Mr. Kevin James:

There are a few things in the question. If I go back to the levy, the purpose behind it was to contribute to the mica homeowners and look at the contribution to rebuilding. I absolutely take the point that has been made. For me, coming right behind this is the apartment defects report. The position in discussion with industry stakeholders is the why, and what is included in this particular levy. Is this going to be set for an indefinite amount of time to create a pot of money to contribute to the rebuilding of houses? We also have to take into consideration that we talk about the construction industry with regard to the quarries and house builders building one-off homes. Our industry is much bigger than that, when it comes to looking at who we rely on in terms of tier one, tier two and tier three contractors. They are servicing not only the residential industry but the foreign direct investment market, data centres, large tech and pharma companies coming into the market. They have had absolutely no involvement in this whatsoever. When you look at the house building companies under the umbrella of the construction sector, it is the targetting of who and who is left. We all understand that insurance has expired and contractors are no longer in play. However, when you look at the solution to create a revenue, the 10% or 5% as we know from the Minister is €30 million per year. That is as a contribution, in an industry turning over €29 billion per annum. I feel that collaboration is needed with the industry stakeholders to work out a solution that is more effective than the one on the table at the moment, and also to take into consideration where we are going with the apartment defects report.