Rose Conway-Walsh Demands Accountability for Crumbling Homes

Thank you Chair for allowing me to speak on this amendment 165 specifically. Minister, you referred to earlier on when you were speaking to this amendment that it was premature, it would be premature to accept it. Now that's very hard for the people in Mayo who have been 10 years fighting this campaign to have their houses restored. So it certainly isn't premature for them. They've had 10 years, as you know, of anguish of watching their homes crumble and their lives crumble physically and mentally around them. And the question is, Minister, of who's responsible and who's accountable? And I think we all need to find that out. We cannot just have this monumental disaster and nobody is responsible for it. So I think this amendment gives the opportunity to address this in terms of producing this report. And all it asks for is the report to look at the introduction of levies against certain financial institutions, construction companies and insurance undertakings. We have to remember that in terms of financial institutions, mortgages are being paid on all of these properties that are worth zero. But their mortgages haven't reduced in any way. A profit is being made by the banks and the financial institutions on the back of these crumbling homes. And this is what this amendment seeks to address. In terms of the construction companies and their responsibility for it and the sources of the materials that were supplied to these innocent people or these victims who have become the victims of this scandal, they also have to be accountable. And the insurance companies. The insurance companies were quite willing, as they are in the case of the insurance for all homes, to take in the premiums and then they run for the hills when something goes wrong and something has gone drastically wrong here. All these people are asking for is the restoration of their properties and my colleague Deputy McLaughlin has outlined the concerns we have in terms of the 100% redress and also in terms of the guarantees that need to be done and the other issues. And I want to commend the working group for the work that they have done on this. It didn't report back when it was supposed to in September. We are now six weeks or less out of Christmas and these families are still left in uncertainty. So I would really ask you to support this amendment and to show that you are on the side of the homeowners and the hardworking taxpayers and the citizens of this country by accepting this amendment and showing that you are serious in looking for accountability. I would also reiterate the calls for you to meet some of these homeowners. They are very realistic, down to earth, normal, ordinary people who are fighting for their homes and for their families and for redress. We don't call it compensation because they can never be compensated for what has happened to them through no fault of their own. But certainly we should be asking for a contribution. This has happened before and if we have learned anything from the crash and who paid for the crash, who paid for it in the long run? It was the citizens and the hardworking citizens of this country that paid for the crash and the recklessness of the banking crash and what happened in that situation. So I don't think it's too much for us to ask here today for just a report to be done on asking for a contribution from those who are responsible, whether that be the developers, the construction companies or the financial institutions. And that's all that this amendment would do. Thank you, Deputy. The Chair. The Chair has views on this subject as well as we can't speak from the chair on this subject. I will loosen it further at a different occasion. The Minister. Thank you very much, Cigheerlough. Thanks, Deputies, for both the contributions they have made. It is, of course, very possible to be on the side of the citizens of our country and not support this amendment. The reason why I don't support this amendment is because the work that both deputies are calling for is already underway. And that work with regard to the awful, awful issue that so many are confronting in Donegal and beyond in relation to MICA, where they have seen what they hoped to be their homes turn into crumbling buildings. That work is in the final stages of being complete. And it is not the place to be making reference to this in a finance bill, because the issues that the deputies are referring to will be dealt separately by government. The issue in relation to how we fund this is of course something that I am concerned about and focused on, but I do so also in the spirit of recognising the anguish that the families are confronting that have been raised here by both deputies this afternoon. So I very much appreciate the need to bring this to a conclusion. But the finance bill is not the place to do it. The finance bill deals with our tax law for next year. This issue has to be resolved well before then, which I am working on with other members of the government in relation to the non-procedure matters that are raised by the two deputies. The only thing that I would say was premature with the inclusion of an amendment like this in the finance bill, given that we have at least with MICA work that is in the final phases, I hope, of yielding a recommendation that the government would accept. In relation to the issues that Deputy McLaughlin made there regarding the role of the housing agency, I can absolutely see and understand the point that Deputy McLaughlin is making. I was involved in the Pyrite scheme, both from a policy point of view, but I also saw the effect it had on constituents on the north side of Dublin. A number within my own constituency as well. And I know that for the average harm that is done to a home that has Pyrite is of a different scale to many of the homes that had to deal with MICA. Excuse me. The other way around is what I mean. Sorry. The challenge that many families are now facing with the effect of MICA on their homes, the average experience is very different to those who would have went through the experience of a Pyrite. So I do take on board what Deputy McLaughlin has said and Deputy Doherty raised this with me last Thursday in Leeders' questions regarding considering the role for the housing agency. In relation to the point that both deputies have made regarding how we fund elements of all of this, I am considering that at the moment. It isn't to diminish for a moment the stress that so many homeowners are going through in also acknowledging that the cost of this is very, very considerable, very, very considerable. And I do think it is necessary as part of looking at how we can fund a better response back to those who have been afflicted by this awful experience that we look at ways in which this can be funded. And I have listened to what the deputies have said regarding that issue. And again, it is something that I and a number of my colleagues are considering at the moment. And then in relation to the engineering point, which Deputy McLaughlin raised with me, which to be open with the deputy on, I do know a little less about than some of the other issues that you raised. I would hope that we can give, find ways of giving confidence to families that if a solution is available that does not involve the total demolition of their home, that we can give confidence in other solutions apart from demolition. Because I have met families who have been affected by this outside my department as they have been and conduct themselves with, I must say, dignity and great calmness in the face of a terrible experience. I can imagine that some of them at least would consider that there could be a benefit in not having to go through a process where a home is knocked down, goes through a process in relation to tendering and rebuilt with all of the time involved in all of that. I imagine that for some of them, other works will be at least something that they are willing to consider. But out of the different issues that have been raised with me, that is one I need to understand a bit more in the coming days. And as I said, the core reason for not accepting this amendment is, I believe, particularly in the case of MICA, that the government will have moved forward on this issue well before we get into the implementation of tax law for next year. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.