Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I acknowledge Mr. Bailey's point that we are ad idemwith regard to the intent and the thrust of this Bill, which is being proposed because the existing systems are not serving the people we represent as they were intended. He mentioned the vacant house refurbishment scheme, which was introduced by the Government last year and under which it was intended that 800 applications would be approved. If the existing systems were serving the people adequately, we would have had 800 approvals under that scheme, but instead we had none. We have a housing emergency and crisis. The guidelines pertaining to the development and progression of vacant units, including over-shop units, so that they enter into the market are restrictive.

Perhaps the valid point made by Deputy Casey addresses the concerns of Mr. Hynes with regard to liability. Mr. Hynes and his colleagues are not served well by the fact that there are no guidelines for existing buildings. It is not right, proper, fair or appropriate that the guidelines which apply to new-builds have to be used. This must be addressed forthwith. I am surprised that it has not been addressed to date. It has been confirmed here that, as Deputy Casey alluded to, it is intended is to bring together all the resources of the local authority, which is responsible for issuing these certificates, in order to ensure we no longer have all the delay and prevarication that exists at present. As public representatives, we hear in no uncertain terms on a regular basis that things have to change.

The point that needs to be made about the system of certification is that self-certification cannot continue. We know all about the ramifications and the lessons we have learned in that regard. In the future, the certification would ideally be done by the local authorities. If they had the resources and the personnel to facilitate this sort of independent certification, and were in a position to charge appropriately, it would give them an income stream, if nothing else. They would be independent almost in the same way as the Revenue Commissioners. This will not be possible in the absence of certification, however. That is what we have to strive towards. In the meantime, we are saying that the only way in which this can move forward is for it to be contracted by the local authority to assigned certifiers with relevant qualifications that make them suitable to meet the demands placed on them.

The end game from our party's perspective is to move towards independent certification run and led by local authorities and that the costs associated with it will not be as severe as they are in the marketplace today. If one looks at the costs associated with such a system in the UK it is very favourable in comparison with the situation down here. In order to get to that end game we have to play our part in so far as we can in improving the system. That is why I brought forward a Bill. That is why we invited stakeholders such as the witnesses with expertise and professionalism to have an input into it so we can instruct Government in the hope it adopts it as policy and that it is enacted. That is the way the democratic process works, as frustrating and slow as it is. If we can speed it up, it is our duty to do so and that is what we want to do.