A spokesperson for the mica redress campaign, Michael Doherty, has said that a rumoured cap of €350,000 for compensation would not be acceptable as it would exclude 40 per cent of homeowners.
“We cannot leave people behind, there should be no one left behind,” he told RTÉ radio’s Morning Ireland.
Mr Doherty said that no figure for a cap was mentioned during a meeting with Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien and officials from his department yesterday.
“I’m very concerned at this kite-flying.”
Various numbers for a cap were being “floated” he said, from €350,000 to €500,000. “There was nothing concrete” indicated about a figure at the meeting with the Minister. “This is the usual form, stuff being leaked through to see where it goes. We won’t accept €350,000 as it leaves 40 percent behind.”
Any proposal that excluded 40 percent of mica homeowners was not acceptable, he repeated.
Mr Doherty pointed out that owners already faced €40,000 in costs required for testing and planning permissions, rental accommodation. The figures the homeowners were basing their claims on were those used by insurance companies and were for “basic finishes” for the homes affected.
A protest will be held outside Leinster House today demanding 100 per cent redress. “The fault lies with the lack of regulations and the lack of enforcement of regulations by the State at that time,” he added.
'Crude instrument'
Donegal TD Joe McHugh has said that putting a cap on the mica redress scheme was “a crude instrument”.
The former Fine Gael minister pointed out that the pyrite scheme had not been capped.
When asked on RTÉ radio’s Today with Claire Byrne show about the figure of €350,000 being mentioned as a cap, Mr McHugh said that it was unfortunate that figures were “coming out”.
“Putting a cap on it is a crude instrument.”
Mr McHugh said he knew that the issue had caused a lot of upset, but that the mica group had taken a “very responsible position” and that they did not want to see taxpayers’ money being wasted.
Many people had put their “life efforts and life savings” into their homes, he added.
The homeowners were seeking ratification of something that was totally out of their control.
People could not be excluded, he added.
Mr McHugh said that he believed a cap would be based on a square footage basis.
