Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister wish to speak to the amendments?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, but for just for the information of Senators, I am considering what other provisions might be introduced by way of amendment to the Bill on Report Stage. They will cover the areas to better provide for procedures and requirements to be followed in the case of tenancy terminations and for an enhanced role for the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, in this regard. Second, I am considering an amendment to extend the registration period for approved housing bodies, AHBs, with the AHB regulatory authority. I am also considering an amendment regarding changes to non-principal private residences used as short-term lettings. I want to flag with Senators that I will bring those amendments forward on Report Stage.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for bringing that to the attention of the House. It is a matter that will be discussed at a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of Seanad Éireann, as the items are not related to the Bill itself and the main purpose of the Bill.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Government amendment No. 2:

In page 7, line 24, to delete “This Act” and substitute “Subject to subsection (3), this Act”.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Government amendment No. 3:

In page 7, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “(3) Part 9 shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister for Health may appoint by order or orders either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes or different provisions.”.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 4, 9 and 11 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Government amendment No. 4:

In page 9, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “ “public body” means—

(a) a Department of State,

(b) the Office of the President,

(c) the Office of the Attorney General,

(d) the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General,

(e) the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission,

(f) a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2001,

(g) the Health Service Executive, or

(h) a person, body or organisation established—

(i) by or under any enactment (other than the Act of 2014 or a former enactment relating to companies within the meaning of section 5 of that Act), or

(ii) under the Act of 2014 or a former enactment relating to companies within the meaning of section 5 of that Act, in pursuance of powers conferred by or under another enactment,

and financed wholly or partly, whether directly or indirectly, by means of moneys provided, or loans made or guaranteed, by a Minister of the Government or the issue of shares held by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government;”.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 5 and 15 to 19, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 18 is a physical alternative to No. 17. Amendments Nos. 5 and 15 to 19, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Government amendment No. 5:

In page 9, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “ “relevant Minister” means—

(a) in relation to an order under section 8, or a nomination referred to in section 22(5)(a), in respect of a public body other than a public body in relation to which the Minister performs functions, the Minister of the Government who performs the functions in relation to the public body,

(b) in relation to a nomination referred to in section 22(5)(b), in respect of a public body other than a public body in relation to which the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science performs functions, the Minister of the Government who performs the functions in relation to the public body, and

(c) in relation to a nomination referred to in section 22(5)(c), in respect of a public body other than a public body in relation to which the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment performs functions, the Minister of the Government who performs the functions in relation to the public body;”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will address amendments Nos. 5 and 15, 16, 17 and 19, tabled by the Government, and amendment No. 18, tabled by Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall.

I welcome the amendment proposed to this section regarding the appointment of board members. Similar amendments were put forward while the Bill was progressing through the Dáil. At that stage, the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, undertook to review this section and bring forward amendments. I am pleased to bring forward Government amendments providing that board members shall have certain expertise, two members shall be nominated by the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and one member shall be nominated by each of my colleagues, the Ministers for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We also propose that a member be nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Two members shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Public Appointments Service and three members by the registration body. The effect of these amendments is to strengthen the independence of the board. The board will be completely independent of the registration body.

I welcome the amendments brought forward and the Government amendments I have tabled reflect the discussions we have had with Members on both sides of the House.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 6 and 48 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 10, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(c) mechanical building services.”.

The Minister is welcome. Is he going to accept any of the amendments?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator might let me respond after she has spoken.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand how busy the Minister is. If he is not going to accept any of the amendments, I would like him to state that.

I had a group from the Amalgamated Plumbing and Heating Contractors of Ireland in the House. It represents 60% of the industry. There are 3,500 small-to-medium contractors in the mechanical building services sector. They have raised concerns regarding the Bill. The mechanical building services sector is recognised as a separate specialised area. The minimum qualifications are QQI level 6. The new Bill adds an extra layer of regulation and administration. Gas installers are already regulated by the RGI. Oil boiler installations are regulated by OFTEC. The Bill proposes a new regulator for plumbing, namely, the construction industry register Ireland. There are far too many regulatory bodies.What we need is a stronger regulatory body. This proposal would remove cowboys from the industry. It would reduce the level of unnecessary bureaucracy. It would enhance the sector to deliver on the climate action target and the retrofit plan for the Government. I request the Minister to include that provision if he can. Certainly, the mechanical services have also asked that he would do so.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator together with Senators Craughwell and Boyhan for tabling this amendment. I also thank the sector for its engagement on this important legislation to put the regulation of the providers of building works and building control on a statutory footing, which is what we need. I do not envisage this will be an extra layer of regulation and I will explain why.

I will not be accepting these amendments. They seek, as the Senator said, to provide an exemption from registration for anyone who provides mechanical building services. They also seek to require a report to be prepared on how mechanical building services can be exempted from the Act. The building regulations apply to the installation of building services. Therefore, they will be subject to the Act. That is important. As opposed to creating another of regulation, as the Senator rightly said, it will take those who are operating in the grey economy and those who are not properly qualified out of contracts that are provided and it will let people know who the qualified contractors are.

Having listened to those in the sector, I advise the Senator the Bill specifically exempts those who provide electrical works performed by a registered electrical contractor and gas works performed by a registered gas installer. For the work that has already been undertaken, it will specifically exempt those. As I said, they are already registered with the Register of Electrical Contractors of Ireland, RECI, or the Register of Gas Installers of Ireland, RGII, and nothing will change in that space for that specific work they are doing. It will not require another registration if they are only doing those elements of work, but where they are carrying out other building works, they must fall under this new regime. I think it will be advantageous for them. I thank the Senator and the sector for their engagement on that. This legislation will not provide another layer of regulation for contractors. If anything, it will provide real security for the many thousands of really good contractors and tilt the balance in their favour when they are operating in the field against other contractors who may be operating in the grey economy.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed the Minister will not accept this amendment. Many people in this industry are very experienced. Those doing the work on the ground have to jump through a massive number of hoops. This is particularly difficult for people with small businesses and for sole traders. I will be putting this amendment to a vote.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind Senators that three of them voted in the wrong seat. If a Senator has a query as to which seat he or she is in, the Senator should ask and we will point him or her in the right direction.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the first time that has happened.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a first time for everything.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 7, 31 and 47 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are technical amendments to correct previously incorrect references. Amendment No. 47 is in response to concerns raised during Committee Stage in the Dáil in regard to section 63. There was a concern that the would prohibit the building control authorities from taking a prosecution against a builder who may have sanctions imposed on him or her under the Act. While this was not the intention I am pleased to move this amendment, which further clarifies that this is not the case.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

"In page 12, to delete lines 15 and 16 and substitute the following:

"(4) The Minister shall appoint the National Building Control Office as the registration body under subsection (2):"."

I raised this issue on Second Stage so the Minister will be aware of it. The construction industry register is currently located on a voluntary basis in the head office of the Construction Industry Federation, CIF. Criteria for appointing the registration body under this Bill is essentially designed so that it can be the CIF. We do not believe, as I said on previous Stages, that it is appropriate for a register of this kind to be located in the main industry lobby group for the construction sector. This is about ensuring there is public confidence in the industry. It makes no sense for this to be located in the head office of the CIF. It is a conflict of interest. We propose an alternative: that it be located within the national building control office, which was created following the issues at Priory Hall. Its job is to try to improve standards in building control across local authorities. It also contributes towards better data and, therefore, it is much better placed to be the registration authority. Given everything we have seen, from mica to pyrite to Priory Hall and flat complexes in Dublin, people have to have confidence. Given there is a lobby group going to do this register, it would be appropriate to amend that to locate it within the national building control office.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 10 is very similar and effectively seeks to do the same. We support Sinn Féin's amendment, particularly as Sinn Féin designates and specifies the national building control office. This was also raised in the Dáil. It is a very dangerous precedent effectively to have a lobby group serve as regulator under this legislation. We see today from FOI requests that were released to Deputy Cian O'Callaghan that the CIF had a huge input into the drafting of this Bill. I appeal to the Minister that in setting up statutory building control to ensure the lobby group would not have responsibility for the register.We have seen things such as what happened in 2016, for example, where the Construction Industry Federation promised that if we reduced minimum standards, it would increase supply, which did not happen. It is very established as a lobby group on behalf of the construction industry. It is not appropriate that it would be responsible for maintaining the register. We are supportive of the Sinn Féin amendment because it specifies where it feels the register should be.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators Moynihan and Warfield for their amendments, neither of which I will be accepting. I just want to explain why. Amendment No. 8 would seek to disqualify a trade union from being appointed as the registration body. Amendment No. 10 would seek to provide that the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office, NBCO, will be appointed the registration body. The Office of the Attorney General has advised that the Bill should not name the body that is appointed as the registration body. There is no body specifically mentioned in the Bill. Where a body is appointed and is not performing the functions required, another entity may be appointed to perform the functions of the registration body under the Bill, without any amendment being required to primary legislation.

In the previous amendments on the construction of the board as well, we have made some changes. This will be completely independent, and rightly so. We need to get this register onto a statutory footing now. There are very good contractors out there who are competing against a small number in the grey economy and they require a level playing pitch. We cannot delay this.

I envisage that the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, will be appointed as the registration body. It is a registered trade union. It is preferable that a body with experience and expertise in the construction industry performs this function, similar to how the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland and the Society of Chartered Surveys Ireland operate statutory registers for architects and surveyors, respectively. There is no question we have many legacy issues that I am dealing with and I will agree with Senators Moynihan and Warfield on this. I see that the quality of the work that is being done now when I visit the many sites across the country is exceptional.

There are a number of safeguards in place to ensure and maintain the independence of this registration body. The body will have delegated responsibility for the day-to-day maintenance of the register within the confines of the specific and limited parameters set out in this Bill. The board of the registration body will be completely independent. The independence of the body will be maintained through following measures, and it is important these are important these are put on the record of the Seanad: all powers of the registration body will be prescribed by legislation; all competency requirements for registration will be recommended by the board and prescribed by the Minister; the board will make decisions in relation to all sanctions, including removal from the register; removal from the register must be confirmed by the High Court; all prosecutions under the Act will be taken by the board or the Director of Public Prosecutions; all members of the appeals committee will be independent from the board and the registration body; and the Bill allows the functions of the registration body to be transferred if the body is not performing the functions appropriately.

In response to Senator Moynihan’s comment on Deputy O’Callaghan, any contact between the Department and the CIF was to ensure that the industry was able to review the Bill from a practical operational perspective and offer practical suggestions. The policies of the Bill were not subject to change following the consultation. I never met with them either. This is about its practical operation. Deputy O’Callaghan might want to put a slant on it and that is fine. I am used to that. I am more than happy with the robust structures that we put in place here. We need to get this register on a statutory basis before the summer recess. Therefore, I am opposing both amendments.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think the Government ever advanced the idea of a statutory register as proposed originally by Law Reform Commission. To this day, we are still looking at a register that is located within the industry. If the Minister envisages that will be the Construction Industry Federation and the Bill is designed in such a way that it will be the Construction Industry Federation, it is ironic that we cannot prescribe in legislation who it will be.In this case it is that it would be the national building control office. I appreciate the architects, surveyors, engineers and registrars are located in their respective industries but this is different because of the number and scale of defective buildings we have been dealing with.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 13, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(e) a trade union, whether of employers or of workers and whether registered or unregistered, within the meaning of the Trade Union Acts 1871 to 1990;”.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 14, line 8, after "person" to insert "through the Public Appointments Service".

This amendment relates to the appointments made by the Minister. My party would like the appointments to be made through the Public Appointments Service, which should be used in every single case. That is all I will say on this section.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Warfield for the amendment, although I must oppose it. Section 9 allows the Minister to appoint a person to carry out periodic inspections, reviews and audits in relation to the performance of the registration body and also to furnish a report. The person, in this instance, is likely to be a professional body or professional auditing body and, therefore, it is not appropriate that the person be appointed through the Public Appointments Service. All appointments will be made in line with public procurement procedures.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments relate to section 21 and are to ensure that inspectors shall be independent in the performance of their functions. The Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, already indicated on Report Stage in the Dáil that he would bring forward such an amendment in response to amendments tabled on Committee and Report Stages.

In relation to amendment No. 13, the Zalewski decision requires that decision makers operate independently in the performance of their decision-making functions and these amendments ensure that will happen.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 18 in the names of Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall cannot be moved because amendment No. 17 has been agreed.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 20 to 24, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 24 is a physical alternative to No. 23. Amendments Nos. 20 to 24, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will now address amendments Nos. 20 to 23, inclusive, as tabled by the Government, and amendment No. 24, tabled by Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall. I welcome the amendments on this section regarding the appointment of the appeals committee. Similar amendments were tabled when the Bill was progressing through the Dáil. At that stage, the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, undertook to review the section and to bring forward amendments. I am pleased to table these amendments, which provide that all ordinary members of the appeals committee shall be recruited through the Public Appointments Service.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As discussed, amendment No. 24 in the name of Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall cannot be moved.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 25, 33 and 36 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are purely technical amendments, following the advice of the Office of the Attorney General, to ensure consistency with other Bills.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 26 to 30, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments are a response to amendments tabled when the Bill was going through the Dáil. Section 26 requires an applicant to confirm any convictions for certain relevant offences or orders under the Building Control Act within the previous ten years or since the establishment of the register, whichever is the shorter period. This has now been changed to require confirmation of offences within the previous ten years.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this amendment from the Government. It is an important change. The previous iteration would have excluded anything in the past, whereas we are now capturing that in the previous ten years. People may have been convicted under the Building Control Act in the previous ten years and it is right and proper for the public to know that. That is why we are introducing this in the first place. It is only right that we are able to go back ten years. I am sure the provision can be kept under review in future.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 48, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:

"(i) contravention of the Building Control Regulations 1997 to 2021.".

This is a fairly self-explanatory amendment. I will not take up much time speaking to it. The amendment seeks to enable a person to make a complaint to the registrar in the case of a contravention of the Building Control Regulations 1997 to 2021.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand the thrust of the amendment but I must oppose it as section 44 will seek to provide that a failure to comply with building control regulations is grounds for a complaint. That is outside the scope of this Bill. The register is a register of competence of providers of building works. I agree with the Senator that failure to comply with building regulations is very serious. However, it is a matter for the building control authorities. Complaints will be made under the Building Control Act 1990 to the building control authorities.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 34 has been ruled out of order as it is not relevant to the subject of the Bill.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the issue of compensation, there is a register and a set of criteria that a provider must meet to get on the register. For example, if a registered provider is messing and a complaint is made to the registration authority, the provider can perhaps be sanctioned or struck off the register, but that is no good for redress. There should be compensation for the remediation of works. We wanted this section to go further. Obviously, our amendment has been ruled out of order, so I will not speak to it. We would a provision to be inserted dealing with remediation or providing for compensation for the remediation of building defects caused by a registered provider. If a consumer who gets work done finds that something goes wrong and then checks the register and finds that the registered provider was not registered to do the work, it is not great if the registered provider is just struck off the list. There should be some provision for compensation as well.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I understand the Senator's point, my previous response remains relevant. The register is a register of competence. Where there are issues with regard to a provider who is struck off the register because their work is substandard, the homeowner, in that instance, will be able to lodge a complaint on the building control side and will also have recourse via insurance. Obviously, we are dealing with other significant matters relating to apartment defects, which I intend to bring forward soon, once I receive the report. It is a big issue in our cities predominantly, but not exclusively. We are also advancing the scheme on defective concrete blocks. I intend to have that legislation passed in advance of the summer recess.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 are legal amendments to section 52. Amendment No. 35 provides that any person may appeal a decision of the appeals committee. Amendment No. 37 proposes to delete a line that provides that the court may draw inferences of that fact in accordance with the law.It is not necessary explicitly to provide for this.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 38 to 40, inclusive, 42 and 46 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are legal amendments suggested by the Attorney General to remove reference to the court directing how costs are to be borne. The court has an inherent power to award costs and therefore the Bill does not need to provide for that explicitly. It is a matter for the courts.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 58 provides for the publication of sanctions and convictions. The current section says the registration body shall publish these “where satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so”, but following the debates on Dáil Committee Stage, I am removing this proviso and providing that all sanctions and convictions must be published.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 64, after line 37, to insert the following: “Report on mechanical building services

66. The Minister shall, within one year of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, a report detailing how mechanical building services can be exempt from the regulations outlined in this Act.”.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 49 to 54, inclusive, and 61 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments relate to the treatment of rental income under the fair deal nursing homes scheme, which is something that all colleagues have worked on to ensure that we can assist with properties that remain empty due to citizens being in the fair deal scheme, so that there is no disincentive or to reduce the disincentive that is there to actually rent out the properties should the families decide to do so.

These amendments relate to the treatment of rental income specifically. They bring into effect the commitment, and the Government's commitment, under Housing for All to remove disincentives against rental or vacant properties by participating in the fair deal scheme in a way that is targeted, equitable, evidence-based and provides for appropriate safeguards for vulnerable older people.

Amendment No. 54 provides for the change to the assessment methodology within the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act. It enables eligible rental income to be assessed at 40% rather than the current 80%, which is a very significant change. This supports the Government's policy intention, which as I said is to incentivise the rental of homes owned by participants in this scheme that otherwise may remain vacant. Subsections 1 and 2 relate to Part 1(a) and 2 of the Schedule to the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act, which sets out the new relevant steps. This will be reviewed after three or six months after we see how the scheme operates at the 40% level.

Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are consequential amendments to make necessary changes to the definition of the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act, which relate to rental income.

Amendment No. 51 creates a requirement for the HSE to report annually on the impact of the policy change. The amendment sets out the specific items and pieces of information that the report should cover. The report will be submitted to the Minister for Health. This will ensure that the Government obtains an accurate picture of the ongoing impact of the policy measure. Similar provisions have been put in place with previous changes in the nursing homes support scheme.

Separate from the annual report established by the last amendment, amendment No. 52 sets out a requirement for a review of the scheme to be carried out after the policy change has been in operation for six months so that will be the end of this year. The review will be submitted to the Minister not later than three months at the end of that six-month period and will be laid before the Oireachtas.

Amendment No. 53 allows the Government, based on that review, to further lower the rate at which rental income is assessed for the purpose of the nursing homes support scheme. The amendment also gives the power to the Government, on receipt of the review required by amendment No. 52, to request a further review to be made.

These are significant changes that we hope will free up vacant properties where people are participating in the fair deal scheme.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome these proposed changes to the fair deal scheme. I understand and appreciate the concerns in some quarters that these provisions encourage the movement of people into nursing homes. We need to look at them in the reverse and see the benefit of these homes, which are vacant in the case where a family member is already in a nursing home, being brought back into productive use for housing purposes.

I believe that the legislation does not go far enough with the 40% level. There is probably an acknowledgement of that within the framing of this legislation in saying that there is going to be a review after six months. I anticipate that the review will recommend further reducing the rate of 40% of assessed income because we need to incentivise people. It is a great burden on families to get a loved one's home into a particular state to be able to rent it out. I mean there are valuables in that house that have belonged to family members for generations. To clear a house when somebody is in a nursing home brings a final realisation that he or she will not be moving back into his or her home, which is a step that many families are not ready to take.Families are certainly not ready to take that step when the income is being used to pay for the fair deal scheme in the first instance. It is welcome that we are moving to a rate of 40%. We need to go further in reducing the assessed income to encourage more properties to come back into circulation for individuals and families. That is what we are all about in Government. I believe we have not gone far enough at this time but I believe we will move a little further on it by the end of the year.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 55 to 60, inclusive, and 62 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This grouping comprises a set of technical amendments to the Affordable Housing Act 2021.

Amendment No. 55 creates a new Part 10 in the Bill and defines the Affordable Housing Act as "the Act of 2021" for the sake of brevity, while amendment No. 62 changes the Title of this Bill, so it is amendment Nos. 56 to 60, inclusive, which are the substantive ones. The amendments proposed to be made to the Affordable Housing Act are of a purely technical nature. They do not represent any policy departure from the Government's stated intentions under Housing For All. As colleague will know, the Affordable Housing Act passed in the Seanad without a division, and passed in the Dáil by 101 votes to eight. These specific amendments are technical in nature.

Amendment Nos. 57 to 60, inclusive, all amend Part 2 of the Affordable Housing Act. I will speak to these in advance of amendment No. 56. As members will be aware, Part 2 of the Affordable Housing Act sets out the legislative basis for the local authority affordable purchase scheme, which I am glad to say is under way and the regulations are published, under which local authorities will make homes available to eligible buyers at prices that are significantly below the market value of the home and derived from the buyer's mortgage-funded purchasing power. In return, the local authority will take a percentage equity interest in the value of the home equivalent to the discount from an open market value at the time of purchase.

As enacted, section 13 of the Affordable Housing Act defines how this equity share interest held by the local authority is to be secured and provides that it may be recorded by the Property Registration Authority. Again, this is a technical amendment. The power of the Property Registration Authority to enter inhibitions in the Land Registry is not new. As can be seen from the language proposed in amendment No. 58, it is a for the avoidance of doubt. Amendments Nos. 57, 59 and 60 are the only consequential amendments. They remove mentions of a burden in the Land Registry and providing for the entry of an inhibition instead, without changing any other aspects of the local authority affordable purchase scheme.

On amendment No. 56 and Part 4 of the Affordable Housing Act, this amendment inserts a new section 41A into Part 4. It makes no changes to the existing section 41 in Part 4, which already provides that the Minister may invest public funds in a special purpose vehicle which will assist with the purchase of new homes in the private market by taking a percentage equity share in the value of the purchased homes. On the advice of the Attorney General and following engagement with the Property Registration Authority, it was decided that it would be preferable to give an explicit statutory basis for two points of the first home scheme, specifically concerning registration and conveyancing. Subsections (1) and (2) of the new section 41A do for the first home scheme exactly what amendment No. 57 does for the local authority affordable purchase scheme. The rest of the new section 41A inserted by amendment No. 56 sets out, to avoid any misunderstandings, how sale and conveyance would work for a home that was purchased under the first home scheme.

Taken together, these technical amendments to Parts 2 and 4 of the Affordable Housing Act strengthen and improve the security of the equity share interests, provide a clear statutory basis for what is already addressed by contractual relationships, and seek to avoid any misunderstandings with the new shared equity model.Given their nature and purpose and specifically the improvement they will make to the affordable purchase elements of the Affordable Housing Act, I thank the Senators for their indulgence with this.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome these amendments being brought forward to strengthen the legislation that has already been passed by this House to place the affordable purchase scheme and the shared equity scheme on a statutory footing. Will the Minister comment on the date for the commencement of the shared equity scheme? We are hoping that it will be in place for July. Will he confirm that is the case? In my area in County Waterford, 119 homes have been approved by the Minister under the affordable purchase scheme on three sites in Waterford city. I welcome that. We need to see more of those in the coming months and years. Work is already under way on two of those three sites. We will see families in those homes within 12 to 18 months with an equity stake being taken by the State to assist young families in getting a foot on the property ladder. That is a very welcome addition to the property market in Ireland. I appreciate the frustration of people who have found it difficult to bridge the gap between the maximum mortgage they can get and the cost of a market unit. We are introducing the two schemes to assist those very people to get a foot on the ladder. It can also be combined with the help to buy scheme which provides 10% support towards a deposit. There are many measures the benefit of which people will start to see very shortly. As politicians we are acutely aware of the frustration that exists. If we could have these homes delivered more quickly, we would, but in my own county I am glad to say that those 119 homes are well under way. I thank the Minister.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their support. Provision of affordable homes is crucially important. There are boots on the ground on nine schemes at the moment. We will deliver homes this year. These amendments are of a technical nature. To answer the Senator's question, the shared equity scheme will open on 1 July and we are still on track to do that.

Government amendment No. 61:

Government amendment No. 61:

In page 7, line 17, after “2007;” to insert the following: “to amend the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009 by providing for certain rental income of a person who is receiving care services or his or her partner under a tenancy of the principal residence of that person to be assessed at a lower rate than other income of that person; to enable the rate at which such rental income is to be assessed to be reduced or for such rental income to be disregarded;”.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.