Mr. Michael Doherty:

What we are being led to believe is that there should be a one-stop shop for the scheme. That is what we have been told all along. The caveat I would apply in that regard is that we have been told a lot of things over the last six months. Ms Hegarty and I have been working closely with some of the officials and much of what we understood would happen did not materialise last Tuesday. All I can tell the Deputy is what we were led to believe, which was that there will be a one-stop shop, a seamless process that will include the grants from the SEAI where a homeowner decided to seek them. That is our understanding of that.

On the costs, it is important to understand the reasons for the differences exist between what SCSI put together and what Mr. Houton sees as our prices on the ground. These can be summarised under two headings. One is that the terms of reference given to the SCSI deliberately excluded true costs and the Department decided what the eligible costs were. A figure of €15,000 in professional fees that a homeowner has to pay is not included. The cost of foundations has been left out. The Department is expecting us, on a leap of faith and without the science, to say the foundations are okay. Most homeowners want to change their foundations and will pay for that themselves. That will cost another €10,000. No finishes of any kind are provided for, not even a basic carpet. We know what it takes to finish a house. It will cost another €5,000 or €10,000 and the homeowner has to find that.

There are also boundary walls and garages. You cannot be in your new house and have your children running around in the street when walls and garages have the potential to fall down over time. These are costs that the homeowner will bear. People could very quickly spend €50,000 or €60,000 on these things but they cannot access that money. That is why we want an option for downsizing. We should not deprive people of the chance to take the grant, to take the hit on the equity in the house they already bought and paid for and to liquidate part of it to spend on building a smaller house they can afford. It would be criminal of the State to block that. That is what we are facing. If the committee is to recommend anything, it should be that people who are prepared to take the hit on the size of the home they already bought and paid for should not be deprived of a second chance to avoid going near banks and to pay for a house out of their grants, as they wish to do.