I call Deputy Charles Ward.

I want to raise the matter of how the State is communicating life-changing decisions to people in the defective concrete blocks scheme. A constituent of mine applied in 2022. Her home was assessed by an IS 465 engineer on the Housing Agency's list. The conclusion was clear: scientific and engineering principles dictated that full demolition and rebuilding was the only safe option to restore this unsafe home. The Housing Agency did not accept that, however, and it downgraded the remediation option to option 2, which retains defective material within the structure, despite extremely low compressive strength levels and readings, and clear evidence of ongoing deterioration inside and outside the house. My constituent appealed that decision and that appeal took years. On 18 May at 9 o'clock in the morning, she received an email from the appeals board stating her appeal had been upheld, the Housing Agency's decision had been annulled and option 1, demolition and rebuild, was directed. That was presented as the outcome of her appeal. For those living in structurally unsafe homes, it is about something as simple as being able to move on. My constituent thought she could move on and that there was finally an answer. Hours later, however, she received a second email that stated the first communication was sent in error and did not reflect the decision of the board. It apologised for the confusion caused.

This is not a minor administrative correction; this is a life-changing communication issued by the State, through the body that withdrew its decision on the same day it made it known. The woman affected followed every single rule of the process and compiled everything in the right order for years, knowing her home had deteriorated and praying and hoping she would get through the process, only to have a decision made and reversed on the same day.

I am not questioning the independence of the appeals panel. That is definitely not the issue here. The issue is that those running a State-administrated scheme dealing with unsafe homes confirmed, in an official written communication, a full demolition and rebuild outcome and retracted that communication hours later. That should never happen in a system dealing with people in a vulnerable situation like those we are dealing with in Donegal and throughout the country.

My question is simple: what safeguards are in place to ensure no other person in the scheme will be told they have secured full remediation only for the decision to be withdrawn the next day as an administrative error? That level of failure is simply unacceptable. This is meant to be the biggest scheme in the history of the State but the failures are starting to show up day after day.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I have made inquiries. The issue he raised did happen. It is unacceptable from my perspective, particularly given the enormity of the issue for the individual householder concerned, that she should have received two emails with completely opposite positions on the one day. My understanding is that the chair of the board accepts that an error was made and that it should not have occurred, and is immediately instituting a change in the process by which communications are issued to ensure it will not be made again. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage has asked that the chair immediately meet officials in his Department to ensure the process is robust and that errors of this nature do not occur again.

The Department itself does not process the appeals, as the Deputy knows. He is not questioning that. The Department passes them on to the Housing Agency. The appeals board is separate from the Housing Agency and the Department and is chaired by a senior counsel. The error should not have happened, particularly in the context of about 3,500 applications having been made to the scheme to date. Good progress has been made to date, with approximately 500 homes already fully remediated and approximately 750 having works done right now. It is a large scheme but that in itself does not excuse what occurred. The authorities concerned need to focus on how decisions are communicated to applicants, particularly where there is a question mark or appeal process under way, given that it will be a question of whether full demolition or remediation is required and whether better forms of communication, other than email, should be part of how things are done.

The Deputy is correct in saying the scheme is one of the biggest in the State. About €300 million has already been provided to assist homeowners, with an average grant of approximately €350,000. This has been communicated. The Deputy's point is well made. Everybody must now ensure that the error is not made again.

I thank the Taoiseach for that. I have another issue regarding IS 465. We were told the revised IS 465 was due in April or May but now we are heading towards June. The scheme is meant to be the biggest in the history of the State. It has been delayed and delayed. Will the revised version of IS 465 be published in June? The Tánaiste could tell me on the last occasion that publication would be within weeks and now I am asking the Taoiseach, some five or six weeks later, whether he can tell me whether the revised IS 465 will be published in June.

I have to defer to the Minister. I will ask him to communicate with the Deputy directly in respect of the matter. I am always loath to give precise timelines on behalf of other Ministers but I will make sure that this is followed up because commitments have been given on it. We will make sure that it gets done.