Paying for mica scandal


Sir, – On more than one occasion in the last week or so mica redress campaigners have said that they may have to travel to Dublin and bring it to a standstill. I presume that what they mean is that so many people will come to Dublin in order to thank the very people who will have to pay for the renovations to their mica-affected homes.

– Yours, etc,


Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.

Sir, – Your editorial and letters page (December 2nd) suggest a certain weariness with the mica campaigners who have been vehemently supported by Sinn Féin deputies.

Sadly, some Government deputies appear to have taken their lead from that party. The charge of discrimination against owners of large houses rankles with ordinary “families and workers” who Sinn Féin purports to represent.

Assuming that families and workers make up a coherent political force, how will Sinn Féin counter the accusation that the party represents the owners of large houses? Watch this space.

– Yours, etc,


Newport, Co Tipperary.

Sir, – Dublin-based property sources appear to be more optimistic than their Donegal counterparts that the mica redress scheme will be adequate to cover building costs (News, December 2nd). Market forces will, I think, dictate a solution.

Donegal builders should ply their trade in Dublin where the punter has long been inured to the rip-off culture.

Dublin builders will move to the northwest frontier where among the wonders they will behold is that the average house size is 2,400sq ft. – Yours, etc,


Mooncoin, Co Kilkenny.

Sir, – I am absolutely dismayed as to why owners of houses affected by mica are unhappy with the Government redress scheme.

First, I cannot understand – and nobody has explained to me otherwise – why the taxpayer is footing this bill. The culprits, surely, in these cases are the builders, architects, engineers and the quarry owners – those involved in the construction of the houses.

If I buy defective goods, I cannot run to the Government and look for compensation. These are privately-owned companies and the redress should be between them and the homeowners. Second, the scheme will give compensation of 100 per cent to a typical-size family home. If owners want something larger then they should foot the bill for this.

– Yours, etc,


Clonora, Co Tipperary.

Sir, – Your report that a spokesman for the Mica Action Group objects to the proposed Government compensation scheme on several grounds including a requirement that landlords must have been registered on November 1st, 2021 to avail of the scheme.

Registration with the Residential Tenancies Board is a legal obligation as part of a general scheme to bring State oversight and regulation to the private rental sector.

The argument of the mica campaigners, as my addled brain understands it, is that the State failed in its lack of regulation of the concrete block manufacturing sector.

Their hypocrisy regarding the exclusion of non-compliant landlords is insulting to the taxpayers who will fund any compensation scheme.

– Yours, etc,


Rathmines, Dublin 6.

Sir, – So the National Children’s Hospital is to be a mouthwatering €1.4 billion minimum. Final cost expected to be about €2 billion, but the nation and children of Ireland will benefit greatly.

Oh, and the mica houses are to cost €2 billion minimum, to benefit how many?

– Yours, etc,


Sir, – Many of your correspondents miss the point (perhaps deliberately) when discussing the mica redress scheme.

The mica-affected homeowners of Donegal want a true market rate to repair their homes.

We do not care whether the figure is €100, €125, €150 or €175 per sq ft. All we ask is that the actual market rate is given under the scheme.

The sliding scale has to go as no builder quotes a different rate for a different part of the footprint.

– Yours, etc,



Co Donegal.