I wish to raise the issue of pyrite in County Clare again. I have a letter here from the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, dated 7 July, stating that Clare would be included in the scheme once the same rigorous analysis that was done in Mayo and Donegal to quantify the extent of the problem in those counties had been done in Clare. That testing has been done. A Dáil motion was passed unanimously on 15 June calling for a 100% redress scheme and no less, with no hidden details, fine print, sliding scales, etc. It has been six months. Why is the Government denying people in Clare justice and equality? The families feel like they are being gaslighted and that the delay is inevitable. It is causing their homes to crumble around them. What will the Government do for people in Clare?

My understanding is that the new mica scheme, which will require legislation in this House, will operate on a national basis. Therefore, if there are homes in Clare, Limerick and other counties that are affected by mica, they would be included. It will not be just for Mayo and Donegal. Again, this is really a matter for the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, so I will let him know that the Deputy raised it and she might want to come back with more detail.

On somewhat the same topic, I think we all recognise the anguish of families who have seen the house of their dreams crumble before their eyes because of defective materials. The Government has rightly introduced a scheme which shows solidarity with those people. However, given the scale of this, the cost of which is already €2 billion and rising, does the Tánaiste believe that financial institutions should be contributing towards the cost of such a scheme, given that it is their portfolio of loans which is now being shored up by taxpayers and that their financial position is greatly strengthened in that respect?

Should they be making an inexorable contribution toward the cost that is falling on the taxpayer?

I suppose they would probably argue that they already make that contribution through the bank levy, which applies to banks that in some cases were not bailed out by the State, and one that has already repaid all of the money given to them. The levy was brought in for that purpose. Some of the institutions would argue that they are now paying for it through that levy. I am not sure I agree with that argument but that is the argument they would make. However, it is very much the view of the Government and the Minister of Finance that the cost of this should not fall entirely on the taxpayer. The Minister is working on a proposal to introduce a levy on the construction sector. That will not cover the entire cost of it but will cover some of it. He will have that ready for the budget next October with a view to introducing it from 2023.