Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the scheme. It is a huge step forward. It is a no-brainer. We all recognise that capital expenditure of the past looks cheap, but in the future and the present it looks dear. If we delay this, it only gets dearer. I hope we have learned our lesson. I spoke last night about a pier that had planning permission in 2008 and was costed at €7 million. The budget estimate now is €20 million for the same pier with the same planning. In 14 years it has doubled, so let us get on with the job.

I welcome the scheme and think the targets are laudable. I particularly welcome the enhanced scheme for those who want to do a limited amount of work. We have to look at whether these need to be extended. There is an issue I will raise with the Minister of State and he might raise it with his senior colleague. The Minister of State will understand why I reference that colleague. It is because when that colleague was Minister previously and there were schemes on energy, etc., the islands got a higher rate of grant and had higher ceilings because the cost of doing building work on an island is higher. I ask the Minister of State to remind the Minister, as I will, of what he did before, how well it worked on the islands and the huge success of energy schemes on the islands, and ask him to put the same process in place for this scheme. That would be important.

I understand the turnover of the company doing it has to be €1 million. For island companies doing it on an island, that is unachievable. Companies need to be solvent and capable of doing the job because we do not want the kind of situation Deputy Tóibín spoke about, but small builders often deliver better. We know of all the one-off houses built around the country to high standards by small builders contracted privately. It is important that SEAI has high standards in terms of accreditation but, particularly in dispersed rural areas and most particularly on islands, turnover is not the only measure. Sometimes small is beautiful. The Green Party used to always preach that gospel.

I have seen in the last 14 years scheme after scheme announced with great fanfare, huge targets, money put aside and the whole thing but because of small rules that did not get tweaked when the scheme was not working, we did not get delivery. When there was a problem, instead of tweaking it and doing keyhole surgery, they had a big review that took a year or two and made a few hundred recommendations. By the time they got around to changing it, many opportunities were lost. This has to be kept under constant monitoring and whatever is holding it up has to be examined and quickly fixed and changed. If that is done, the targets will be achieved. I have no doubt problems will arise and small quibble clauses will be found that are making the scheme unattractive.

I welcome the one-stop shop. I think that will be a big help but if it is not delivering, change it and make sure we deliver. It can be done.

See this speech in context