Rose Conway-Walsh Demands 100% Redress for Homeowners
Rose Conway-Walsh spoke in a debate on Amendments 5, 6 and 7, pressing for 100% redress for homeowners affected by defective concrete blocks and for retrospective payments. She argued the government scheme as drafted locks people out, costs the state millions and treats Mayo and the western seaboard differently from the wraparound scheme in Dublin.
Amendments under debate
Rose Conway-Walsh addressed Amendments 5, 6 and 7 and said the minister appears unlikely to change course. She told the minister that rejecting Amendment 5 would continue to lock people out of the scheme and that TDs in affected counties, including Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael TDs, are being asked to support measures they know are wrong.
Demand for full redress
The speaker insisted that 100% redress means exactly that - no more, no less - to make up for government failures rather than homeowners' mistakes. She warned that funding gaps of $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, $100,000 plus are ‘‘crucifying people’’ and will leave mortgage holders and their children bearing the cost.
Defective blocks, levy and VAT concerns
On Amendment 6 she called for an end-to-end remediation scheme for those affected by defective concrete blocks and criticised the levy system, noting that VAT is being charged on top of the levy. Rose Conway-Walsh described that combined levy and VAT burden as unjust and a further insult to homeowners.
Retrospective payments and auditability
On Amendment 7 she raised retrospective payments and recounted visiting a family in Belly Castle left destitute when their house collapsed. She said properly kept receipts and auditable records should not exclude people from the scheme, and warned that refusing retrospective coverage would deny help to families who did everything right.
State cost and political consequences
The speaker argued that rejecting these amendments will cost the state millions and expressed dismay at the government position. She framed the debate as protecting homeowners, saving public money and holding the minister to account for a scheme she says is unfit for purpose.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Speaking to amendments 5, 6 and 7, but unfortunately, Minister, this is a bit like playing handball against a haystack, because I don't believe you are going to change your mind on any of these amendments. And I think what you have done, and what you have done in the previous vote in terms of the bloc amendment, is you have made your TDs, the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael TDs in all of these counties impacted, and in Mayo, you are making them do something they know is absolutely wrong. And to talk to these amendments, 100% redress is 100%. It is not any more, and it is not any less. It is just what it takes to make up for the lack of legislation, the failures by government. It is not any failure of the homeowners that we have said many times here. It is the abject failure of government that we need 100% redress. And what people cannot understand, there is no explanation, we have never been given an explanation as to why we in Mayo and in other counties along the western seaboard are treated differently than the wraparound scheme that was in Dublin. Now, if somebody gave us a rationale for it and said, right, this is the way it is, this is the way it has to be, then, you know, we could look at that. And you see the amendments that we are making here tonight and that we have put forward, and I think everybody here across the board have put forward amendments in good faith to improve the scheme, to make the scheme fit for purpose. But I remember when we sat down with the very original scheme and we submitted all of the points, which included these points, we wanted to save the government money. And our bottom line was we wanted to ensure that nobody would be locked out of the scheme because they couldn't afford to get into it. And this is by rejecting Amendment No. 5 here, you would be continuing to lock people who can't afford to get into the scheme out of the scheme because the gaps we're talking about is $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, $100,000 plus. That is an awful lot of money. That is absolutely crucifying people. And not only crucifying the people who are the mortgage holders now, but I can see it that their children will be paying back for the huge gaps that are there. And when we look then at Amendment No. 6, what we're asking for here is the end-to-end remediation scheme for all those impacted by defective concrete blocks, as I said. To add insult to injury as well, like the concrete block, you have the levy put on to the products. And then you're charging VAT on top of the levy. So there's actually the levy, and then there's the VAT on the levy. Like, you just couldn't make this up. It is totally, totally wrong. And then I just want to go to the issue of retrospective payments. It's many years now since I went to the house in Belly Castle, where they absolutely, at the time, didn't even really know what was happening, where the house was completely fallen down. And I said to those people, they had to rebuild it. And I said to them, the couple, who had saved all of their lives, I said to them, like, yes, something has to be done with this house. The county council, the local authority cannot help you out. But I am sure that when a scheme is put in place, that if you keep all the receipts, keep everything properly, that it can be thoroughly audited, that you would not be excluded from the scheme. And if you're going to refuse amendment number seven, that is what you will be doing. You will be saying to those couple, no, there's nothing for you here. And even though you did nothing wrong, and you've done everything right, and everything fit for audit purpose, you are still excluded. And they are neighbours to your TDs in Mayo. They know them. They know their faces. They know them as families. And that's what you're asking them to do here tonight, Minister. I am totally dismayed. If there was somebody standing up here, and they were trying to be obstructive, or trying to get in the way of what needed to be done, I would ignore that. But that is not happening. We are also not only looking to protect homeowners, and to have fair play for homeowners. We're looking to save the state millions. Because what you're doing here tonight, and not accepting these amendments, is you are costing the state millions, millions. And that will come back to haunt you, and to the people who are involved in doing this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
