Mica Action Group refuses to endorse working group draft report

The Mica Action Group is adamant it is not going to endorse the draft report from the working group on the Defective Concrete Blocks Grant Scheme.

Regarding decision making, the Agreed Terms of Reference of the Working Group said the group should strive for consensus at all times.

Given the Mica Action Group's refusal to sign off on the draft, therefore,  it remains unclear, therefore, whether or not the report can inform any decisions taken by Minister for Housing Darragh O'Brien.

Mica Action Group (MAG) PRO Michael Doherty confirmed the draft report and its contentious recommendations had been submitted to the Minister.

“We really wanted something better to come back with than this draft report. Once again we have seen what the level of attention of the departmental civil servants is and it is not very encouraging,” he told Donegal Live.

“The MAG is not going to endorse the draft report from the working group on the Defective Concrete Blocks Grant Scheme. We have been told it has already been submitted to the [Housing] Minister [Darragh O'Brien], after what departmental civil servants described as 'minor corrections'. We do not accept it in any shape or form, so we will be sending on our own version to the Minister and the three [Government] party leaders, directly.

“No negotiations took place on the back of the draft report. The civil servants just stated their position in the paper and left out a lot of material we had already included. It was not a reflection of the work we carried out over the summer in any shape or form. It had no depth to it. It was vague. There were no numbers.

“They were floating numbers like caps of €350,000 or €500,000. However, there were no numbers at all in the draft report. They didn't exist. The original €275,000 is an absolute insult because it leaves 80% of our people behind. €350,000 leaves 40% of our people behind and the first number they floated, €500,000, leaves 4% of our people behind. Now, at that point, you would probably bank that and try and work on something for the last 4%, knowing that 96% of your people were going to be in a much better place. We don't want to leave anybody behind but, the reality is, if you can get 96% on that cut, you are going to bank that and work hard for the last 4%. But, we are not even gong to start with a cap that takes 40% of our people out.”

This was a deliberate strategy by the civil servants, he said.

“We have seen very disappointing strategies deployed, we believe, by Government. For example, Leo Varadkar started this off by pitching homeowner against homeowner. 'The unaffected homeowners are going to be paying for the affected homeowners, are you OK with that?'. Which is why I retorted with the €47 billion that was spent in the bank bailout. I don't recall them asking the homeowners if that was OK. Nor the €1.5 billion for the Children's Hospital. Was that OK? They didn't ask anyone. They did what they thought was the right thing to do.

“Yet, when it comes to this, which is now basically a humanitarian crisis and they are looking to see from a tax payer point of view would it be OK to do it.

“We were also disappointed with the caps. Mooting the €500,000, they wanted to see what the response would be and then, the next day, they were back at €350,000 and the fact that left 40% behind [didn't matter]. They knew, because we provided them with all of the data illustrating what a cap level would exclude. They went, deliberately, for a number that was going to see 60% of our people OK, in the hope that 60% would say, 'I'm OK Jack' and abandon the other 40%. All along, that has never been our strategy. We went to Dublin with one voice and we came back with one voice and we will fight together as one team, to make this happen for all homeowners.

“The other part that has happened as well is, they knew we had a very effective campaign around the 15 in-power TDs. We had 13 of that 15 that had signed up to say, they were supporting 100% redress. The strength in that was, if there was not 100% redress being given by Government, then, when it would come to the approval of the Budget, we could have had a significant number of that 13 voting against the Government and effectively toppling it. So, what they have done now is pushed the decision on the 100% redress out to the other side of the Budget to mitigate that plan we had in place. There was a lot of underhanded behaviour, I would describe it as, going on there,” he said.

Mr Doherty said he believed the inclusion of the final position from the Donegal families on the working group in the draft report's appendix was “disrespectful”.

“Regarding the key contents of our final defective blocks working group position, there is no mention of the public inquiry that we asked for. They have just hand-picked what suited them. For example the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) grants, that was already there, that was no concession from them.

“The ability to avail of an SEAI grant at 30% was always there. They were making it out the were giving us something. They were giving us damn all.

“In relation to upfront costs, that's just a case of the way the invoicing works. Instead of invoicing the homeowner for 100% and giving them 90% back, you only invoice the council for the 10%. They are not giving us anything extra there either.

“They have tried to make a big deal out of this. The like-for-like planning, big deal, my God of almighty, to bring that in as something that was a big concession on their part, was nothing. The accommodation, yes there is probably €10,000 or €12,000 there, but they are holding tight. They have not offered 100% on any of the Option 1s. Even at €275,000, there is still a contribution there”.

Mr Doherty reiterated the draft report from the working group is not what the family representatives agreed. “We were not asked to sign off on the draft report. There is nowhere to sign off on it. What they did was, they sent it to us as a draft and hoped we would give it a thumbs up. We came back and we told them about all of the issues that were in there and needed revised and we got a reply back to say, ' Thanks for your response. We have made some of the minor corrections, as requested, as we have now forwarded it to the Minister'.

“We wouldn't have been signing off on it anyway because of the divergence there is from our account of what happened and what they say happened.

“In terms of the Engineers Ireland submission to the working group, we have a couple of concerns. For remedial options 2 to 5, it looks like anything other than a demolish and rebuild may not be worth its salt and people could be throwing good money after bad. Some of the Engineers Ireland 1S465 engineers have actually left the scheme.

“The MAG is of the opinion, any remedial solutions have to be structurally sound and of integrity.”