Mr. Peter Hynes:

I note the opening remarks about the minimising of standards. I presume that the intent is that there would not be any compromising on standards. That in itself is perhaps part of the problem. Compromise and flexibility are sometimes part of the same discussion, and part of the difficulty of dealing with existing structures is shoehorning them into standards which were written after they were constructed - sometimes centuries afterwards - without requiring fundamental change to the existing structure. While the intent not to minimise or compromise standards at all is shared, it may be that some of the issues may require flexibility in these standards. That is a topic that needs to be ventilated and should be part of the discussion on technical guidance documents. Perhaps this Bill is not the arena for it. We have to figure out what is acceptable, what combination of flexibility is acceptable, and where local discretion should be allowed to vary very stringent requirements to meet common sense situations as they arise. Even the intent not to compromise standards is not as straightforward and simple as it might appear on first reading.

On the question of decisions in our system currently, decisions are made when the final document is signed. Decisions are not made by planning officials or by fire officials but rather by the delegated person when that signature is made. That gives rise to a concern about the liability that may accrue to certain personnel under this Bill. We share absolutely the ambition to harmonise and streamline the processes in the best possible way.

The processes are significantly different. There is a limit on the extent to which they can be handled by a multi-skilled team. As a previous speaker said, the skill sets are extremely specialised and are dependent on training and experience. They are not easily transferable from one to the other. We would share the ambition on pre-planning and pre-planning discussion. We have considerable experience in different areas. If one looks at examples of best practice around the country where the planning process seems to deliver on the ambitions and objectives we all share, one will see that pre-planning is a big part of that. We welcome the ambition to produce technical guidance documents on dispensations. We would welcome the opportunity to contribute to that discussion. It might take some time, but we welcome that ambition. The key concern at our end relates to what is agreed before work starts on site. How can it be confirmed that what has been agreed and accepted is delivered? Part of that relates to inspection regimes. If we take this route, an inspection regime will need to be built. That has resource and cost implications. The question of whether those costs would be borne by the public purse through central or local government, by the developer or by the consumer is one for another day. Costs and resources will be required to provide for an independent inspection regime, regardless of whether this work is done inhouse or is outsourced.