Pat Casey (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I suppose this goes back to the intent of the Bill. We might have to look at the exact wording. We are saying that the works permit will include a fire certificate and a disability certificate. This means that the very same process which is gone through today will have to be gone through under the system we are proposing. I will take on board the point that it is probably not realistic for this to be done in two weeks. When we interact with people about the vacant properties all over our towns and villages that are just sitting there, we are told that the process is very complex and drawn out. It takes a period of time. We are trying to harmonise that without changing the standard. Our intention is that the works permit we are proposing will include within it the current fire certificate, disability certificate and exempted development certificate. I will take on board what the witnesses have said about time. I appreciate that fire safety is complex and not straightforward. It is more complex when an existing building is being retrofitted than it is when a new building is being constructed.

I would like to pick up on some of the points made by Mr. Hynes. He spoke about different skill sets. Local authorities are responsible for the approval process anyway. They show they have the skill sets we are talking about when they implement the approval process. Fire officers, disability officers and others are using these skills every day of the week. They are there at the moment. We are not bringing anything extra to the approval process, but the inspection process is different. This is where it is said that there could potentially be a cost to the State. I remind the witnesses that builders and developers currently have to pay assigned certifiers, and we are saying that the authorised person charge should still fall to the builder. Where is the extra cost to the Exchequer? We have acknowledged that the expertise is not there and that some of this might have to be part of a framework agreement. Such an agreement would be done with a local authority which would appoint an independent assessor to a project to oversee independent inspection. That is where we probably want to get.

The Minister has given a commitment in respect of the technical guidance document. That piece of work or process has already started. Although the Bill we are proposing would not do anything different from what is provided for at the moment, we are clearly putting our hands up and saying there can be 31 or 32 different interpretations of "dispensation". I appreciate that flexibility will be required in certain cases, but perhaps there should be less flexibility in this regard. If the local authorities had technical guidance setting out how to refurbish existing building stock - perhaps showing how to take a number of models and develop them out - it would be much easier for them to follow than it is for fire officers to interpret how relaxed they should be in respect of one building or another. I am saying all of this as a quick response to what we have heard from the witnesses on this Bill.