Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The concept of a one-stop-shop is very positive. We need it in other areas apart from this one of living over the shop which this Bill deals with because many would say that one of the delays in regard to planning is in the pre-planning meetings. There has to be a meeting with the different parts of the council such as transport, roads, water, etc. and it would be better to bring the various areas of the planning and decision-making process together and avoid delays.

We need to ensure there is proper compliance and that there are no loopholes with regard to access for people with disabilities and areas such as ventilation, safety and so on, which the Minister also referred to. There is a shortage of trained and appropriate personnel to deal with issues generally around inspection and so on. There is a proposal for a panel of approved inspectors but I am not sure whether they would be within or outside the local authority system. Presumably, however, they would have to be somehow linked into the local authority. I am not sure where that capacity is coming from. As an Opposition Bill it should not have a charge on the State. Where will the resources come from?

I agree there is a need for a vacant home strategy. It is extraordinary that the vacant properties pillar of Rebuilding Ireland is the one that is left to last because it is the quickest win. However one disputes the figures, there are between 100,000 and 200,000 vacant homes around the country that should be available for people to live in. Even a fraction of those would make a huge dent. Deputy Tóibín referred to his home county but the same is true of all the areas we represent. Even a fraction of those empty properties could provide homes much more quickly than the construction process at the moment.

I know the Minister has said he will publish the strategy soon, and maybe he is waiting for the budget but I urge him to do this. I agree that we need vacant homes officers in our local authorities and to have the register speeded up so that we can use the vacant homes around the country. A register is being drawn up and the local authorities are required to address vacant sites, if not vacant homes.

I know that the nursing homes support scheme, the fair deal scheme, has been somewhat controversial and I do not think there should be any attempt push people or force people to dispose of, or rent out, their properties if they are in nursing homes but there should be incentives. Something similar to the rent a room scheme for students would be appropriate but it should not be offset against the income and qualification for the fair deal scheme. Discussions were to be held between Departments on this and I hope they are going on because there is scope for that.

We have seen a living over the shop scheme and the living cities initiative but the current repair and lease scheme does not appear to be gaining much traction in terms of take up.

The living over the shop scheme did not seem to have much traction either. Incentivising people with commercial properties to have residential units over them seemed like a good concept. Clearly, we need a scheme that will work and will bring these places back to use for living in.

I have experience of the Living City Initiative in Limerick city, which is in my constituency. We are beginning to see a take up of that but a number of issues remain. I do not know if it will be reconsidered in the budget but I know the Minister will not tell me if that is the case this evening.

Some years ago, I visited a particularly good scheme run by the Midlands Simon Community. I cannot recall which midlands town it was in but it had been a commercial premises and the Simon Community had adapted the upstairs part of it for a number of tenants to live in. It was a difficult building to adapt but it had succeeded in doing that. There is potential here and maybe this is a good area for the voluntary housing sector to get involved in. There is much to be developed in relation to the Bill. I have questions, particularly around the N, M and O developments. Deputy Cowen outlined the categories covered under that.

I refer to the works permit that would replace the fire safety certificate and the disability certificate and verify compliance with parts of the building regulation. The Bill states that before signing the works permit the authorised person shall take reasonable care in forming their opinion that the construction of the dwelling, common area and route to place of safety conform to the approved plans and with the checklist under this section. That is fine but it concerns me that taking reasonable care is quite loose. The Bill contains an exemption for any responsibility and it states that the authority shall take reasonable skill and care in forming its opinion that the design of the dwelling, the related common area and the route to a place or places of safety comply with the requirements of the Second Schedule to the building regulations, including the amendments to the building regulations made by the Schedule 1 of the Act of 2017 but that the authority shall not be liable to any person in respect of any non-compliance which is subsequently found or alleged. That raises alarm bells with me because I am unsure who is responsible if the authorised person has signed off on the construction in question. The Schedule 1 reads, "Part M (Accessibility) - No lift or ambulant accessible stairway is required". That is of particular concern to me and there are also issues regarding fire safety, ventilation, sound, stairways, ramps and guards and thermal insulation.

The Minister has raised alarm bells around ensuring that we do not have substandard developments, particularly in those areas which are very important to whoever lives in the accommodation. I also have concerns about that and would need to be assured that there are no loopholes. That exemption for the person who signs off on it worries me.

In the previous building regulations - the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government looked at aspects of this earlier - there was a requirement for professionals to sign off on work. We all know that during the boom building period, many substandard buildings were put up quickly and the consequences were very serious. All of us could list them, from Priory Hall and so on. I am concerned that there would be any dilution of the safeguards which are absolutely needed for public safety and protection.

See this speech in context