The State recommended an external wall remediation only in a home where an internal wall was already cracking and carrying specialist hoist equipment used every day to lift and move a paralysed woman. The family were then refused access to see the full technical report so as to understand whether it was a safe decision to only give an outer leaf remediation. My constituent's home was adapted in 2017. She was paralysed after a car accident and it is designed entirely around her needs. Where the hoist is system is used, inside the walls are cracking, not just the outside. Internal cracking has already been identified in parts of the structure holding the equipment that supports her getting out of the bed, to the bathroom and to the wheelchair. How can this be described as a safe decision when the family are being asked to accept the decision without actually seeing the technical evidence?

I thank Deputy Ward for raising this issue. I send my sincere sympathy and solidarity to his constituent and their family for all they have endured. The point Deputy Ward makes about being able to see the detail is an important one. I understand why any homeowner may wish to see a report from an engineer in order to really understand the rationale behind the option being recommended or proposed. That is understandable and logical. My understanding is that the Housing Agency will, upon request, issue the report to homeowners. That would be an important step to take because that would inform the homeowner in question as to the query raised.

In addition, and as Deputy Ward will know, there is a requirement in the 2022 Act to undertake a review of the operation of the Act. That review is due to commence shortly and the matter he has raised can also be considered as part of that. On foot of the Deputy raising this today, I will ask that the Minister, Deputy James Browne's Department note it for that purpose, too.