Defective Concrete Blocks Social Homes Scheme 2026: Motion
Dail Éireann — 2026-09-23
============================================================

Charles Ward (RDR), Donegal

I will be voting for this motion tonight, but I am disappointed with it because there was a chance to get this right. There is a standard currently under review. We could have waited, got everything tied up and got everything out. I know we have it now and we have to go on.
As of April, 3,150 households in Donegal were waiting for social housing. Given the ongoing housing crisis and sustained demand, that number will almost certainly rise in the coming months. At the same time, potentially, 2,400 social homes are affected by defective concrete. I say potentially because I suspect there are a lot more. Thousands are waiting for a home while existing homes are at risk of being lost. This is a contradiction because social housing supply is an issue, and we cannot afford to get this wrong like we have done in the past with the two schemes that have failed.
At a meeting my Oireachtas colleagues and I had with Donegal County Council on Monday, we were told that 174 homes have been completed this year and approximately 260 were completed last year. If we look at those figures, we would be talking about 200 or 300 years to get through this scheme. We need to ramp it up. Otherwise, we are risking creating a second waiting list for people who already have homes and who are watching them crumble and waiting to get out to get them remediated.
Governance is another issue. Who checks those who are fixing the problem? The National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office audited construction products and Donegal quarries, working with Donegal County Council and Geological Survey Ireland, GSI. In this day and age, the audit identified non-compliance with three quarries. This is a governance issue. Donegal County Council will have to deliver remediation. The Housing Agency has a central technical role to play in this and then the Department sets up the framework. The State cannot mark its own homework here. There must be independent oversight and engineering standards so that conflicts of interest will show up. Quality has to be checked, and that is what the issue will be going forward.
The most important person in this is the tenant. The tenant is central to this. A social tenant may depend on an engineer to engage with this scheme but neither should be expected to second-guess professional advice. A social tenant does not own the property or control what happens but if it is to be vacated, remediated or replaced, they are going to be uprooted, and this is something that they did not cause.
This means there will be an impact on schools, neighbours, family supports and communities built over years. They may not own the house but they own the life that is inside that house. Every affected tenant deserves clear information, a named contact about what is going to happen next and an independent route to raise his or her concerns.
A council house is not as asset for a spreadsheet; it is somebody's home.
Engineering must remain engineering. The draft provides that the Minister will be notified of option one engineering recommendations and may request supporting evidence. If engineering advice supports option one, the engineer must be free to recommend it. There is oversight of the engineer, with someone looking over his or shoulder to make sure he or she does the right thing and gives the right option. In fact, there is only one option: if the house is affected, it should be pulled down. It should be option one all the way. Any review should be clear, with well-defined criteria, a timeframe and recognition of technical bias. Where disputes arise, independent technical reviews should be available. The engineer decides what the building requires, and the funding and framework must be part of that decision. The same principle applies to foundations.
IS 465:2026 has now been published. The Housing Agency has said the revised standard provides a more comprehensive understanding of the affected homes. The Minister has commented on statutory reviews of the standard, yet this is excluded in the social homes scheme. All of this should have been tied up together, as I said, but, instead, we are still waiting. Donegal County Council cannot go ahead with the 80 homes it has because the money is not there to do the foundations. If this were done correctly, the council would be able to proceed.
If an investigation is needed, we must investigate. If remediation is required, the scheme must fund it. The funding rules must focus on the engineer's solution. That is a priority. Concrete does not know who owns a house. The same concrete means the same science, and the response must follow the science.
There is also a professional integrity issue. Ethics concerns have been raised regarding engineers and firms operating in this area. Where an engineering determination affects whether someone remains in his or her home, due diligence must apply. Conflict of interest safeguards, professional accountability and an independent route to challenge determinations are vital as we go forward. Public confidence requires confidence in the system behind an engineering report to ensure that report stands up to scrutiny.
I am asking the Minister for three things. First, there must be independent governance of the social homes scheme, with clear responsibility across the Department, the Housing Agency and local authorities, along with independent scrutiny. The second requirement is protection of engineers' independence. Rules governing option one review must be clear and must not discharge the evidence based on engineers' determinations. Where a determination is disputed, an independent technical review must be available. Third, we need a review of the inclusion of foundations in IS 465:2026. If engineering evidence says foundations associated with ground works are necessary, then a scheme must deliver them.
The thought always must be with the tenant. That is vital into the future. We have 3,150 households waiting on social homes. We have existing tenants waiting to know whether their homes can be made safe. We cannot fail either of those groups, which amount to more than 5,000 households in Donegal. The State owns the building but the tenants own the life that exists inside that building.
We must let the engineer determine what is required and let the funding follow. The engineers should be allowed to get on with their jobs. The process must be overseen by independent governance. When the State tells tenants their home is safe, that assurance must be properly tested. We do not need another waiting list and another waiting game. We have waited long enough. We need the promise of a safe home for people.
More than 50,000 homes will have to be built in Donegal in the next 20 to 30 years. Right now, we are proceeding at less than 2% capacity. We need to look at an OPW model for building homes in Donegal. It would be revolutionary. It can be done but the Government must have belief in it, which it does not right now. It is leaving it to the market, and the market is not doing any favours for homeowners in Donegal. There are contractors doing it right but there also are contractors doing it wrong.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2026-09-23/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-09-28T05:50:49+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-09-23