Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 27 September 2012
128. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment; Community and Local Government if there has been any interim update from the stakeholders including the CIF, IIF, IBF, ICF and HomeBond in relation to the recommendations contained in the Pyrite Panel's Report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41155/12]
Amharc ar fhreagra129. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment; Community and Local Government in view of his commitment that if stakeholders do not provide a solution in the context of the recommendations of the Report of the Pyrite Panel that he will impose a solution on the industry in the form of a levy, if he has finalised the process of imposing this levy that is has the necessary legislation regarding the imposition of a levy been developed; if he will provide upfront funding to any proposed remediation scheme to reflect the States failings in the matter, regarding the lack of regulation of quarries and the failure of local authorities to enforce building regulations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41156/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 128 and 129 together.
Following receipt of the pyrite report, I met with the key stakeholders in the context of making progress on the recommendations in the report dealing with engagement by them in processes that would lead to solutions for homeowners affected by pyrite. Mindful of the very difficult situations faced by affected homeowners and the time that they have waited for a resolution to the pyrite problem, I set a tight deadline of the end of September for the stakeholders to come back to me with their proposals. I recently wrote to them reaffirming the position I outlined in my discussions with them.
In its report, the Pyrite Panel clearly states that it did not believe the State responsible for the pyrite problem and consequently did not consider that it should be expected to bear the costs of remediation. The basis for this conclusion is dealt with in some detail in the report, including a comparison with the regulations for hardcore in other jurisdictions . The Panel concluded that , prior to the identification of pyritic heave in Ireland, the Building Regulations in Ireland compared favourably with those in the UK and in other jurisdiction s and were reflective of the knowledge and experience at that time in Ireland.
Part D (Materials and Workmanship) of the second schedule to the Building Regulations required that all works be carried out with proper materials and which are “ fit for the use for which they are intended and for the conditions in which they are to be used ”. Technical Guidance Documents (TGD) provide guidance on how compliance with the Building Regulations can be achieved in practice and TGD C provides general guidance on hardcore. Prior to the emergence of the pyrite problem 2007 it required the hardcore to be “ clean and free from matter liable to cause damage to the concrete ”. It was the Panel’s view that it was unreasonable to expect the unprecedented nature of pyrite in hardcore to be identified during routine inspections by building control officers.
The report is also clear in terms of who it believed should be responsible for the cost of remediation. As I have stated on a number of occasions , my preferred approach to achieve solution s for homeowners is for the responsible parties to work with me to agree a voluntary process. However, in the absence of industry coming forward with a viable process, I will seek Government agreement to an imposed solution as envisaged in the pyrite report. Recommendation 14 in the report recommends the establishment of a Resolution Board and the suggested mechanism for the funding of this Board is a levy on the construction/quarrying sector and related insurance sector.
