Mr. Patrick Sharkey:

What we are looking for really is that the demolition approval would be granted but also in line with an acknowledgement and acceptance by the banks that the proposed works would restore the property to mortgageable condition.

In Ms Shovlin's case and in Ms McDade's, approval was given for demolition, but there was no process in place to examine the proposals on works even though there were various options on the table. If the redress scheme and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage's engineers recommend an outer leaf replacement, will that eliminate the damage clause in our mortgages? Where there is a damage clause, the bank has a legal interest in these buildings. Banks have to be part of the process and say that they accept the engineers' recommendations. The science and professionalism of engineers as opposed to cost cutting have to be at the heart of this. Short-term cost cutting or cost-management measurements may be a poor use of taxpayers' money where a home is not restored as a fully operational part of our economy and housing stock.