Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for attending. We had a very interesting engagement with Deputy Cowen on the Bill earlier. I think we all agreed that compliance and standards should not be compromised and we all felt there is much merit in the Bill. It is very obvious, given the number of vacant properties in our cities, towns and villages, that something is not working. Practically, I understand and respect the responsibilities of various Department officials and the various sections within those Departments on the ground, and the same goes for local authorities. However, having spoken to people who wish to redevelop town centre or city centre properties, I feel that the frustration on the ground is that the bureaucracy and the administration that goes with it just creates barriers and people just do not bother.

We must look at ourselves and ask ourselves, including policymakers, officials in the Department with responsibility, and local authorities, why it is not working and what we can do to make it work. I think we are all agreed that we cannot compromise on safety or standards, but there is a sense that there is no ownership within either local authorities or even the Department. Mr. Sheridan has responsibility for building standards, for example, and he will protect and argue and advocate for that, and others have responsibility for planning, but there is no oversight or cross-cut, as it were, that actually makes things happen.

The thrust of the Bill is to try to introduce a one-stop shop, a co-ordination unit or whatever one wants to call it. As Mr. Sheridan mentioned, it is already established in the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government in respect of vacant houses. We do not have that in the local authorities, for example, because they are operating like silos, similar to what happens within the Department. There is one section doing one thing, another doing its own thing, and they all do a good job, but there is no cross-cut. The practical reality of this on the ground is that we are not making progress. Deputy Cowen can correct me if I am wrong, but that is our frustration, and the idea behind the Bill is to try to bring that type of cross-cut into local authorities and the Department in order that we actually deliver on turning these vacant houses around and bringing them back into use. That is my frustration.

There are also some very good proposals in the Bill concerning inspections of property which will enforce the argument Ms Neary has just made about standards. I am concerned that self-certification is not the ideal answer, and this is reflected in the problems we have seen in building stock, as in cases such as Priory Hall. I think Deputy Cowen's Bill proposes that there be a strong local authority inspection for all refurbishments and that nothing be signed off on unless it is up to standard and in compliance with planning regulations and so on. I am interested to hear whether there is any new thinking within the Department in this regard.

The witnesses touched on other mechanisms that might be brought forward, but we really need to grasp this nettle and do something that can progress the bringing of vacant stock into use because there is just too much of it and we can all see it around us. Given the crisis we have, we need to think outside the box, and Deputy Cowen's Bill could be the vehicle to do so. Let us amend or shape it if we need to do so and bring the technical guidance or expertise along with it to make things happen because the present situation is very frustrating. Vacant housing is not being brought back into use because there are too many silos in local authorities and within the Department.