Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses before the committee. I thank them for sharing their views and observations on the Bill.

People have referred to SI 9 of 2014 and the recent building control regulations that have been introduced to protect the citizen who may be building or residing in a particular building. That is all very important and must be acknowledged. As Ms Hegarty mentioned, the existing housing stock in cities and towns must be prioritised for refurbishment. Despite the fact that we have all this regulation and construction levels have started to rise again, why have we not seen the activity in the over-the-shop type of premises in towns and villages that we need given the infrastructure and services that exist? Two reasons that have been outlined are the cost and the bureaucracy associated with such work. That can lead to two things, ether inaction, which means a premises will remain vacant, or it can mean there is shoddy workmanship. For example, people may not have engaged the services of professionals like they should, take on the job themselves, hire a small contractor and, literally, renovate the premises and let it without anybody knowing and probably in a substandard state.

I want to identify the best approach to take. I am interested in hearing further views from the witnesses sat opposite. Would they rather see an underground renovation system? That seems to be happening in some cases but not in others. Would they like the system reformed whereby the concerns about standards and technical documents expressed by the professionals here were taken into account? Would the witnesses prefer if local authorities provided independent oversight? It is a fact that in this country local authority inspections of the built environment are not at as high a percentage as in other countries. We should learn lessons from the Celtic tiger years, particularly well known cases such as Priory Hall and others that had serious infrastructural and structural issues. Despite the fact, presumably, that the work was signed off by architects, engineers and surveyors we still had problems. I foresee that the problems existed due to a lack of independent oversight. For that reason I am of the view that we should support more independent inspections from an independent source, and who is better placed to carry out such inspections than local authorities?

Have the professionals experienced the bureaucracy, that we have heard about from their clients, when they engage with local authorities? Planning certificates, planning permission, disability certificates and fire certificates are required. As a witness has said, three different timelines are associated with the certificates and permission and three different Departments are involved. Is it a good proposal to streamline the process and create a one-stop-shop situation in local authorities? The proposal seeks to reduce the amount of bureaucracy and make it easier for Joe and Josephine Citizen to renovate their property. There are barriers that we need to address. This Bill, as written, addresses the matter to some extent. The bureaucracy is one element and one solution is a one-stop-shop system. Can the witnesses tell me about their experience of the situation? Do they agree that bureaucracy is a problem? Do they agree that a one-stop-shop system in local authorities would alleviate the amount of bureaucracy?

In terms of oversight, do the witnesses, as professionals, support more independent oversight and inspection by appropriately trained and competent professionals employed within the local authority services? I await the replies with interest.