There is broad consensus in politics that the construction industry should contribute to the cost of the redress schemes, currently estimated to stand at €2.7bn. However, a few issues arise which might lead one to wonder whether the announced measure was a thread of spin which will ultimately end up being binned.

In the first instance, we have been here before.

In 2012, a panel was appointed to investigate solutions to the presence of pyrite detected at the time in over 10,000 homes. The panel recommended that a levy be imposed on concrete manufacturers and the general insurance industry (not including life insurance). Then environment minister Phil Hogan agreed. He engaged with the respective industries to gauge the reaction, which turned out to be as expected.

The Irish Concrete Federation (ICF) was not best pleased.

“ICF is disappointed with the decision by government to levy the aggregates industry to pay for the repair of houses damaged by pyrite heave,” the federation wrote to Mr Hogan.

“There has been an overwhelmingly negative reaction from ICF members around the country who have had no role whatsoever in the pyrite problems. Some members are recommending the ICF… legally challenge the imposition of a levy.”

The Irish Insurance Federation was even more upset. Its letter quoted the European Convention on Human Rights.

“Quite apart from the arguments relating to European law, we would caution that there is a serious doubt about the constitutionality of this proposal.”

As is often the case, the government thereafter appeared to lack the stomach to legally defend its proposal when a constitutional threat was waved about by a vested interest. 

In October 2013, Mr Hogan announced that plans for the levy were being dropped because it “ran into constitutional difficulties” on the basis of advice from the attorney general.

Hiding behind the Constitution

So what has changed? There is a record in this State of governments hiding behind the Constitution when pitted against a vested interest — but, when political realities change, the legal difficulties somehow dissolve.

Two obvious examples are in land rezoning and drink driving.

• In 1973, the Kenny report on housing was shelved because of constitutional issues over rezoning. Fifteen years later, an Oireachtas committee determined — on legal advice — that no such difficulties pertained.

• In 1998, random breath testing for drink driving was rejected over privacy rights in the sacred document. Eight years later, when the public no longer had a tolerance for deaths on the road, this legal concern managed to disappear.

Things have changed dramatically since 2013 in relation to the pyrite issue at hand. In the intervening years, shoddy standards in building, particularly during the Celtic Tiger years, have been writ large. The defective blocks used in building thousands of homes — mainly, but not exclusively, in the North West — prompted major protests and belated acceptance by the Government that homeowners had to be properly assisted for remediation or the construction of new homes.

Elsewhere, fire safety defects have been uncovered right across the State in thousands of apartments built when the Tiger was roaring. The expert group on those defects reported last July and the Government has accepted that a remediation scheme is required. The cost for the fire safety and associated defects will, in all likelihood, send the total bill for all remediations to well over €5bn.

Another change is the Government’s acceptance, again belated, that regulatory standards during the time in question were appalling, and therefore the State must accept some responsibility.

However, political and media comment has repeatedly pointed out that it is entirely unfair that Joe and Josephine Citizen would be lumbered with the total cost. Hence the revisiting of a levy.

The suspicion that Mr Donohoe’s announcement is coated in spin rather than genuine intention is heightened on examination of the design of his proposed toll. 

A 10% levy is a fair whack for any industry. In this case, the intention is to apply it to concrete products, which is effectively a subset of the construction industry. That narrows the base for revenue and imposes disproportionately on one element of the business. The Construction Industry Federation has already been out to bemoan that the levy will be passed on to homebuyers to the tune of around €2,500 for the average abode.

If the constitutional “difficulties” are no more, then why didn’t Mr Donohoe opt for a more realistic levy that might actually work? Widening the base of liability to those sectors which profited enormously from the building of defective homes has been a theme repeatedly visited by Sinn Féin housing spokesperson, Eoin Ó Broin.

“We have long called for a levy but we need it on the concrete and construction industries, non-life insurance, and banks,” he says.

“These all have to make a contribution because it is vital that homeowners, through no fault of their own, are not left footing the bill.”

The fine detail will emerge in the Finance Bill — but if the levy progresses as announced, all sorts of problems lie ahead even if, once again, the constitutional difficulties have dissolved in the face of political realities.