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 o…

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

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.

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 bui…

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 …

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.

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.

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.

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. The aim is to ensure 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 int…

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 amendments 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…

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.

It is not my amendment.

The amendment seeks to amend the Bill by deleting section 3(b), which I cannot accept. It would effectively allow a drafting inconsistency in subsection 12A of section 34 of the principal Act, which would not reflect the amendment to section 37(12) of the principal Act. Section 3(b) is actually a technical drafting amendment to amend section 34(12A) of the principal Act. The amendments in paragraph (b) reflect the related amendments at section 34(12), which amendments, in turn, have been introduced by section 3(a) …

I have given my response. I am happy to deal with any other queries on Report Stage if the Senator wishes to come back in then.

I thank the Senator for tabling the amendment. It seeks to amend section 5 of the Bill by inserting a new paragraph to the effect that "the Board shall indicate to the applicant what further actions may be required in light of such a refusal". I must oppose the amendment, which appears to have been misplaced in terms of its proposed insertion into the Bill as neither section 5 of the Bill as proposed by the Government nor section 37L of the principal Act contain any provisions relating to a refusal. Refusals in res…

We are happy to consider any further amendments on Report Stage. I do not think I should be expected to comment on an amendment that has not been tabled. I will wait and see what comes forward on Report Stage. At official level, we are happy, as we have been throughout this process, to provide technical briefings should they be required.

I will try to deal with a number of questions and comments that have been asked and made, recognising the fact we are dealing with section 5. We could have a very detailed debate on planning and the changes that the Government has made to make sure we have an efficient and effective planning system in our country. I will address some of the points that have been made, particularly to section 5, and Senator Higgins's amendment to this, which would effectively delete the Government's proposal to allow simultaneous ap…

I attempted to address as best I can in the clearest possible way the reality of the situation. There is no incentive. How could there be an incentive to look for a parallel application when one is tying a future proposal to what could be a potentially toxic unauthorised development that somebody happens upon? I have addressed the matter -----

I have listened intently to what the Senator has to say and I appreciate her input, I genuinely do, but section 5 is fundamental to the operation of this piece of legislation. I have addressed the points in detail and Senator McDowell has also made his contribution which I agree with. I note the Senator's amendments on this were ruled out of order because they were seen to be in direct conflict with the main thrust of the Bill. I do not think I have anything further to say on section 5. I strongly recommend that it…

I think I have addressed in detail the Government's position on section 5 and how it will operate.