Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests. I was interested in some of the questions put by Deputy Hourigan, which were key and went to the core of the issue. We must recognise that not only have we not progressed as we should have in terms of universal design and standards, but there is active pressure to roll back on standards. We need to be clear about that and I hope we, as a committee, can be strong in pressing against that. What we have heard about the cost is interesting. It is striking that the costs of retrofitting or adapting are much higher than the cost of getting it right in the first place. I am very passionate about public procurement and how we do that. It seems as if it does not make sense.

Mr. Cunningham referred to people for whom adaptation is being put out of reach and who then find themselves on the list for an approved housing body. We also know, as Mr. Cunningham said in his opening statement, that people end up in residential care, with all of the costs associated with it, because of poor design from the outset.

I appreciate the 7% figure and the idea of lifetime adaptable houses everywhere. I am concerned that lifetime adaptable homes need to be built to a high standard to ensure people do not face quotes of €63,000. How do we ensure a high standard of universal design and lifetime adaptable homes?

I am also conscious of other areas of building. Fire safety has been mentioned. Corridors are now longer. Studio apartments have shrunk by 27%. Corners are being cut in student accommodation. Our guests have concerns about the general housing stock, in all its different forms, and the fact that some requirements are being diluted, which will make houses much harder to adapt in the future. That is a concern I have. Our guests have given detailed input today and could follow up on those matters. Mr. O'Herlihy gave us some good specifics in writing. The committee needs to press for standards, not just under Part M but right across the sets of standards. That will be important.

Public procurement and capital expenditure are the biggest pieces involved and I would love to hear comments on those issues. We have been waiting a long time but we are now at a key point. Some €116 billion is about to be spent on capital infrastructure, much of it on buildings. Public procurement will be happening as part of that capital expenditure. How crucial is it that we do not conduct public procurement based solely on the standards we have now but instead build in the expectation that if we do revise Part M, as we must, and raise the building standards, any buildings that are being built will be required to meet those higher Part M standards? That is important because a lot of funding is going into the building of new and affordable housing in line with the housing strategy. We must ensure that the building that will happen in the next year or two will meet the higher standards, rather than us raising the standards in two years' time, having already committed to €50 billion worth of building under old, poor standards.

It is also crucial that we apply the same to public standards. Schools and residential centres were mentioned but I am also concerned about community centres, public spaces, new shared public spaces, new amenities, theatres and all of the stuff of life. Anything that is getting funding under the national development plan and the new capital expenditure programme should meet universal standards. I am conscious that we have focused on wheelchair access and other things. Do our guests have any comments on universal design, Irish sign language and addressing the needs of those who are deaf or those with impaired sight? I know Ms Egan is working in the area of universal design. Does she feel those issues are being incorporated sufficiently into the universal design frameworks?

My next question is for Ms Richardson. It sounds like a considerable amount of thought has gone into the strategy around Changing Places Ireland. Ms Richardson rightly said that not hundreds but thousands of people need these places. There has been a long development process that is now going out to public consultation. How important is it that after public consultation, we do not start piloting new places but instead have a fast roll-out to scale across the country?

There is one thing that I sometimes worry about. We can consult on something and plan it but even though we know it will work and is needed, we start piloting. It is like we pilot back to an early stage. How important is it that this becomes a new standard rather than just being piloted?