Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their powerful presentations. I support the call for Part M to be reviewed and reconsidered. I am very glad to hear there is significant progress on changing places but, having worked in the construction industry, I believe there is an institutional lag or resistance to changing regulations for fear it will disrupt an already broken housing sector. This committee has to have a role in making the case for change. We have to position this as central to an equal and just society. We will all have to consider how we can stand with the witnesses on this because the argument will not necessarily be easy.

I have several specific questions, including building regulations. I will be happy to hear from whoever wants to respond to them. I want to start first with the building regulations aspect. Was it Mr. O'Herlihy who said we need a review of Part M but that we will also need to consider matters such as development plans and ministerial circulars? Everything considered during the planning permission process will have to be examined eventually. Does anyone have an opinion on whether Part M is enough? I am interested in the intersection of part M with other regulations, such as part B, which covers fire regulations. There has been some relaxing of some fire regulations, including in respect of the removal of sprinkler requirements and changes to landings and stairs, presumably to encourage developers by increasing profitability. That is the only impetus I can see behind the changes. Does anyone have a view on how Part B intersects with Part M?

I completely agree with Mr. Cunningham that moving towards a universal model of housing and building design would mean better generational access to housing in general. We all go through times in life when we need different types of housing. A basic level of universal design would make matters much easier for people. Do any of the witnesses wish to refer to generational living?

This brings us to the issue of nursing homes, which has been raised several times this morning, and also to the issue of people with disabilities living in them. I am under the impression that there currently is no statutory guidance given on the design of buildings that specifically cater for people with additional or different needs. I presume there is a role for statutory guidance on facilities such as schools and nursing homes, in connection with which we consider the issue of universal design.

I have had an argument about the cost of construction. Maybe Ms Egan or Mr. O'Herlihy could talk about this. We have had a lot of conversation on the building in of environmental aspects. The cost from the design stage usually tends to be between 1% and 2%, but the cost to retrofit is many multiples of that. I can only assume it is the same for universal design or adaptation. Importantly in respect of cost–benefit analyses, it would be cheaper for the State to build proper universal-design dwellings and public buildings rather than addressing the issue after the fact. That would represent better value for money for the taxpayer.

My final question is for Ms Egan because she is connected to the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland. The original legislation framework for building regulations included an independent oversight body to consider changes to and the development of building regulations. The body was made up of stakeholders and experts in the field. In the past decade, it has been removed and responsibility is now completely in-house within the Department. Does Ms Egan believe we need a stand-alone, independent oversight body for building regulations?