Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the delegates for their contributions. I appreciate the manner in which they have scrutinised the Bill and made known their views on it in order to ensure we will have a Bill that is fit for purpose and will do what we want it to do. I will not go into it in great detail, but, as others have alluded to, there are cost and time barriers to development taking place and there is also a housing crisis. We are elected Members of Parliament and it is our duty to help and assist and provide the means and mechanisms to address it. This is one such way to do it.

All of the delegates welcome the Bill and its intent and have acknowledged the need for it, but they say there are difficulties. Apart from Ms Hegarty, two, in particular, went about providing reasons the Bill should not proceed any further. We will take on board the recommendations made on definitions, clarifications and resources, as well as the issue of numbers. The delegates said that in the case of refurbishment works, the number of units within a particular building was not defined. In no way do we wish to compromise standards, safety or competence. In fact, I take offence to the implication, regardless of whether it was intentional. That is not our intention. As others said, there is provision within the Bill for competent, professional and independent assessment. We take on board the suggestions made in that regard and will further define it to make it easier for the delegates and the public to understand.

It is our intention to reduce the costs associated with certification. They are too dear and a cost barrier to construction. With others, I am interested in addressing that issue. There is a cost of construction issue related to the supply issue and certification is part of it. Development charges, the cost of finance and VAT are others. We will do what we can in that regard. The cost of certification in other jurisdictions is a lot lower and there is no compromise on standards. SI No. 9 which was referred to is as up-to-date as it gets and we would not deviate one iota from what is being provided for in it.

I again thank the delegates. In particular, I thank Ms Hegarty for her comments. She set out effectively and eloquently the reasons this has to be done. On Mr. Baldwin's contribution, I know that there are complexities with buildings and that there are more associated with those in the cities and where trade is greater. There are buildings in small towns and villages throughout the country that need an opportunity, an incentive and a reason to breathe life back into them.

The statutory instrument brought forward last week was also welcome, but it must be accompanied by relevant guidelines for refurbished buildings. It is not fair or appropriate and a barrier to have the guidelines for refurbishment works led by guidelines for new buildings. It is not and should not be the case. They have to be separated. Mr. Browne referred to old staircases and so forth. We want to make it easier. If the repair and lease scheme and the incentives associated with it are improved and the recommendations of the Commission on Taxation are taken on board in a future budget, there will be further reasons this could happen.

That will get rid of the complexities fairly quickly as the lad will see there is a buck to be made here, and more luck to him. There is a provision for an effort to broaden the amount of property available in the market, which in turn would address affordability. That is our intention and what we want to do. I thank the witnesses and there are many well-intended suggestions that we will take on board.