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

I thank Mr. Quinlan and our other guests for their attendance. While I do not mean to criticise anyone, there is a certain degree of dissatisfaction among committee members. Yet again, we have been notified of Report Stage amendments that we will not have a chance to scrutinise in committee. I appreciate that the idea in Mr. Quinlan appearing before the committee is to fill in at least part of the gap, for which we are grateful, but the Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, should hear loud and clear the view of the committee that it would have been much better if the amendments had been brought through the full and proper process of Committee and Report Stages. Nevertheless, we have always been flexible as a committee and do not wish to stand in the way of important amendments.

I have concerns about two of the proposed Report Stage amendments and would like to hear more about them. While the amendments related to student accommodation and rates seem to bebroadly sensible, my concern is with the protected structures and RPZs. If I understand the problem correctly, it is that the building energy rating, BER, requirements included in the new definition of "substantial refurbishment" cause a difficulty in the case of pre-1963 properties because they are exempt from BER upgrades. Would it not have made more sense to simply remove the provision of a new definition of "substantial refurbishment" from the criteria for pre-1963 properties to be eligible for substantial refurbishment? Was this considered, or have I misunderstood the position? Why is the solution to the problem a requirement to have been outside the rental market for 12 months rather than 24?

I also have a concern about the RSESs. We will again give a significant power to the Minister. Although I do not want to return to the debate, the purpose in creating a planning regulator was to shift the overconcentration of power from the hands of the Minister and the Department, to which the Mahon tribunal had rightly pointed. In the case of the current RSES processes, however, the amendment would allow the Minister to issue a direction to the regional assemblies to take such specified measures as he or she might require for the plan. That seems to be another significant shift in power towards the Minister and an undermining of the regional and local authorities. What is Mr. Quinlan's response? I am open to supporting both amendments on Report Stage, but I struggle with these two questions.