I welcome the release of the draft I.S. 465 for public consultation last Monday. For a long time, homeowners affected by defective concrete have been calling for the recognition of science. The standard now recognises that pyrrhotite oxidation causes internal sulfate attack, creating deterioration in Donegal homes. It is incredible that the freeze-thaw action potential damage mechanism has been retained in the revised draft document. This despite international research, scientists, the Department of housing and the GSI-commissioned research clearly ruling the presence of mica causing freeze-thaw does not exist in Donegal homes.

I have a number of concerns that need to be addressed in due course but time does not allow this today. The table of options, particularly remediation, that featured in the previous document has been omitted in the revised draft I.S. 465. At first glance, this would appear to be a welcome development because it looks like there is only one solution, namely, full demolition. However, further scrutiny reveals a number of references to partial remediation, which is incredibly concerning. For example, on page 28, section 7.3.1.1 on sample selection, point (c) states: "where part(s) of the structure has been identified for potential retention". In page 39, section 8.2 states: "the chartered engineer shall recommend demolition and rebuild of all affected concrete block building elements to the client in the final [engineer's] report".

My question is twofold. Does this mean that every element, that is, rising walls, inner leaf and outer leaf, is considered separately? If one element of the building does not meet the threshold for removal, does this mean the element will be retained or does it mean the entire house will be demolished? It is unclear. In short, the revised version of I.S. 465 is seeking to provide the options for partial fixes to people's homes. The peer research report supplied by Ulster University and the NSAI is very clear. Severe deterioration of all components is inevitable and it is strongly suggested that these concrete blocks be replaced as part of the remediation solution.

The recent revision of I.S. 465 sets out sulfur levels in their tests of construction materials at 0.3% despite the fact that the European standard EN 12620 specifies a limit of less than 1%. That concrete test would equate to 0.2%. Can the Tánaiste explain why the NSAI recommends using a total sulfur level that is in conflict with EU standards?

I understand these questions are very technical but I would be grateful if the Tánaiste could come back to me with clarity. These standards could have very serious consequences for people building their homes in Ireland.

I thank Deputy Ward for the question and his advocacy on behalf of his constituents in Donegal. I certainly will engage with him, as will the Government, on some of those technical matters. While I am taking the question, it very much relates to the testing standard that is used to evaluate the impact of defective concrete blocks. I realise this is an issue that is having a very significant impact and it is, as the Deputy has acknowledged, a complex issue as well.

The Government is allocating a significant amount of public money to affected homeowners. We are doing so to try to help enable them to rebuild their homes and get on with their lives. I cannot imagine the absolute misery, fear, pressure and stress - I am sure those words do not even capture it - that people are living with. I want to acknowledge that. We have seen funding increase significantly in 2025, I believe by over 50%, because the scheme is now ramping up. It is designed so that sufficient additional funding will be provided as required. The estimate is that the overall cost of the scheme will be in excess of €2.2 billion. Notwithstanding the challenges that I accept and the legitimate questions the Deputy is asking, over €2.2 billion is a significant commitment by this Oireachtas to those people to try to make progress. Our aim has been to make sure the scheme is designed and delivered in a manner that meets the real needs of homeowners in an efficient and effective way. My understanding is that there are more than 2,000 homeowners at various stages. The grant rates that were set and increased in 2024 are based on expert advice and based at a level to ensure homeowners will get the money they need to put their homes right.

In order to ensure that the grant scheme follows the most up-to-date science, changes were made to the scheme late in 2024 to take account of the most recent research and a forthcoming legislative Bill will make amendments to the grant scheme to allow these changes be implemented by the scheme's administrators.

Specifically on the testing standard, I will not profess to be an expert on the technicalities and I am certainly happy to revert to the Deputy via the Minister with further information. My understanding is that the public consultation on the NSAI standard has now commenced. I believe it commenced as recently as last Monday, 31 March. This is a milestone moment from a decision the Government made back in 2021 and funding provided by the State into the required research for the NSAI to undertake its work on revising the standards. The committees responsible for the research and drafting of the revised standard included officials from the Department. On conclusion of the public consultation period, the NSAI will finalise its review. It is expected to likely publish the revised standard in quarter 3 of this year. To assist in the evaluation of the new research and development underpinning the draft standard, the Minister's expert group has reconvened to provide advice on the implications for the defective concrete block grant scheme administered by the authorities.

I accept it is complex but it is also important for the reasons the Deputy has stated that we get this right. It has serious implications for homeowners. We will certainly keep in very close contact with the Deputy on this matter.

One of the concerns is the breach of EU regulations. The recommended total levels of sulfur they are recommending in this new version of I.S. 465 breaches EU regulations for concrete aggregates, namely, EN 12620, which limits the total sulfur level for concrete aggregate to 0.1% if pyrrhotite is present. The NSAI has set a total sulfur limit of 3% for testing defective concrete in this revised document, which is higher than EN 12620's 1%, because the test is for concrete, not raw aggregate. Raw aggregate is the problem. As we take into account additional sulfur contribution, it comes from the cement paste. Page 25 of the revised document states that 5% to 10% of this mass concrete would have total sulfur content of 0.1% where iron sulfides are absent. This is leaving it very vulnerable to needing to be revisited again. The NSAI has also recommended total sulfur levels of a threshold of 3%, despite the fact that anything higher than 2% means concrete aggregate would not comply with an EU standard.

I say sincerely that the fact he and constituents of Donegal have had to get into such a level of technical detail shows the complexity and seriousness of this issue for people in the constituency, and the seriousness with which the Deputy takes it as their representative. I would be happy to set up a technical briefing with officials from the Department of housing. I would also encourage the Deputy, his constituents and all Oireachtas Members from Donegal to fully avail of the consultation that is now open in respect of getting these standards right. The timeline is now clear. The consultation opened on Monday. It is expected that we will be in a position to adopt any revisions in quarter 3 of this year. There would be a number of policy matters to consider if the draft standard were adopted. For example, the scheme design has always had regard to scientific evidence. Decisions regarding the remediation of affected homes have been made in good faith on the basis of the current scientific evidence as set out in the existing version of the I.S 465 standard, which dates from 2018. As drafted, the replacement standard raises the issue as to whether scheme funding would need to be expanded to allow costs related to replacement foundations. There are a number of policy issues that we will have to address. In the first instance, we need to see the outcome of that consultation. I will certainly set up a briefing for the Deputy with officials on the technicalities.