Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I thank the Minister for his response, although I confess it disappoints me to some extent. I refer to two issues raised by the Minister. He mentioned that this concern had not been raised by any of the representative bodies. I presume this is further testimony of the quality of the Seanad in that we have a certain ability to think through proposals on their own merits. That in itself is not a reason to consider the amendment, although I certainly welcome the Minister's commitment to consult the representative bodies to see whether would they be ad idem on what is being proposed. I would be surprised if there was any opposition to it.

The more serious point is that the objection the Minister raises, that this could become overly complex, with people wondering whether they should be paying more or, presumably, less because they do not have a balcony and so on, applies equally to the proposed wording. If the legislation requires that the service charge be equitably apportioned, that already invites people to consider their situation. I find it difficult to see how, by way of the introduction of an additional degree of specificity as to what should be taken into account, one might increase the likelihood of people raising objections. I do not think the logic of the Minister's response stands. I argue that the more specific one is, having regard to the issues to be taken into account, the less likely one is to have disputes or disagreements as to what should be considered, according to the general term "equitable". Nonetheless, I hear what the Minister is saying. I wish he would accept the amendment now, but I welcome his further commitment to think about it a little more between now and Report Stage in the Dáil.