Donegal Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn has said that information emerging from recent Dáil committees is ‘worrying’ and ‘disturbing’.
The Sinn Féin deputy says there is a clear lack of understanding of the science around the cause of defective blocks affecting thousands of homes.
The Dáil’s Finance Committee and the Housing Committee have probed the Enhanced Defective Block Redress Scheme over the last three weeks.
Raising his concerns with the government today, Deputy Mac Lochlainn said: “Minister, I don’t know if you got a chance to review the transcript of the committee meetings but if you did, you would be disturbed at what emerged.
“Engineers Ireland testimony was really worrying. IS465 which is the standard that underpins a multi-billion redress scheme, the biggest in the history of the state, is not fit for purpose.
“You have a situation where engineers are making recommendations on behalf of homeowners. These are engineers trained in the standard affiliated to Engineers Ireland who are then being overruled by engineers in the Housing Agency as to what to do to remediate homes.
“So really the scheme is based on a desktop study – it’s not based on actual peer reviewed science.”
Deputy Mac Lochlainn reiterated that MICA is not the cause of crumbling homes, but Pyrrhotite and internal sulphate attack.
“That means a very different remediation approach and it is taking government too long to respond to that reality and homeowners have no confidence,” he said.
“The other huge issue is that this scheme is a grant scheme again. It’s the second time it’s a grant scheme. Not a redress scheme like what happened for the victims of Pyrite, for over three thousand families in Dublin and North Leinster.
“In the committee it was clear and when you look at the attendance of public meetings in Donegal and Mayo, I think it was over 2,000 in Donegal in total and about 600 in Mayo, this scheme is not accessible to most families.
“This scheme cannot work for people. They could be living in houses literally falling apart but they can’t access the scheme.
“The evidence is overwhelming now. On two scores: the science is based on a desktop study nobody believes in and it cannot be accessed by most.
“Surely now you need to review it. We argue that it’s a 100% redress scheme that is required, not a grant scheme.”
