James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Standing Order 194 is modified in accordance with Standing Order 241(2) to provide that it be an instruction to the Committee in relation to the Remediation of Dwellings Damaged by the Use of Defective Concrete Blocks (Amendment) Bill 2025, that the Committee has power to make amendments to the Bill which are outside the scope of the existing subject matter of the Bill in order to make amendments to the Building Control Acts 1990 to 2020, in order to provide for: a) the submission of Certificates of Compliance on Completion prior to the opening, operation or occupation of a building;

b) a regularisation process for certain works and buildings;

c) the conferring on the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage the power to make regulations relating to enforcement notices;

d) the withdrawal of an enforcement notice;

e) the opening up of works in certain limited circumstances;

f) the issuing of a warning letter;

g) the extension of the powers of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage to make building regulations; and

h) the change of names of certain certificates issued under that Act; and to make other consequential amendments required to take account of the changes above.

The purpose of this motion is to instruct the Dáil, in committee, in accordance with Standing Order 241(2), to provide that the committee has the power to make amendments to the Remediation of Dwellings Damaged by the Use of Defective Concrete Blocks (Amendment) Bill 2025 that are outside the existing subject matter of the Bill. This is required so that I can introduce Government amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. The proposed amendments to the Building Control Acts 1990 to 2020 follow on from the general scheme, approved by Government on 30 January 2024, pre-legislative scrutiny that took place on 23 April 2024, and the advice of the Attorney General, and further reflects the decision made by Government on 2 December 2025 to proceed as part of the Remediation of Dwellings Damaged by the Use of Defective Concrete Blocks (Amendment) Bill 2025. On Second Stage of the Bill, on 2 December, I signalled my intention to bring forward a number of amendments to the Building Control Acts 1990 to 2020.

By way of background, the Building Control Acts 1990 to 2020 provide for the regulation of the design and construction of buildings in order to ensure the safety, health and welfare of people within the built environment. The Acts provide for the making of building regulations and building control regulations and set out the legislative basis for the system of enforcement. The main objective of the amendments is to underpin, extend and strengthen the system of building control enforcement to support compliance with the building regulations. The main provisions of the amendments are contained in a new Part 3 of the Bill.

I draw the House's attention to the key changes and main provisions of the amendments to the Building Control Acts in the Bill. Section 29 contains provisions dealing with definitions. Section 30 amends section 3 of the Building Control Acts and introduces an additional power, for which the Minister may make building regulations. It facilitates the provision of information in respect of systems installed in a building in order to provide the end user with the information necessary to support the efficient and effective operation and use of the building after completion.

Section 31 amends section 6, building control regulations, of the Building Control Acts and provides explicit powers for the Minister to prevent a building being opened, operated or occupied until such a time as the particulars of the relevant certificate of compliance on completion have been entered on the register maintained by the building control authority, where such a document is required by regulation. This underpins the strengthening of building control regulations in 2014, introduced in response to the then emerging defects in construction. This section also provides for a regularisation process for the uncommon situation whereby works which have commenced or been completed in respect of a building without submitting, by either act or omission, an appropriate valid notice to the building control authorities in certain circumstances. The regularisation process will be detailed in the new building control regulations and will only facilitate works that are in compliance with the building regulations.

Separately, this section also amends the names of certain building control certificates issued under the Building Control Acts to better reflect their purpose. For example the section changes fire safety certificates to fire safety design certificates and disability access certificates to access and use design certificates. The changes also introduce a process for the application for a regularisation fire safety design certificate to replace the currently named regularisation certificate.

Section 32 makes transitional provisions in relation to the renaming of certificates. Section 33 amends section 7 of the Building Control Acts to provide for the appeal of a decision of a building control authority on an application for a regularisation fire safety design certificate and other consequential amendments. Section 34 amends section 8, enforcement notice, of the Building Control Acts to provide a building control authority with the power to require the owner or occupier of a building, or any person responsible for the construction of a building, to open up construction works, as may be reasonable in certain circumstances, to be able to ascertain that the relevant requirements of the building regulations in respect of the works have been complied with.

Section 35 amends section 10 of the Building Control Acts by the insertion of a new section providing, for the first time, for the withdrawal of an enforcement notice. This amendment provides an administrative procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice while maintaining strong powers of enforcement. This section further amends section 10 of the Building Control Acts by the insertion of a second new section providing the Minister with regulation-making powers relating to enforcement notices. Section 36 amends section 11 of the Building Control Acts to provide authorised officers of building control authorities with the power to issue a warning letter in respect of compliance with the building regulations and-or building control regulations following on from an inspection they had carried out.

Section 37 amends section 12 of the Building Control Acts to provide the power to a building control authority to make an application to the High Court or to the Circuit Court for an order restricting or prohibiting the use of the building where a certificate of compliance on completion or regularisation certificate of compliance on completion is required, but has not been submitted to the building control authority and placed on the register. Sections 38 and 39 amend references to a fire safety certificate in the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 and the Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011.

I would like to place on record my appreciation for the collaboration we have had to this stage with members of the housing committee in assisting us in progressing this Bill at speed. I have outlined in detail the proposed amendments to the Building Control Acts and it is clear that these proposed changes will bring about an improved regulatory environment for the benefit of all stakeholders. I ask for the support of Members of the House for the motion to enable these important amendments to be tabled. I will seek to respond to any specific questions and engage further on Committee Stage.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. This is an entirely unacceptable way to introduce significant legislative changes to the Building Control Acts. Building control may not be a matter of huge media or public interest but it is absolutely essential to the well-being of people in their homes.

We know that because we are currently dealing with the general scheme of the legislation to introduce a redress scheme for the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of homeowners and tenants impacted by building defects, a redress scheme that will cost the State a minimum of €2.5 billion over a decade, but probably much more. Yet, here we are in the final days of an Oireachtas term and a ten-page Bill - these are not amendments; this is stand-alone legislation - is being rammed through in the space, effectively, of an hour with no Oireachtas scrutiny whatsoever. There will not be any opportunity for our committee to engage with the Minister or his officials in public session. There will be no opportunity for our committee to listen to experts on the front line in the National Building Control Office or building control authorities, or indeed for us to undertake the necessary scrutiny of such important legislation.

To thank us for our collaboration is gaslighting; let us be honest. Until last Thursday's Second Stage debate on the Bill, none of us had any notion that this was coming in, this side of Christmas. I accept it was in the legislative programme and pre-legislative scrutiny was done over at a year ago, but to throw this in in this way is entirely unacceptable.

What has actually happened? The limited information we have is that the Government is acting under pressure from court decisions and imminent court proceedings. In order to fix a number of problems identified by building control officials this is being processed in the manner that it is. While the issue at hand is not the intention behind these changes and while there has always been a cross-party willingness across the Opposition and the Government to work together to strengthen our building control system in the decade that I have been in this House, this is not a smart way to proceed. We know this because we have been here before. We had a similar issue with a similar regularisation process, called substitute consent, a number of years ago where very significant legal challenges put pressure on the Government to put pressure on officials to introduce substantial legislation in a similar form to this and in a similar manner to this. Because of the way in which it was done, in the absence of scrutiny and the absence of time, the Government got the legislation wrong and amending legislation had to be brought forward the following December. I am hoping that will not be the case this time, but we just do not know because we have not been afforded the opportunity to do our job of scrutinising this process.

I fully understand, from talking to building control officials, that much of what is in this Bill has either been requested by people on the front line or arises out of acknowledgement of weaknesses in the underlying legislation. I want to make clear that my criticisms are not in any way of the departmental officials who have been working on this legislation. This is a political charge against the Government for treating the Oireachtas housing committee and the wider Oireachtas with utter disrespect as regards our important role in scrutinising legislation.

I am particularly concerned that there is a very real possibility that the regularisation process will be got wrong and it will allow a small but growing number of rogue developers, who are already in substantial non-compliance of planning and building control requirements, to further game the system to allow themselves to evade full compliance, while all the time making enormous profits by charging tenants exceptionally high rents. I say that because I have a lot of experience, both in my constituency and elsewhere, of such developments, including Larkfield House on Coldcut Road and Chianti Park in Brittas. As both developments are before the courts, I will not comment on them. They are both well-documented cases of well-known rogue developers in breach of planning and building control requirements, and then utilising the weakness of existing regularisation procedures in planning to stretch out their non-compliance for years in some cases, while all the time buildings are fully occupied with people paying rent of between €2,000 and €3,000 a month, much of which is subsidised by the State through the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme.

Those rogue developers have a business model. That business model is to break all of our planning and building control rules, then fight it out through retention in planning permission and then fight it out in the courts, by which time the buildings are occupied and it becomes very difficult for a local authority, in the middle of a housing crisis, to have to force the evacuation of these buildings and the eviction of large numbers of families. That is the way these people operate. We have not had an adequate opportunity to assure ourselves that they will not be able to do the same with this process. I know that is not the intention of the departmental officials, and that is not a charge I am laying against them. I know they will have done everything they can to ensure this legislation is correct. However, the whole point of having committee scrutiny and having the opportunity to bring in third parties and people at the front line is to further scrutinise the legislation to make sure it is correct.

I raised a concern in the briefing that we were not offered but had to request. I am very grateful to the officials for giving us their time today. I am particularly concerned with section 8(b)(4A) and the interaction of the requirement for authorised personnel from building control sections to inspect as part of the enforcement for the regularisation procedure. I am not against the idea in principle but I am concerned that those local authorities that take a more cautious and conservative approach to building control may actually interpret this section of the Bill in an unintended manner which would actually reduce the level of enforcement of building control. I urge the Minister to relook at that.

I have been here too long to accept this way of doing business and I will not support this motion. That does not mean I do not support genuine attempts to improve building control but I will not be party to shoddily produced and rushed legislation. While I know he will not do it, I urge the Minister to withdraw the amendments and deal with them properly through committee. In the absence of that, I urge him to give us a commitment that the regulations arising from these amendments will be discussed in draft form with the committee so that we will have the opportunity to bring in third parties like the National Building Control Office and building control authorities to give their views on that to ensure we do not have a repeat of any of the kinds of defective developments that are currently taking place, not those pre-2014 but those post BCAR, because it is not working appropriately.

Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have only been a Member of Dáil Éireann since December of last year. In the short time that I have been here, I have witnessed the Minister and his Department do things like this at the last minute, railroad them through without giving us, as Oireachtas Members, enough time to properly consider what the implications of these changes are. This is an entirely inappropriate way of doing what the Minister is trying to do. We had a briefing this afternoon. I am very grateful to the departmental officials for giving us that briefing at 3 p.m. because before 3 o'clock today, I was tearing my hair out on this. Tonight, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael TDs will come in here, sit at their seats and push the button to vote for this, but they will not have a foggy notion what they are voting on.

This is a fairly significant issue because we know where and how defective construction has got us into serious trouble in this country, both during the Celtic tiger and going way back as far as the seventies and the eighties. It is always the taxpayer who has to foot the bill for that. It is the taxpayer who will have to pay billions to remedy the apartment defects. We know the Minister is doing this because he essentially has to do it arising from the legal issues and the impending and existing court decisions.

This should have been done as stand-alone legislation. That was the intention, as far as I had understood and as far as the Whips, certainly my party's Whip, had been informed. We are being asked tonight to sign off on something when we have not had detailed consideration of what has been proposed. We need to completely break the link between developers and the inspection process because the inspection process is not robust enough. This Bill was originally supposed to be about defective concrete, and that is what its primary function relates to. We have a motion to instruct tonight because we have a Bill that has literally been morphed into something entirely different.

We should have had a revised explanatory memorandum for the entire Bill because these amendments are way outside the scope of the original Bill, which deals with defective concrete. We know we need to move on this, but this is not the correct way to go about it. I do not have sufficient clarity from what I have seen so far that this regularisation process is not going to be open to abuse from a minority, even though that is not the intention or practically how it will function.

I was a bit concerned when we had the briefing earlier on and I found out that local authorities have not been consulted yet on this because we know local authorities have huge issues when it comes to staffing and resources which impacts in some cases their ability to carry out this work. We have issues which stem originally from the 1990 Act which places the primary responsibility on the builders and designers, and we have a culture there of non-compliance. We have had very few convictions under this and we have widespread issues. We are going through it in detail at the moment in relation to the defective apartments.

While I understand why the Department is keen to take action on this, and I support the call for stronger building control, I cannot support this Bill this evening because I have not had sight of even a summary of any of the legal advice or any of the advice received from the Attorney General on this. While some of the measures are technical, there are more substantial changes to other sections of the Bill. It was a bad decision by Government to progress this in the manner it has. I do not have an issue in principle with the premise of stronger building regulation, but I have a huge issue with the rushed manner in which the Government is doing this. We know rushed legislation makes for bad legislation. I urge the Government to withdraw these amendments and come back in the new year with a stand-alone piece of legislation so we can actually tease these issues out properly. We really need to discuss this at committee level. We need to hear from relevant building control witnesses because this is too serious to get wrong. We have been here before regarding shoddy building standards and we are all paying the price for it. When we talk on the original premise of the Bill in relation to defective concrete, notwithstanding the huge emotional, psychological and physical effect it is having on the people affected, I am very conscious that it is all of us who are paying for those mistakes through that culture of non-compliance and through the levy on concrete. In principle, the Minister is effectively guillotining this legislation and he is effectively guillotining our ability to have a meaningful impact on it and go through the actual cause and effect of what the Government is proposing. The Minister really needs to rethink this.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the 30 seconds left in the slot, the Deputy might indulge me. Deputy Neville's family are in the Visitors Gallery. They are very welcome. I hope they enjoy their visit.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also welcome the young people from the Finglas Youth Service in my constituency who are visiting tonight. It is wonderful to have them in and it is interesting because it makes me reflect on this. I have looked at it and I am concerned, as others have expressed, by its rushed nature and the fact that we have not been given the time to go through it in detail. It connects with young people coming in to understand and see our democracy and politics in action and the decisions made. Unfortunately, the measures brought forward in this Bill and the rushed nature of the amendments and what has been done are not the true actions of what a democracy should be. The Opposition should be given the time to go through and understand these measures and amendments. I know the Minister has a legal background. I do not think he would consider it fair to be thrown into a court and be expected to make decisions without all the evidence and advice to hand. In a way he is asking us to do the same - to make decisions on important, fundamental legislation without having all the information or advice, including the advice from the Attorney General, to hand. We should have it. If we are to take our jobs as legislators seriously then we have to raise these concerns and ask whether we are making decisions in full knowledge with all the information we should have. The reality is the Minister knows we are not and we would not be. On that basis, we cannot stand over supporting what the Minister is bringing forward on this Stage.

As Deputy Charles Ward and all of us on this side of the House have raised, the issues affecting the people of Donegal, Mayo and other counties along the west coast that have been affected by defective concrete blocks, as well as the issues affecting those in our own constituencies who have been affected by the apartment dwelling issues and the serious issues we have raised in respect of fire safety and the potential risks to life that are ongoing because of defective building, are matters of life and death. These are matters that determine the ability of people to live in homes that are safe, secure and of a decent standard. There are serious concerns. The Minister has said his intention with this is to improve things. That is his intention and that of his officials and I take that at face value. However, we need to be able to see that in detail to be able to support it. We know there are major problems with building standards and the concern is how we are going to ensure that is not going to continue. In Ballymun, in my constituency, we have social housing that was built not 40 years ago, but in the time of the regeneration two decades ago, and yet there are major problems of dampness and mould and these need to be addressed. We need to be assured that we are avoiding this happening in the future and that the problems that exist are going to be rectified properly. On that basis, the Social Democrats will not be supporting the motion.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Bill should have been an opportunity to correct a fundamentally broken system regarding everything from building control to where we are heading right now. Instead, we are laying more complexity on top of injustice and calling it progress. I have submitted 18 pages of amendments to improve this scheme, to make it fair and to make it work, yet more than half of these amendments have been thrown out, including an amendment providing for a March cut-off date. However, 43 families were absolutely left behind having been reassured by the previous housing Minister that this would not happen. They were abandoned.

My amendment to provide interim arrangements regarding IS 465 in line with scientific evidence and reinstating the original engineering determinations was thrown out. I refer to 160 families who were downgraded and left behind. The proposal for movable modular homes as an option to ultimately save the State in terms of ancillary grants and payments was left behind.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ward.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking on building control. There is building control in this.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should stick to the motion.

Charles Ward (Donegal, 100% Redress Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If am not allowed to talk about building control, there are building control elements all over this. Okay, I will move on. The transitional provisions in section 32 transitional provisions are welcome because they ensure that previous applications are not invalidated, but they do not address the systemic delays. Part 3, which amends the Building Control Act 1990, links defective concrete remediation to national building standards.. This is necessary for safety.

Sections 31 to 33, inclusive, update certificates and terminology, ensuring continuity, but also increase administrative complexity.

Homeowners already affected and stressed are facing heavier burdens of paperwork and inspection approvals while living with uncertainty while homes crumble down around them. Safety and building control are vital. We must balance that against practical implementation, in particular when local authorities already wrestling with the administration of the scheme as it stands are struggling.

The Minister and Department frequently claim they have consulted homeowners. The reality is quite different. The so-called homeowner liaison officer had not consulted with MAG for over a year after they said they had. I represent constituents directly every day. I have reported this on the floor of the Dáil and the Government is simply not listening to what is going on on the ground. It is heading for another failure. It is voting down amendments for the people I represent. This is about accountability, not plaudits. I also want to note that my constituents who applied for auxiliary grants and were turned down, and had been living in a car with their family since September, were granted them this week.

The Minister and House can rebrand certificates and rename schemes all they want. The system remains incapable of delivering timely and fair outcomes for homeowners. The Bill had the potential to correct a fundamentally broken system, but that is gone. It puts burdens on homeowners and councils and creates new avenues for delays. Visible damage is not a reliable measure. Science and a proper protocol are what we need. We need science and safety. We need to implement these changes but are not doing that.

Auxiliary grants for modular homes and end-to-end turnkey packages for everybody affected by defective concrete, from apartments to houses, is the only way we will get out of this. Mark my words; there will be death. Somebody will die in a defective concrete home. I and my colleagues have tried, but we are not being listened to. Will we be listened to when this makes headlines and starts to affect the Government? That is all I am going to say on this.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not claim to have a great knowledge of this area, especially in terms of how it impacts families along the western seaboard, in particular. I have spoken in support of my colleague Deputy Ward and I want to show solidarity once again.

In Leinster, including in Dublin, where there were defective apartments the levels of redress were much higher. There is huge inequality in terms of what families on the western seaboard in counties like Donegal, Sligo and Mayo are receiving. It is an issue that affects the country as a whole, but in particular the western seaboard. I note my colleague has tabled a lot of amendments which I will support, but the Government is still defective, for want of a better word, in what it is putting forward.

We had a chance for 100% redress and I cannot see why we cannot have it. The Government is putting things on the long finger and causing future heartache. Problems will continue down the road. The Bill was an opportunity to sort this out once and for all. Ultimately, many of those responsible for causing the issue in the first place have got away scot-free. It is up to the Government to try to support people. Families have not been adequately supported. In this context, I support my colleague's amendments and want to put myself on the record as supporting 100% redress.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been in construction all my life and the manner in which the Bill is laid out is not practical. The Government has made proposals in respect of sectors A, B and C. There is reference to repairing a wall, moving onto the next one and so on. That is specialised work. Specialised work is more expensive. Reference has been made to foundations. The criteria for foundations have completely changed. They are now required to be three times the width of the wall as standard. Standard foundations for a standard house are 1 m wide. We do not want to build something new on top of something old. The criteria for roofing is now completely different, with different weight loads.

If a house went on fire tomorrow, it would have to be rebuilt to today's standards, not those of the 1980s, 1990s or 2000s. When we rebuild houses, we build them to today's standards, the same way as we do under insurance regulations which state that if a house goes on fire it has to be built to today's standards. The Bill does not allow for that. Unless we include something for the future, it is a waste of time. I am a block layer. I have been in building all my life. I will be on a site sometime tomorrow to check work. I work with very competent structural engineers on a daily basis. They know what to do, but are not qualified to sign off on a house.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking on behalf of the families whose lives have been shattered by defective concrete blocks. Homes across the country are crumbling, walls are splitting, ceilings are collapsing and mould is creeping into children's bedrooms. These are not statistics; they are real people living in fear and paying mortgages on houses that may not stand in six or seven years. The current redress scheme is failing them. Costs are spiralling and homeowners are being asked to shoulder burdens they cannot bear. We need a scheme that delivers 100% redress without loopholes, delays or forcing families into debt for something that was never their fault.

I also want to share the story of one of my constituents. She bought a home in 2006 and did everything right. She complied with all regulations, secured her mortgage, obtained a HomeBond guarantee and got an engineer's report. Within weeks of moving into her forever home, she discovered the roof was too heavy and the walls were buckling. For 18 years, she has been in and out of court fighting to hold onto her home. Today she has negotiated with a vulture fund to keep a roof over her head. In order to make her home structurally sound, she faces costs of between €150,000 to €200,000. She simply cannot afford that. This is the reality for thousands of families.

I urge every Member of the House and every Minister in government to stand behind these people, deliver 100% redress and give them the dignity, safety and justice they deserve. This is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about restoring hope and fairness to those who have done everything right and have been treated badly by the system.

It is hard to get the Minister here at times. In fairness, he is probably here as much as he can be. I refer to the log cabins he promised to the people of Ireland. He said he would have bring a Bill before the Dáil regarding log cabins. Deputy Ward will be annoyed at me for bringing this up, but it is a serious issue for people in rural Ireland.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this and the fact that the Minister is in the Chamber. There are some improvements, and that should be recognised. I very much welcome the grant increase. Retrospective payments are good for many families, although they do not go back far enough. The extended timelines from 65 weeks to 130 weeks is supportive.

However, there are significant shortfalls in the Bill. It does not achieve the 100% redress that is necessary. The Minister knows that building costs have significantly increased. The cap he has applied is unfair because individuals across Mayo, Donegal and many other parts of the country purchased their homes and took out mortgages in good faith. It was the State that failed them. It is the State that continues to fail these families. Worse than that, the State is still liable for a future that is yet to be told.

It is a reality that compliance and oversight in the industry are not sufficient. We cannot allow this to continue. Inspections are not happening at quarries despite the fact that this is a scheme that has cost the State billions. I urge the Minister to support the amendments. The oversight that is so fundamentally important should be enshrined in the Bill.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this motion is to improve the building control regime that is in place to ensure the required standards for building regulations are met. These amendments will make certain that building regulations and building control regulations are further strengthened and clarified to the benefit of all stakeholders. In terms of the proposed regularisation process, the amendments provide for a process of regularisation for the uncommon situation whereby works have commenced or been completed on a building without submitting, by either act or omission, an appropriate, valid notice to the building control authority.

This amendment does not intend to create an alternative to the current building control process. The regularisation process would be limited to buildings and works that comply with the building regulations. It may require a higher degree of proof of such compliance, including, if necessary, expensive investigative work which might require building works to be opened up, and would attracted a significantly higher fee structure, reflective of the scale of the building and the amount of works completed at the time of the submission of the regularisation notice.

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I hear their criticism about the rate at which these amendments are being moved. Pre-legislative scrutiny has been carried out in the past. I am glad the Department provided a briefing on it. I understand the Deputies' concerns but these amendments are needed.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Members wish to know where we are, we are about an hour ahead. We expect that the next debate has a four-hour timeframe. It may take four hours but there will be amendments and votes called in between. That puts the voting block around 11.30 p.m. or 11.45 p.m.