Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Nov 2023

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am delighted to introduce the Defective Dwellings Bill to this House on Second Stage. I look forward to seeing the progress of this Bill to pre-Committee Stage scrutiny at the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, where we can have a more thorough discussion of it with the Minister, departmental officials, relevant stakeholders and experts.

I thank those who assisted with the drafting of the Bill and those who have devoted so much of their time and expertise to this area to try to improve our laws around defects, namely, Dr. Deirdre Ní Fhloinn and Conor Linehan SC, who have done Trojan work in this area, both on research and on informing us, the legislators, of the gravity of the issue when it comes to defects. It would be remiss of me not to mention Pat Montague of the Construction Defects Alliance, who has campaigned tirelessly and advocated for thousands of homeowners across the country who are impacted by defects. I make special mention of the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Deputy Catherine Martin, and her team, particularly Donal Swan, for starting the work in the previous Dáil on the foundations of this Bill, which I am proud to present today on behalf of the Green Party.

We have a serious problem with defects in this country, as everybody knows. As Dr. Deirdre Ní Fhloinn as established in her research, Ireland's problem with defective properties stems from a weak building regulatory system and an enforcement regime which has failed to prevent deficiencies and secondly the legal problem which restricts and, in many cases, prevents homeowners from seeking redress. This Bill aims to resolve some of the issues facing thousands of homeowners affected by defective properties in this country. It protects homeowners, including families, young couples and pensioners, who, after saving and working hard to purchase a home or deciding to downsize, later realise the home they have purchased has a defect or multiple defects.

The Bill does this, first, by establishing liability and responsibility that all parties involved in carrying out construction work are liable for that work. This is based on the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission report of 1977. This ensures that works will be carried out in a good and workmanlike manner, with due skill, care and diligence, and that the materials they use are fit for purpose.

Second, the Bill provides a clear legal redress framework for homeowners impacted by defective properties, whether they be the first or subsequent purchaser of the property. Any breach of duty which causes defects will be subjected to the regime established by the Civil Liability Act 1961. In other words, this will ensure that those involved in construction are liable for the whole of the damage.

Third, the Bill provides for specific time limits relating to claims. Currently, the Statute of Limitations only allows a person to present a claim six years from the date on which the damage took place. This Bill will introduce a new Statute of Limitations of two years from the discovery of the defect, rather than the current six years from purchase of property, providing protection for a wider cohort of affected owners, specifically if the owner of the property is not the first purchaser. This is based on the Safe as Houses report recommendation by the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government in the previous Dáil.

At present, property is bought on the basis of caveat emptor. I was told that when I purchased my home. It means buyer beware. This means that the property is bought as is. The buyer should assume the risk of buying the property. The seller is not obliged to disclose any defects that the buyer could not find. Therefore, the responsibility lies wholly with the buyer to realise the risks associated with the physical condition of the property. Homes are built on the basis of contracts between the original parties. For various reasons, contractual remedies may not be available to the homeowner, which restricts litigation, especially if the homeowner is not the first buyer of the home and not the original party to the contract.

Consequently, we have in excess of 100,000 Celtic tiger-era properties with defects across the State. A shocking two out of three apartments and duplexes across the country have defects. Thousands of people live in homes that are quite literally crumbling from reactive materials like mica and pyrite, which has subsequently led to an inquiry committee and a scheme in which the State, or, should I say, the taxpayer, will pick up a bill for €2.6 billion. The type of defects that homeowners face can include fire safety defects, which is the most common, at 40% to 70% of affected homes, and can be as severe as not having an escape route or not having a fire-detecting alarm system. Other defects include water ingress defects, which adversely affect roofs. This defect is present in between 20% and 50% of homes. Structural defects which make the home quite literally uninhabitable, where the roof or walls of the home are defective and therefore a risk to the inhabitants, account for between 5% and 25% of defective homes.

Ireland is lagging behind other countries when it comes to both protecting homeowners and robust building compliance regulations. In Alberta, Canada, the warranty provided for defective issues in a property is attached to the home and not the owner. This Bill will provide not only the current owner with protections, but also any subsequent owners. The legislation in Queensland, Australia, ensures that the building industry is regulated and that all standards are adhered to. This includes holding persons responsible for the safety of products used during the carrying out of construction works.

While I commend the Department for its ongoing work in developing State schemes for homeowners impacted by mica and pyrite and those impacted by defects in apartments and duplexes, it took a long and emotionally draining campaign for these families to be heard. In August 2018, homeowners in Hunterswood, including young couples, families and pensioners, were hit with a €65,000 bill for fire safety and balcony defects. That was not their fault, nor were they flagged prior to them buying the properties. They cannot afford these extortionate costs. They cannot insure their homes and therefore cannot resell. They are stuck and the law as it currently stands does not protect them. In fact, it protects the companies that carried out these construction works.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the apartment owners in the condemned building of Priory Hall, which was considered a firetrap. This led to families being rendered homeless. The question we really need to ask ourselves and that the Department needs to think about is how many more disasters and scandals, such as those at Priory Hall, Park West and the Hunterswood apartments in my constituency, we will wait for before we take meaningful action to get to the heart of this issue and make the legislative changes needed to resolve the deficiencies in our law. How many more million- and billion-euro schemes does the State have to create and do taxpayers have to pay for before we change the laws that protect construction companies which build homes that are not fit for purpose and are life-threatening, backed by ineffective regulatory enforcement regimes? More importantly, how many more lives are we willing to put at risk?

I thank Deputy Duffy, the Ceann Comhairle and the officials in the Houses for facilitating the deferral of the original debate on this Bill until today. I also thank Deputy Duffy for tabling his Defective Dwellings Bill for detailed scrutiny. It will not be opposed by the Government. From his opening contribution, I can see how committed Deputy Duffy is to this. We will respect that.

The Bill makes provision for the law relating to the liability of builders, developers and others involved in the carrying out of residential construction works; to specify certain requirements applicable to residential construction works; to provide for certain duties to apply to such works; to provide for a means of redress for persons affected by housing defects; to specify the limitation periods relating to claims for such redress; and to provide for related matters. The Government supports the principle underpinning the Defective Dwellings Bill 2021 that those responsible for the defects should be held accountable for fixing them. The Government also welcomes facilitating a means of redress for persons affected by housing defects. In this spirit, the Government will not oppose the Bill. However, as currently drafted the Bill has a number of technical and practical shortcomings that we believe need to be considered.

As set out, the Defective Dwellings Bill would provide for a means of redress for persons affected by housing defects. It would also extend the limitation periods relating to claims for such redress, thus providing increased opportunities for homeowners to resolve defects. While the Government supports this avenue for recourse it nevertheless recognises that taking legal action with regard to building or construction product defects can be expensive, time-consuming, complex and uncertain for individuals. As such the Government is of the view that reducing the risk of defects must remain a priority. From Deputy Duffy's contribution, I believe he would concur on this.

On initial assessment, while the Bill is rightly focused on builders, developers and subcontractors it fails to recognise the important and influential role of registered construction professionals such as architects, building surveyors and chartered engineers in residential design and construction. In addition, the Bill replicates some of the requirements set out in the existing building control legislation, the Building Control Act 1990 and regulations to 2020, particularly in respect of the use of proper products and materials, the competence of those carrying out construction works and the quality of workmanship.

The Bill also raises the issue of consumer rights with regard to defective products and materials. With respect to consumer protection, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Coveney, has a suite of significant redress and producer liability legislation that may apply to such construction products. The concepts and principles in the Defective Dwellings Bill 2021 would, therefore, need to be considered in the context of existing building control legislation and consumer protection legislation.

In general, building defects are a matter for resolution between the contracting parties involved, which are usually the homeowner, the builder, the designer, the developer or their respective insurers or both, structural guarantees or warranty schemes. However, in recognition of the difficult situation in which many homeowners have found themselves in recent years through no fault of their own, the Government has stepped in to support homeowners through a range of schemes and supports. These supports include the pyrite remediation scheme and the defective concrete block grant scheme, both of which are underpinned by legislation.

In addition, since the receipt of Government approval in January this year, my colleague the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, has been working to progress the various programmes of work required to establish supports on a statutory footing for the remediation of fire safety, structural safety and water ingress defects in purpose-built apartment buildings, including duplexes, constructed between 1991 and 2013. Work is under way to draft the required legislation, which will include the scope of eligibility conditions for the remediation scheme.

Reducing the risk of defects occurring in the first place must remain a priority. In this regard the building control reform agenda first introduced in 2011 in response to defects that emerged in the previous decade has brought to bear a new order and discipline on construction projects, in particular residential projects. It improves and reinforces cultural compliance with building regulations securing safe and healthy buildings.

The building control reform initiative is focused on ensuring strong and effective regulations in the building control system and the construction industry, and on improving compliance with building regulations. The measures began to be implemented in 2013. These include the implementation of the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014, the creation of a national building control management project, the establishment of the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office and the enactment of the Regulation of Providers of Building Works and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022. The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 empower competent professionalism in construction projects and establish a chain of responsibility that begins with the owner. With certain limited exceptions, the owner must assign competent persons to design, build, inspect and certify the building works. These persons must, in turn, account for their roles through the lodgment of compliance documentation, inspections, plans and statutory certificates.

The national building control management project and the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office provide oversight, support and direction for the development of standardisation in the implementation of building control as an effective shared service for the 31 building control authorities. The Regulation of Providers of Building Works and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022 develops and promotes cultural competence, good practice and compliance with the building regulations in the construction sector. The Act puts the Construction Industry Register Ireland on a statutory footing and aims to benefit consumers and the public by giving those who engage a registered builder assurance they are dealing with a competent and compliant operator.

The requirement to register will apply to builders of residential and non-residential buildings that are subject to building regulations. To further support the building control system, the Government is committed to establishing a building standards regulator to strengthen the oversight role of the State, with the aim of further reducing the risk of building failures and enhancing public confidence in construction-related activity. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, is developing legislative proposals for the establishment of a building standards regulator.

The Government is acutely aware of the difficulties faced by people dealing with defects in their homes and commends the intention behind Deputy Duffy's Defective Dwellings Bill. The principle underlining the Bill is not opposed by the Government, as has been stated already. The issues raised merit further consideration through detailed scrutiny by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

I thank my constituency colleague, Deputy Duffy, for bringing forward the Bill. As early as 1977 the Law Reform Commission recognised the gap in legislation and the very real challenges facing home owners who find themselves in a defective property and the challenge in trying to ascertain who is legally liable and where the blame lies, be it the builder, the subcontractor, the architect, the clerk of works, the planner, the supplier, the bricklayer, the carpenter, the electrician or whoever signed off on the job. This is the challenge facing many people at the time. The Law Reform Commission followed up on this in 1984 and drafted its own legislation but the Government of the day in its wisdom failed to act. The light touch continued and the cowboy builders and others continue to make vast profits, leaving homeowners in an impossible situation. More importantly, it left them footing the bill for any repairs.

As we know, the Celtic tiger was a free-for-all as far as shoddy construction standards and lacklustre regulation were concerned. Self-regulation and relying on goodwill and the reputation of various builders seem to be deemed sufficient. I remember a debate here once when the Taoiseach of the day stood right where the Minister of State is sitting and moaned about the kips being built in his constituency at that time. He bemoaned the fact this was allowed to continue. This was the Taoiseach of the day speaking about these buildings going up in his constituency. Interestingly, in the following election there was not a building site that did not have the same Taoiseach's poster smiling down on passers by. Thousands of families are now paying the price for the lack of effective controls. It may be tens of thousands of families. We do not know how many people are in this situation due to the lack of effective building regulations. It is heartbreaking to listen to many of these families.

Like many others, I have been inundated with call and emails about apartment defects and housing defects from local constituents. There are such defects throughout my constituency. I have spoken to people in Rathfarnham, Ballycullen and City West. There are probably other Deputies who have been contacted. We know that fire safety defects have left hundreds, if not thousands, of apartments unsafe and unable to be sold and uninsurable.

This is what people say. They cannot sell on their properties and cannot move on with their lives. Mould and dampness are rife in many developments. One development in my constituency, which was mentioned by Deputy Duffy, had balconies that had to be removed because the wooden struts had not been treated. They were rotting away and there was a fear of a collapse. How could anyone get away with that? We saw the tragedy that occurred in the US where several Irish students were killed.

Developers could do no wrong during the boom. They were a new royalty. They were given all the tax breaks and self-regulation they could want. They could bounce from one site to another, leaving fine-looking apartment blocks in many cases. In many instances, however, behind the facade was only plastering over widening cracks. We do not know what the average cost is going to be for buildings in this context. I remember talking to one group of constituents. They told me the average cost was coming in at around €25,000. Again, however, this depends on the actual apartment block concerned. I remember talking to an elderly woman who lived on her own. She was saying she was getting all these bills for fire alarms, etc. Every month, the costs seemed to be adding up. She was wondering how these people could get away with it. The names of these builders are still out there. Their sons might be running the companies, and all the rest.

In my constituency, people in the Ballycullen area have told me that they have been quoted a cost of as much as €60,000. This is just to be compliant with planning and fire safety regulations. This was the cost several months ago. I have no doubt that the figure has now probably gone up with the increasing cost of everything. Again, the developer can, apparently, just walk away. There is no comeback.

One of the greatest scams I have ever come across, and a tactic that still seems to be used, is simply changing the name of a company. There might be a new name, but the directors and board would be the same. The company might even be operating right across the road from where the previous development was. I know of a situation like this, where the name of a company was changed. Mar dhea, the company was wound down. These defective buildings, some of which we have spoken about, are actually being advertised. These companies are portraying themselves as brand-new entities and selling, and being allowed to sell, new homes. When we talk to people, they are crying and are upset. Naturally enough, they worry at night. They do not know if they are going to be made homeless. I do not see how this idea of being able to change over from one company to another can be allowed to continue. If developers throw up unsafe or unlivable buildings, they should be made to account for their actions if there is any justice at all in this State. We are legislators and our responsibility is to respond to things that have gone wrong in the past and ensure they do not happen again in the future.

One of the first commitments this Government made in the new year, last January, concerned emergency funding for essential fire safety and other works to be made available this year, as well as the publication of legislation to underpin the redress scheme before the end of the year. We are now in the second week of November and we have no emergency funding and no legislation. The Minister of State today said this would happen within weeks, but people are listening in and saying they were told this before. When is this going to happen? Again, it is being said there does not seem to be any urgency. There was no mention in the budget of this matter. Although applications in this regard will, apparently, open next year, or, as the Minister of State said, possibly within weeks, or, according to the Taoiseach, sometime, there will be no funding until budget 2025 is announced. Again, I do not hold my breath since the Government will probably try another giveaway budget of tax cuts before the next general election. Sinn Féin supports the establishment of a redress scheme for all homes impacted by the legacy of building defects from the Celtic tiger era as a matter of urgency. People cannot be left in homes that are unsafe.

This will be a costly venture, but there are no two ways about it when it comes to dealing with this issue. This is just like the mica making homes crumble like Weetabix. I am sure the Minister of State has seen the homes. I have visited those areas and seen this situation. I was up in Donegal and saw homes where the walls were like Weetabix. This is, therefore, an abject lesson about lax regulation in the construction sector. It cannot be homeowners who shoulder the burden. The blame does not fall on them, but on those who allowed the developers a free hand. My point is that there is a responsibility on the State in the context of building practices and self-certification.

As legislators, we know that there are people across the State living in unsafe, defective apartments and houses. They cannot afford to rent alternative accommodation. This is what those people have told me. In many cases, there is no other accommodation. There is nowhere to rent nearby. In many cases as well, the people concerned just do not have the money required. As I said earlier, some of these people are retired and some are pensioners who downsized. I have again spoken to these families. These people were free of mortgages and all the rest, and now they find themselves in this situation. What do we do? These people live in fear of the unknown and the very real prospect of becoming homeless. This is because they are afraid of the fire officer coming to have a look at their homes and telling them they are not safe for them to live in. Where would they go then? This is one of the worries these people tell me they go to bed with. The promised supports keep moving further and further away.

I apologise for having gone on. I again offer my congratulations. The most important thing is for us to hear what the Minister of State is going to do. It is great that he is supporting this legislation, but we want to know when this is going to happen. I thank the Minister of State.

I welcome this legislation and commend Deputy Duffy on bringing it forward. It contains a number of important provisions. I refer to widening the parameters in this context where they are needed, particularly in terms of the area of responsibility and the statute and the existing limitations in this regard.

Turning to the existing schemes, I represent the constituency of Meath East, and we live with the pyrite scheme because many constituents have had pyrite discovered in their homes. It is welcome that the scheme exists. It is far from perfect, but it was a great support to those who needed it. People find themselves in a really desperate situation. Very often, these are families, and people of every age, who made a huge investment in their properties. They had their worlds turned upside-down when they found out they were living in a defective property. I commend those people on their activism and energy. I have experience of working with the residents of Riverwalk Court. They did not avail of a scheme, but they did have a successful outcome, not least related to their activism. Some of this came through the courts.

It is fair to say that existing and proposed schemes are too slow and not comprehensive enough. I can give an example of this by referring, in broad terms, to a case I am dealing with in my constituency. Someone had tests conducted and the results of those have indicated an abundant presence of problematic minerals, including muscovite mica, pyrite, pyrrhotite, etc., resulting in a high and critical risk of susceptibility to deterioration in future. The recommendation is for full demolition and rebuilding. This family has nowhere to go. Having been to the local authority and the Housing Agency, there is no existing scheme that will support these people.

It is a case in point. I will work with them to try to find some resolution there. Now I have brought the case to the Minister of State's attention, I would appreciate if he might look at it too. People need somewhere to go in those cases.

This proposed legislation addresses a number of the weaknesses of existing schemes. The thing that needs to come out of this debate is the need for a level of urgency, investment and support and that there would be a comprehensive wraparound support for people who find themselves in this position. Nobody wants to end up faced with this. As I said, people's lives are turned upside down. This is a massive personal investment and they need to be supported. I commend the Bill and look forward to a response from the Government on it.

I also commend Deputy Duffy on bringing forward this legislation. It goes back to the 1970s or before, when many of the houses that were built across the State were not up to standard. We see them all the time. All of us would have people coming into our constituency offices talking about mould growing in their houses and dampness coming up through the floor. Some of them have to buy a dehumidifier and plug it in in the bedroom and there might be 3 l of water in it that evening. That is common because when these floors were put in there was no membrane put under them. There was no insulation put under them and the dampness keeps rising up through them. That is forever. I have come across situations where people have gone in, room by room, dug up the floors out of their houses and taken them out. They had to do that work bit by bit over many years.

The problem we have here, which was pointed out to me by somebody earlier, is that anything you buy in life you have some comeback on. If you buy a car and six months later the engine goes on it, you go back to the garage and they have to stand over it. That is the person you bought it from. The manufacturer may be the one responsible for the faulty engine but the person you bought it from is the person who is responsible. However, for the biggest purchase you make in life, namely, a house, you have very little comeback if there is something wrong. That is the core of the issue here and all the other things we have seen. In my constituency in Sligo, across the west and across Donegal, we have the scheme the Government has put in place. What I am hearing is that there are difficulties with it and people are not satisfied that they are getting the full level of support they would like. I know Sligo is not in the scheme yet. The reason all of that happened is because we did not have the proper regulatory process in place. It is the same with the apartments across many parts of the country where we have serious problems with fire safety issues and other defects.

We need to recognise that there has to be accountability and that accountability has to come back to the person who is selling the property. The developer that built the property and put that property on the market is responsible. We have to put legislation in place to do that. It is quite disappointing to look back at the Law Reform Commission in the 1970s and 1980s talking about this and proposing that this should happen when we are here well into the next century and we still have not got it in place. There needs to be some recognition. We can talk forever about what happened in the past and how bad things were in the past but when we sit up and look at it, we still have the same process in place and it could happen again tomorrow. We really need to get our act together here. With great respect to the proposer of this legislation, we need to see this come about. I know he based the Bill on the committee's report, Safe as Houses, which set forward what needed to happen. We should have had this done quite some time ago.

The Minister of State pointed out in his comments that there may be aspects of the Bill that need work. That is the case with many situations where legislation comes before the Houses. There needs to be an emphasis on making sure we have, very speedily, a legislative process in place so we can have a law whereby people who build and provide houses for the general public have to be responsible for the standard of that home and can be held accountable before a court or whatever else. I take the Minister of State's point. We do not want people going to court all the time. That is not what we want. We want the good house built in the first place so that does not happen. If the people who build the house know they can get away with it, we have a problem. They are not going to put the quality of workmanship or materials into it that is required and they are not going to meet the regulations unless there is an adequate stick there to ensure they do that, and unless there is adequate monitoring and regulations in place and there is some way in which that can be resolved, whether through the local authority or whoever else doing inspections, holding people to account and making sure it is done properly on the first day. That is what we want to see happen but those people also have to know that if they do not do that, if they try to pull a fast one, they are not going to get away with it and the householder can take them to court and win and get compensation and get their house put back into order. That is what needs to happen. That is why this legislation is so important.

We often have differences in here around various things. That is fine and that needs to happen but in this particular case, this is legislation that should move speedily. I implore the Minister of State to ensure that. I see he is putting his thumb up to say that is going to happen. I hope that thumbs-up means we will be back here very quickly with this going through all the Stages in the Oireachtas to make it law and ensure people who buy a home are satisfied that home is something they can have for life. They should be able to be sure they get a quality product for the large amount of money they put on a mortgage and have to work hard to pay back, and are not going to be left in the lurch like so many people have been. It is heartbreaking for people who are in these circumstances. We come across them all the time.

With many of these houses, there is something in people's heads that because they are going to be built for rent and not for a home, there is a sense of "Ah sure, it will be good enough". That needs to change. Unless there is adequate legislation and sanctions are in place to make sure that does not happen in the future, we are going to continually be dealing with this situation where the State, unfortunately, will be on the hook because that is who ends up on the hook anyway. The State ended up on the hook for the mica situation and the pyrite situation and all these things. We need to make sure that does not happen again and that is why this particular legislation is so important. I commend the proposer and hope the Minister of State's thumbs-up actually means there will be delivery.

It is good to see so many people contributing to a debate late on a Thursday evening. It shows how important it is. I again commend Deputy Duffy on bringing forward this Bill. As I have outlined already, the Government does not oppose this Bill. However, we must again highlight that, as currently drafted, the Bill has a number of technical and practical shortcomings which need further detailed consideration. We say that in a positive light rather than a negative one. I accept that this Bill has been put forward in good faith and I am confident that we all share the same principles as outlined in the Bill. The Government is happy for the Bill to proceed to detailed scrutiny so that issues arising with its provisions can be carefully examined. It is important that legislation which ensures that those responsible for defects should be held accountable for fixing them is consistent with and does not contradict existing legislation in the same sphere. I think we all agree on that. That is important.

As I stated earlier, the Bill fails to recognise the important and influential role of registered construction professionals, for example, architects, building surveyors and chartered engineers, in residential design and construction. The Bill replicates some of the requirements that are already set out in existing building control legislation, particularly in respect of the use of proper products and materials, the competence of those carrying out construction works and the quality of workmanship. In that context, I would respond to some of the points raised by Deputy Seán Crowe, Deputy O’Rourke and Deputy Martin Kenny. The great majority of builders out there take pride in their work. They do good workmanship. What we are trying to catch here is the rogue builders. It is important to state that there are a lot of very good builders out there and very good workmanship. Nevertheless, we must ensure that when people buy their homes, they are buying them in a way that they know they are fit for purpose. In many cases over the years, that has not been the situation. We accept that point.

The Bill also raises the issue of consumer rights and defective products and materials which will need to align with existing consumer protection legislation. In addition, reducing the risk of defects occurring in the first place must remain a priority policy item. While the enforcement of building control has been improved and developed significantly over the last ten years locally and nationally, further strengthening is required. In that context, the programme for Government and Housing for All commit to establishing an independent building standards regulator. The purpose of the regulator would be to strengthen the oversight role of the State with the aim of further reducing the risk of building failures and enhancing public confidence in construction-related activity.

The objective is to ensure the regulator has sufficient breadth of scope, effective powers for inspection and enforcement and the appropriate suite of sanctions.

As a first step, a comprehensive desktop study was undertaken by the Housing Agency in collaboration with the Department, which documented the current building control system and construction products enforcement systems in Ireland and other countries. It also provided an overview of other relevant regulators and inspectorates in Ireland. Building on the information in this study, which was completed in March 2023, the Department has commenced a dialogue with the County and City Management Association, CCMA, with a view to determining the scope, functions, role and structure of the regulator. The Minister intends to bring proposals to the Government early next year.

A pilot scheme is in place in Limerick, in my constituency. The enhanced defective concrete block scheme is up and running and the Minister reiterated today that we are committed to bringing forward defective apartments legislation and a scheme as quickly as possible. We are conscious of the difficulties people are experiencing. The Government's commitment to dealing with this matter should not be in any way underestimated. We want to get it right. The enhanced defective concrete blocks grant scheme is a new scheme and we are extending it to places like Limerick. The Deputy mentioned Sligo. It is up to the local authority to come forward with data and make a submission to the Department. The scheme is there. It is fair to bring it up in Sligo or wherever. Empirically based submissions with evidence must be made by local authorities.

I commend Deputy Duffy for bringing forward this Bill. He put a lot of work into it and we look forward to seeing what unfolds as it goes through detailed scrutiny. The Government is not opposing the Bill.

I have a short closing speech.

I thank the Deputies and Minister of State for their positive comments today and for their insight into and understanding of the matter, which demonstrate the urgency of implementing the provisions of this Bill. There has never been a greater need for this Bill than now, not least because of remediation costs, loss of property value and the inability to resell and insure people's homes. Beyond the financial consequences, it has compromised the safety of thousands of families, who worked and saved hard to secure a home, by putting them and their families at risk of homelessness. I know from helping people to build houses that it is stressful enough to build one, but I can only imagine the stress people who are hanging around a defective one for 20 years have had to endure. It is imperative that we seek to have this Bill passed through pre-legislative scrutiny so that it is enacted alongside the remediation schemes for apartment owners and the defective blocks schemes for those whose homes are crumbling from reactive materials like mica and pyrite.

I have a few notes for the Department. I thank the Minister of State and I agree with him that the vast majority of contractors are hardworking professionals. That has been my experience. I say to the Department and not to the Minister of State that there are some facts. The Department stated that professionals need to carry more liability. Through the building control amendment regulations, BCAR, they carry a huge amount of liability under their insurance today. They carry all the liability. Architects are fully responsible for the building of a property. This Bill would ensure that developers carry some of that load. On current remediation schemes - maybe I have this wrong - the Department said that the mica and pyrite schemes will be put in place. That is for current defects. I am not aware that the legislation will protect future homeowners which needs to happen. The Bill is for the future.

Most people do not appoint designers. They buy from property developers and this Bill gives those owners some legal redress rights. It places some liability on home providers. It is fair that all parties in the building trade take a share of the responsibility. It it not equal.

I thank the many people who have championed this cause, not least the authors of the Bill, Dr. Deirdre Ní Fhloinn and Conor Linehan SC; Pat Montague, advocate for the Construction Defects Alliance; the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, and Donal Swan who began this process more than six years ago; and lastly, my team Lara, Laura, Vanessa, Bríd and Molly. Many others apart from the people I have just mentioned truly believe this Bill is worth becoming law.