regime of testing involved, including initial type testing and continuous testing on a frequency which is set out in the standard recommendation. The EU construction products regulation requires that manufacturers declare their performance against key parameters. As part of the transaction around the purchase of hard core this declaration must be provided by the manufacturer. It is then possible to check if the hard core meets the specification required, providing greater surety that one is getting what one paid for and that it meets the right specification.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

There has been an incident in Drogheda in regard to a local authority housing estate where a number of houses had to be demolished allegedly because of the use of inferior material, including pyrite. I am not sure if the Senator is aware of that but it is germane to his question.

Mr. John O'Connor

The PRB is aware of it. Our remit is to address of the pyrite heave on ground floors. We have no remit in regard to concrete products.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

That the houses concerned had to be demolished is a serious issue. I appreciate this may not be a matter that comes within the direct remit of the PRB but outside of that and in terms of the Mr. O'Connor's attendance at this meeting today, is he not concerned about it and about how future problems can be prevented?

Mr. John O'Connor

I am certainly concerned about it. The answer to prevention of future problems arising lies in the implementation of regulations, fool-proofing systems and so on. A lot has been learned as a result of the debacle with which we are currently dealing. I am not familiar with the regulations around concrete products. Perhaps one of my colleagues would like to comment further on that.

Ms Sarah Neary

In a general sense, there are standards that support the requirements for products in the various forms of construction, including the building regulations which require that materials fit for purpose be used and a new regime around building control which provides that assigned certifiers need to be on site checking workmanship and the materials that go into projects.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

Is it in order for the committee to ask that the Department respond directly to the issue raised by Deputy Bannon? I appreciate this may not be an issue for the PRB but there are cases where pyrite was allegedly the cause of the demolition of houses.

Mr. John O'Connor

We are aware of that.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

How many estates are involved and how can this be prevented from happening again notwithstanding all of the regulations currently in place?

Mr. John O'Connor

As I said, that is not a matter within the remit of the PRB. We are aware of the issue in general terms.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

The committee secretariat might request the information from the Department.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I thank Mr. O'Connor and his staff for their presentations. As Sinn Féin spokesperson on housing I have been monitoring and working with the PRB since its establishment.

Why do we accept only certain areas or counties are affected? There are issues also in Louth and Donegal but we have specified certain areas. I find that unusual and the Minister has included other areas in Rathdown and south County Dublin. When legislation is introduced we should not specify areas and leave others outside the loop.

We have other issues now. It is not pyrite heave but in Donegal problems have arisen with cement in the brickwork. How many houses has the board done at this stage? Is it five? I thought it was a lot more than that. What cost is each unit on average? I know figures of €20,000, €30,000 and €40,000 were mentioned. How does the red, amber and green warning system work, how are the more serious cases approached and how does one work to the next level. HomeBond refused to engage with the committee here previously; I know it has signed up to this but the amount of money is very small. The committee requested that HomeBond attend meetings but it refused to engage. It is disappointing for everyone it adopted that position - it is getting off very lightly in terms of its contribution.

Reference was made to pursuing builders and developers. Is any progress being made on that? The reality is many have refused to pay. They blame the quarries. Whether it is the quarries that have ultimate responsibility, the way things were monitored at the quarries has been a big problem. The problems are mainly to the north side of Dublin, stretching up the country. Have the quarries come up to standard do we know? Have they put in place mechanisms to check the material in a proper fashion? We had the people from the quarries in the south - they had far better procedures in places than some of the quarries we have seen involved here.

Mr. John O'Connor

I counted nine questions so we will try to address them as best we can. The Deputy asked why certain areas were specified. This goes back to trying to target where the problem exists and where it is most severe. The legislation does not specify areas but it does allow the pyrite board, in terms of making the scheme with the approval of the Minister, to confine it to certain areas where there is evidence that the problem existed. The problem does not exist nationwide. It can be identified as involving a defined number of quarries in a relatively defined area of the country. The pyrite board considered it better to start off and define the areas where we saw the problem properly identified, taking account of the evidence presented to the pyrite panel. Noel Carroll was a member of the panel and he will add to what I have said.

We had evidence in respect of certain areas and 600 applications came in - a small number came from Dún Laoghaire and south Dublin. We looked at the evidence in detail to ascertain if damage was caused by pyrite and if there was any way to address it other than the taxpayer having to pay for it. We came to the conclusion the scheme should be extended to include these areas because there was a genuine issue here. The board extended the scheme and the Minister approved this last week. If corresponding evidence arises for areas beyond those covered at present the board will look at that. It is not a closed shop.

We dealt with block work and concrete product in reply to Deputy James Bannon. The Deputy asked how many houses had been done and the answer is five. We did a pilot project of five dwellings to test the system - the drawing up of contracts and remediation plans, consultation with occupants, getting them to vacate premises etc. There are many stages to be undergone. It might appear slow initially because we have in operation for a year and have only completed five but we are progressing. Five are finished satisfactorily, on time and within the budget. We have contracts in place with another 20 to be followed by further contracts in the months ahead and the numbers will increase. We will draw up remedial work plans - one does not just give a builder a job, plans must be drawn up by an engineer and so on. We can go into more detail on the process if members wish. We are putting in place a schedule of work, grouping individual applications into viable projects. We are not doing one house jobs. They are grouped giving the engineer a remit to draw up the plans for the required remediation work, moving on to the tender stage, getting the person to vacate the dwelling and then on to doing the work. There is a lot happening but it is going a bit under the radar in terms of numbers completed.

The Deputy asked about costs. We are in the middle of tendering at the moment. I am reluctant to go into details about costs as the information is commercially sensitive. I have no trouble sharing cost information in private with the committee but I do not wish to prejudice ongoing commercial tendering.

Mr. Noel Carroll

The red, amber and green came up first in the context of the pyrite panel report. There are differences in the approach, different definitions and categorisation. While they are in parallel they are not exactly aligned. When setting out which houses to include, the scheme is aimed at those with verifiable, specific levels of damage - a threshold that must be exceeded to get into the scheme. We have 20 houses that did not meet that level of damage. There is provision for inclusion of those in some exceptional circumstances - where to do an adjoining house might necessitate that house being done at the same time. In some cases the damage has progressed to the damage condition rating of two in any event and they are now included.

Eight applications have been refused. Some have appealed the decision to the board, as they are entitled to do. The appeals will be considered. We take an active part in keeping in touch with those people, to see if they can get over the level and into the scheme. Houses vary in terms of severity of damage, some of those that make a rating of two are not terribly severe but they cross the level and meet the criteria.

There are others that are very severe, and I am sure members have seen photographs.

Mr. John O'Connor

There is an exception provision as well whereby even if one's property only has a condition rating of one, one can get into the scheme if the adjoining property is badly affected and one's property might be affected as well. There is that exceptional clause in the legislation and in the scheme. If one is joining and one's property only has a one rating one may very well be taken into the scheme as an exception because of the impact of what is happening next door to one's own premises.

Deputy Ellis mentioned HomeBond. I will not comment on the comment that HomeBond got off lightly. All I will say is that the PRB has negotiated a certain level of contribution to the implementation of the scheme with HomeBond in terms of testing services which they are in a position to provide. The PRB has received a commitment from HomeBond to provide testing and other services to the value of €2 million over the next couple of years. The PRB is keeping an eye on how well these services are working. To date, as I said in my opening remarks, it is working out pretty well as we had anticipated. It is something that the board set out to do at the start, that we would try to secure whatever contribution we could from HomeBond in terms of easing the burden on the tax payer. The Deputy mentioned the issue of the pursuit of builders and developers the board is conscious of the need to do that and is doing it. Mr. Carroll has spent a lot of time on this particular aspect. It has taken quite a lot of time as it is a legally complex matter. The level of co-operation from builders and developers varies a lot. Some of them, quite honestly, are good and others are not so good. It is interesting to observe how different companies and different developers have reacted to this. Mr Carroll might say a bit more on this matter.

Mr. Noel Carroll

I am happy to say some of those are coming to fruition and will provide significant contributions to the scheme. People have their own reasons for doing it and for not doing it. The process is slow, as members can imagine. The PRB has a number of legal agreements being drawn up, which require much input and time.

Mr. John O'Connor

The PRB will get some funds from this source. It is impossible to say yet how much it will be because there are many legal issues to be sorted out and these are slow, as you can imagine.

Senator Cáit Keane

I welcome the inclusion of south Dublin in the scheme although the fact it is there is sad in itself. The standards that are being implemented come in two parts - part 1 and part 2 I understand - for sub-floor and the testing of the sub-floor. Is there any scientific geological survey of the country to find out exactly from where the pyrite emanates? We have inspections and architects and others signing off on buildings and that is leading to trouble in itself particularly for an owner signing of on one-off housing. It would be good to pinpoint the problem. Initially it was thought that it was all sand based but it has now been found that it can arise when quarry is blasted. Is there a map? I saw a map that just shows the areas that are included but it is not a geological survey map. It is basically a pyrite identification map of Ireland. Is there a proposal to have a geological survey carried out to determine which quarries will not be certified and should be closed down? In this way the problem could be nipped in the bud rather than having multiple testing. For example, if one house is built with stone from a certain quarry, it must be tested and another house built with stone from the same quarry must also be tested. The same testing could be carried out 100 times on the same material whereas only one test would be required if the source of the stone was known.

Mr. John O'Connor

I reiterate that this is not within the remit of the PRB. Mr. Carroll was on the pyrite panel which heard a lot of evidence about pyrite and its spread and so forth and he might like to comment.

Mr. Noel Carroll

The first point to make is that pyrite is a ubiquitous mineral present in a lot of rock. To put it in very simple terms, it depends on the type of pyrite it is but more than anything else it depends on the type of rock that it is present in. In Dublin and its surrounding area the pyrite was in good quality limestone and did not create any problem. Where it is present in mud stone it creates the problems because the mud stone is weak and the pyrite begins to expand in it. It is very interesting to see. One sees stone all around the city of Dublin; all the historic buildings, including this one, are all built in stone that has been there for hundreds of years and nothing has happened to it. There is probably pyrite in it. With mud stone containing pyrite, it is hardly in the ground before it starts to react. One can see the chemical reaction and within a very short time it breaks in one's hands when picked up. As it is such a ubiquitous material the means of determining whether a stone is at risk or not is through the testing standard, which works well. It breaks down the individual chemical constituents and the various physical properties of the stone. It is not very difficult to do.

Now, one might say one quarry is okay and another is not but it is rarely that simple because there are different seams within different quarries. The same quarry can have a harmful seam and that is why the management at the quarry, the process - as Ms Neary mentioned earlier- and the production control systems are so important. Another element is that products are produced for different purposes. One might take a load of the stone and decide to lay a temporary pathway into a field or something like that, and it will be suitable for this purpose, but one would not put it under the floor of a house. That is why it is important to specify the stone that one has and to get evidence to support this, to have the paper trail on that. If I were a builder and I was building houses regularly, given the history of these things in the past, I would do some testing on the site to keep them straight. A code of practice is being prepared and is at an advanced stage. I believe it is out for public consultation. The purpose of the code is to advise people on the procurement of stone and how they should go about it. That should cover all the trials. I should also add that in the remediation process the PRB is carrying out, it is being ensured and certified that the stone that is going back under the houses meets the standards and that it is appropriate for its purpose and will not cause further problems.

Senator Cáit Keane

I have another brief question. If one has an older house and is not aware if pyrite is present one can pay the RPI to provide testing. Is that facility available for this as well?

Mr. Noel Carroll

It is very likely, given that these quarries have existed since time immemorial, some similar type of stone got in under older houses. In those cases there were different construction methods. At the time many people had timber floors. There might not have been the same degree if compaction as there was previously. The bottom line is if one does not have the damage one does not have the problem. There could be pyrite and it might even have expanded a little but if it did not push up the floor, one would not go looking for it. In truth there was no problem prior to the mid to late 90s in this area. It is quite clear again from the pyrite panel report that it was the expansion in terms of the amount of stone being produced in quarries that prompted this problem to occur.

It would appear that people started using quarries that might have been marginal or not considered suitable before they started producing this stone, production of which increased from 30 million tonnes annually to 130 million tonnes annually. That is probably the genesis of the problem.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

Mr. Carroll has an encyclopaedic grasp of this subject, which is welcome.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

Some of us are, unfortunately, experts in pyrite because we have been living with it for a number of years. During my 11 years as a councillor with Fingal County Council it was a major problem. Fingal is one of the areas worst affected.

I welcome the establishment of the board. As stated by Senator Keane, all of the quarries responsible for this are still operating. To the best of my knowledge, none of them has had a licence revoked and nothing has been done to them. Mr. O'Connor mentioned in his opening statement that up to end January 2015 632 applications had been received by the board. Would he agree that that number of applications is a drop in the ocean in terms of the pyrite problem in this country? As I understand it, the estimate of the number of houses affected varies between 10,000 and 20,000. I do not believe that is an over-estimate for the following reason. In my own estate of Castlecurragh in Mulhuddart there are 720 housing units. I am not aware how many applications the PRB may have received from people in that estate but I know from the countless meetings I have had with residents of the estate on this matter that most of them have not submitted an application to it. Most of them are still not aware that their homes contain pyrite. When I was out canvassing around the estate I could see as soon as many of the doors were opened that the houses had been damaged by pyrite, to which I then alerted people.

Pyrite damage tends to be a problem in estates made up mainly of starter homes, many of which are rented out. I can assure Mr. O'Connor that the 632 applications received is only a drop in the ocean. Of the 720 housing units in my estate, approximately 100 to 150 were represented at various meetings I held on the matter. I know from those meetings that houses in only one part of the estate are affected, which may be a reason for the number of applications received to date being very low. Within a two-mile radius of Mulhuddart, houses in another four estates are affected by pyrite. One of the estates is a council built estate that is being leased to the Respond housing agency. As I understand it, because the residents of those houses do not own their own homes they are exempt from the PRB scheme. This is another anachronism. Perhaps Mr. O'Connor would clarify if the scheme is to be opened up to people whose houses are decaying around them.

Has the PRB considered taking out advertisements to advise people of the symptoms of pyrite? It was only when I held public meetings and showed people photographs of what pyrite looks like that they realised their homes were affected. In my view, the PRB needs to be more proactive in terms of making people aware of the scheme. I presume there is a deadline for receipt of applications and so on. Money needs to be spent on encouraging people into the system. As a councillor I did a great deal of work in this area, with no help from the council. I was accused on many occasions, when pyrite was not being openly talked about, of devaluing people's houses, etc. Residents who purchased homes in my estate in the past five years are now living in pyrite-affected homes. Secrecy does not do anybody any good. As I said earlier, the figure of 632 is only a drop in the ocean. I appreciate that things are slow to get started, that five houses have been remediated and the aim is to remediate a further 600 this year.

Mr. O'Connor also stated in his opening submission that the availability of funding has not been an issue. Surely it is an issue. Work would be progressing much quicker if more money and staff were available. Mr. O'Connor might think work is progressing at a satisfactory pace but I am a little more impatient because I am dealing constantly with people who have been living with the problem for many years.

My next query relates to HomeBond. When many of us bought homes we insured them with HomeBond. At that time, it was the biggest insurer of homes and was State-advertised. It is an absolute disgrace that it has forked out only €2 million. HomeBond under-insured all of us. Surely, that is a crime. It is criminal to take from people payment for premiums which one knows will not cover potential damage. Other insurers like Premier Insurance did not do that and are doing a good job. The €2 million provided will remediate only six or seven houses. I know from experience that the worked involved per house is between €20,000 and €30,000.

What will be done in regard to council and housing authority houses affected by this problem? There seems to be a slowness to act by some of the housing agencies in this regard. As elected people councillors can at least raise this issue but the housing agencies do not have that facility. I am not picking on the housing agencies but they do not appear to have the expertise or knowledge to address their tenants' housing issues, despite that they are receiving rent from those tenants and that there has been no reduction in rent in respect of houses affected by pyrite. Will the PRB consider inclusion of council and housing agency houses in the scheme?

Mr. John O'Connor

In regard to the quarries that are still operating, that issue is, as stated earlier by Mr. Carroll, beyond our remit. On the number of applications received, we have in no way hidden the scheme. Our website contains information about it and has received a great deal of publicity over the past 12 months. As I said, some 632 applications have been received to date. While the intake of applications was initially quite heavy it dried up fairly quickly. We are currently receiving approximately three applications per week, which is only a trickle. We were a little surprised that the level of applications dried up so quickly but at the end of the day we can only deal with people who have made applications to us. I can understand that there may be reasons people do not want to apply and so on. We would encourage people whose homes have been damaged by pyrite to make an application under the scheme. Our website contains an informative document, which includes photographs of the effects of pyrite, to help people to make an intelligent assessment as to whether their homes are pyrite affected. The Deputy might when dealing with people refer them to this document which will assist them in making an intelligent call as to whether their homes contain and have been damaged by pyrite. To qualify, a house must contain pyrite and also have been damaged by it. Also, there is no time limit for applications. In terms of practicality and economic management of projects we would prefer that all affected houses in a particular area would apply around the same time so that we can draw up rationally economically designed projects in terms of remediation.

The legislation does not allow us to include council owned houses. As I understand it, if a council house is affected the tenant can seek to have the council repair it. Clearly, the responsibility to repair the property lies not with the tenant but the council. It is the council's responsibility to ensure its tenants are living in habitable homes.

Approved housing bodies and housing associations may apply if they own houses that are rented; it is open to them to apply.

Mr. Noel Carroll

While I do not want to dwell on the specific cases mentioned by the Deputy, I note that we will have a meeting shortly on one of them. I would prefer if we did not refer to specific estate names, about which people are quite sensitive, but if the Deputy wants to talk to us about individual ones, we can do so. We are familiar with the ones she mentioned and can talk to her individually about the circumstances.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

Local authorities are moving on the issue, but there is a particular problem with the housing agencies. Most of the people living in these houses thought they were going to be local authority tenants but discovered that they were not. Is the board stating housing agencies can apply through the scheme?

Mr. John O'Connor

Yes. They are termed "approved housing bodies".

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

That is helpful. I appreciate that the board has the information on its website. Believe it or not, however, there are many people who are still not educated about this.

Mr. Noel Carroll

There is a situation within developments where some houses have the problem, while others do not. One even has situations where two houses are side by side, one with the problem and the other without it.

Mr. John O'Connor

To come back to the Deputy's series of questions, I refer to funding. Funding has not been an issue. We have a certain progression in dealing with the problem. I have explained the funding position. We have a funding provision for this year and will see how it goes. Certainly, there has not been an issue to date. As we go through the year, we will keep the situation under review. If we require more money to keep progressing in an orderly manner, we will deal with that issue. Everyone acknowledges that we cannot do all of this in one go. There is a commitment on the part of the Government to fund the programme and that is where I am. I have full confidence that funds will be provided to the extent they are necessary to deal with the issue. There is a clear commitment in that regard.

I dealt with the question of Home Bond in response to the comments of Deputy Dessie Ellis. I do not have anything to add in that regard.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

It is fair enough for Deputies to ask how HomeBond got off so lightly when we know it must have more money. It has not paid out one penny to anybody who paid money to it. For example, I heard that €900 was paid for most of our houses. We have got nothing for this because HomeBond was not willing to engage with residents. It is a little like the Catholic Church compensation issue regarding some of the culprits involved.

Mr. John O'Connor

The Deputy is into legal territory and it is not something we are getting into.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

Is Deputy Ruth Coppinger happy with that? She can presumably table a parliamentary question to the Minister to query him on the HomeBond issues which seem to remain important.

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

I had the benefit of hearing some of the presentation and commentary on screen. As I might have missed something in transit while I was coming to the committee room, I ask the delegates to forgive me if I ask something that has been covered.

I raise, in particular, the issue of pyrite that has been found more recently in private and local authority homes in County Mayo. Pyrite is appearing in blocks; it is not pyrite heave which is within the board's remit and on which I have made representations. I do not know the extent and scale of the problem, but I have asked some parliamentary questions, like my colleague. I imagine there are people who do not know what they are dealing with in terms of the problems with their blockwork. To what extent has the board been asked to look at this as a problem? Ms Neary has explained that there are building regulations relating to blockwork, but the reality I have found in dealing with individuals in respect of one-off houses and estates is that the same constraints, restrictions and inability applies in pursuing those responsible for supplying faulty goods in the first place. Some people did not know who had supplied the foundations, for example.

Watching the pyrite issue evolve and the establishment of the board, my understanding was that people would be compensated as a last resort when all legal avenues were exhausted. The word "pyrite" only became current in County Mayo recently, but the same problems are facing people in finding a solution. There is a great need to assist them on the issue of pyrite in blockwork. I say this notwithstanding what Ms Neary has said. In the past few years the building regulations have been tightened, as have the standards of workmanship, etc. that we expect. We are talking, however, about houses that were built before the regulations were tightened. We are postponing the inevitable, as the people I know do not have the means to fix this massive problem. If the scheme could be extended on foot of the precedent in respect of pyrite heave, it would only be fair to those with pyrite problems in their blockwork. They should equally be brought into a scheme and assisted to solve a problem that is becoming more evident in County Mayo.

Mr. John O'Connor

The legislation we deal with covers pyritic heave of floors. I understand fully the Deputy's concerns and comments on the other people who are not within the scheme. However, we have not been asked to look at that issue, as it is outside our remit. We could not really look at it in that regard. I suggest the Deputy take up the matter with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government which may have looked at the matter to some extent, but it is something I suggest the Deputy pursue. I can readily see the problems, but it is not to make light of them to say we have been established to do a specific job and cannot spend money outside it.

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

That is not what I am suggesting. Mr. Carroll described his involvement prior to the establishment of the scheme. In relation to blockwork, was it not such a problem among local authorities or was it a problem and ruled out?

Mr. Noel Carroll

I cannot say in the case of a particular local authority. There is a similar problem to the one in County Mayo in County Donegal and the people in question came to meet us. All we could point to was the path taken from the inception of the problem of pyrite heave to the identification of its causes. In conjunction with this, standards were set and the means of testing and remediation established. One could follow the same process to achieve a solution to the block problem. Very simply, people say it is pyrite in the block, but I am not personally aware of definitive reports that identify the problem. I am not sure if that work has yet been done. Pyrite under the floor was such an extensive problem and covered so many houses and estates in so many counties that it lent itself to further investigation. People would probably have to take the same route to establish the cause and means of remediation.

Deputy Michelle Mulherin

Naturally, people are not experts who can make that assessment, but this is on the basis of structural engineers stating there is a problem with the blockwork which includes pyrite.

I cannot believe the Department does not have this information because I have supplied some of it.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

In fairness, members fully support what the Deputy said. We are asking the Department to advise the committee, as opposed to the representatives in attendance who do not have legal responsibility for that issue. Obviously, members will have the information as soon as it is available, but it is an important point.

Before the delegates depart, I have two questions for them. First, Mr. O'Connor mentioned how 146 were awaiting validation, "mainly due to the issue of alternative practicable options not being resolved." What does that mean?

Mr. Noel Carroll

I can deal with that question. Obviously, within the aforementioned 146 cases we have some applications that have only recently been received. We also have some on which people have not given us the full information or in which they have not carried out a building condition assessment. Then there are those to which the Acting Chairman referred, namely, the practicable options where, as indicated, we are dealing with the builders and trying to get agreements to include them. In some such instances there are legal actions in place and while the Act allows for the deferral of these applications until some time in the future when the legal actions are completed, given how long they have taken thus far, we are trying to steer a middle route, whereby we will come to an agreement with the builder and can move on.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

Is there an admission, in terms of the wording of the submission, that there are 146 houses for which the builders have not consented to the process? Is it the builder, rather than the pyrite, that is the problem?

Mr. Noel Carroll

I would not necessarily say the builders are the problem and we are in discussions with them. As late as 1 p.m. today, we were discussing a potential solution with one builder. Dealing with the builders is a daily occurrence and we are moving them on.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

While I do not wish to delay the delegates, I refer to another statement by Mr. O'Connor that, "The level of co-operation forthcoming from builders and developers varies but some success has been achieved." I seek clarity on what he is actually saying. In the view of the board, what percentage of builders are not co-operating?

Mr. Noel Carroll

It is difficult to give a figure in percentage terms, but there was one significant example where we had hoped for some movement but the builder concerned was relying on his legal advice.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

It is only one builder.

Mr. Noel Carroll

One is being totally resistant, yes.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

Therefore, 99% of them are co-operative.

Mr. Noel Carroll

No.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

I am trying to elicit more information from the delegates.

Mr. John O'Connor

Does the Acting Chairman know how many builders and developers the board is dealing with altogether?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

I am only playing ball with the delegates.

Mr. John O'Connor

As a start, let me put it this way: with how many are we engaging?

Mr. Noel Carroll

There are four significant ones with whom we are dealing positively. There is another significant one who is not dealing, as he is relying on his legal advice.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

To put it in a different way, does that mean that there are only five builders involved in all? I am trying to get more facts out of the delegates.

Mr. Noel Carroll

We still are in the process of considering others, but we are in-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

Mr. Carroll should be a politician.

Mr. Noel Carroll

We are in active discussions with approximately five.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

To put it in a different way, I am just reading Mr. O'Connor's words to try to understand what they actually mean. Perhaps the delegates might inform members later of how many builders the board is actually dealing with in total, as well as the number of cases in which progress is being made.

Mr. John O'Connor

We can give the Acting Chairman a good indication now.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

I want to make a point to the delegates because they are better than any politician I know. On reading the document, I believe the board is doing a fantastic job. They have a huge resource of knowledge and support in what they are doing. I am trying to understand the issue when the delegates state some builders are co-operating and some are not. I seek greater detail in that regard and if they cannot provide it for the joint committee today, that is fine.

Mr. Noel Carroll

We still are in negotiations with them and have not told any of them what the others are offering. I do not wish to give it away now, if the Acting Chairman knows what I mean. We are in discussions with them.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

That is not my point. I will leave it like that, but I will be obliged to write to the delegates. I have been doing this for a while. To clarify what they are saying, I will ask them a straight question. They do not appear to understand this.

Mr. John O'Connor

In many of these cases we are obliged to make judgments and-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

But Mr. O'Connor has made a judgment in his comment.

Mr. John O'Connor

When we look at an application, we must ascertain who was the builder or developer, whether that person is still in business and, if so, whether that person is a good mark to go after. One must engage in a process of elimination as, in some cases, one decides to forget it and to go on and do the thing. In more cases, one makes a decision that something should be recovered. We make these judgments all the time in individual cases with legal advice. The Acting Chairman will appreciate that sometimes the legal advice may not be particularly clear, in that it may have some ifs and buts attached to it. We must then make judgments on whether to chase the builder in question and whether the builder is a person who is able to deliver. We do not want to waste money on legal fees while chasing people from whom we will get nothing in the end. Consequently, we must make these judgments. However, as far as I remember, we are only talking about seven or eight builders and developers altogether in that category.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

In that category. That provides greater clarity than I received from Mr. O'Connor's excellent colleague.

Mr. Noel Carroll

The Acting Chairman will understand that when I am speaking to them, they are trying to guess what somebody else is doing.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Fergus O'Dowd)

No, I was not talking about that, but it is okay. I would never fault Mr. Carroll's ability to answer questions. On behalf of the joint committee, I thank Mr. John O'Connor, chairman; Mr. Noel Carroll, general manager, and Ms Sarah Neary, programme manager, for their attendance. I also thank them for their information and knowledge and the manner in which they imparted it to the committee. I found it very helpful and useful. This has been a highly successful meeting.

Mr. John O'Connor

Thank you.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.35 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 February 2015.