Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for having to step out there but I will check the transcript for what I missed later. I will re-emphasise, and am sure that everybody else said this at the start of their comments, that those of us who are sympathetic to this legislation do not in any way want to compromise fire safety or building standards. These sessions are very useful because they allow us to clarify and identify problems which, potentially through friendly amendment on Committee Stage, we might be able to resolve. We also share a desire to see a faster turnaround of vacant properties, particularly above shops. The current system is not achieving that for us. The discussion we are having today is not unlike the discussion we had last week about the Government's planning regulations with regard to exemptions, because standards are paramount for us.

As I listen, I wonder if part of the solution to this problem is not unlike part of the solution that many of us came to during the report on building control issues, which is that we are not really looking at a potential third inspection regime but at the old inspection regime with the new standards that come with BCAR. If there is some way to merge those two in a cost-effective and speedy way, that might be the way to do it. For example, clarifying the legislation about authorised persons might be a way to do that. Having a greater level of BCAR-type inspections by the authorised person worked into the legislation through amendment might be another way. Many of us are of the view that we would like assigned certifiers to continue operating under BCAR but not to be directly employed by the builder or developer, but essentially as authorised persons by the local authority, with the cost to be borne as it currently is. If all of that were to be done in the context of this legislation, which would not require substantial amendment, one could end up with the best of both worlds, which is a faster system with no questions on any of that. Maybe we can consider that as we go. Perhaps people have suggestions on how some of that could work.

The clarification of the point about the level of technical information that would be required in this Bill is important. We might look at clarifying that in the legislation because that is clearly the intention of the drafters. If that is where this conversation ends, I presume, if it is done right, that it would satisfy many of the concerns of the people on this side. My question relates to timelines because we obviously want to do this all more quickly but without compromising. Mr. Baldwin mentioned timelines. Does he have a notion of what a more appropriate timeline would be, particularly in the context of what I have outlined as a potential inspection regime and merging the two processes, or is that something he could maybe think about and come back to us on? That is more of a general point but perhaps people want to respond to that.