Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As the Leader indicated, we are discussing SI 105 of 2014 which provides for alternative but equivalent means of complying with the requirement under the building control regulations 1997 to 2014 to assign a person to inspect and certify the works in line with a plan lodged at commencement and implemented during construction. This requirement is one of a number of reforms to the regulatory process for the oversight of building control activity originally signed into law in March 2013 which came into operation with some modification on 1 March 2014.

I am not surprised that my colleagues in Fianna Fáil are against these provisions because after 14 years, they did nothing about it. There have been very serious and important developments over the past number of years which go to the heart of why this Government is trying to put the consumer first. I am taking a bit of latitude to address some of the issues that were raised in respect of other statutory instruments. These regulations have been the subject of consultation for the past two years. People in the business knew that these were coming down the track on 1 March 2014. The alternative means of compliance, SI 105, applies to a limited range of public and privately owned buildings classified that as first, second or third-level places of education; hospitals; or primary care centres. I will explain what an alternative means of compliance is. It only applies to projects subject to each of the following circumstances: planning permission, where applicable, has been obtained before 1 March 2014; contract documents have been signed before 1 November 2014; and a valid commencement notice has been lodged with the building control authority no later than 1 March 2015.

The background to the making of the regulation we are discussing arose in the lead up to the implementation on 1 March 2014 of the new building control requirements. The Minister for Education and Science wrote to me asking that SI 9 of 2014 be deferred by at least 12 months to avoid delays to the school building programme. It would be very remiss of me if I slowed down the public capital programme in any way because I did not take a pragmatic view and draw up an alternative means of compliance. My Department immediately raised the matter with relevant Departments and agencies represented on the Government contracts committee for construction, GCCC. Several Departments and agencies, including the Department of Education and Skills, the National Development Finance Agency and the HSE, were concerned the new requirements might delay the public capital programme. Large-scale public projects, in particular, are prone to costly delays and strict national and EU procurement rules do not allow the same room for manoeuvre as with comparable private sector projects. Other agencies, notably the OPW, reported that the necessary arrangements were in place to administer contracts in line with the new requirements. On this basis, I made SI 105 of 2014 to allow for an alternative means of compliance for a limited range of public or privately owned buildings along the lines I have just already outlined. The regulations are administered by an oversight group that is already in place and composed of registered construction professionals from the public sector and private industry.

The sole accommodation given is an alternative means of compliance with the inspection and certification requirements fulfilled by the assigned certifier. The other new regulatory requirements - certified design, lodgement of compliance documentation, validation and registration of relevant notices and certificates - continue to apply to all projects availing of the provisions of this particular statutory instrument. SI 105 of 2014 does not therefore amount to a deferral or a derogation. Public sector projects always involve inspection and certification requirements and compliance with building regulations is not negotiable. The House might be interested to know that 250 commencement notices have been lodged under the new regulatory requirements since 1 March 2014, which suggests that the new arrangements for building control are already working fairly well in practice. I will come back to some of these as they have been raised. Clearly, the concerns raised in respect of implementation did not warrant a deferral even though I can assure the House that I came under a lot of pressure to defer them. When I make these decisions, I usually implement them unlike others who want to defer everything.

While relatively few projects will avail of the alternative means of compliance provided for in SI 105 of 2014, it nevertheless provides a useful safeguard against contracting authorities being held to ransom by consultants or contractors who may seek to delay a major project citing the new arrangements for building control for their own personal gain. I did not want to see a blockage in the system that would allow that to happen. To annul SI 105 of 2014, therefore, makes no sense.

I will return to matters that have been raised in the wider debate. In respect of self-certification, people involved in self building have been consulted all along. The organisation that allegedly represents them certainly did not make any particularly strong submission to suggest that these regulations should not be introduced in the interests of the consumer. I would have thought that whoever is building a house, which is the largest investment in a person's life, will want the highest level of professionalism in order to sign off on these matters. Direct labour will continue the way it always have. A person does not need a registered contractor. Contrary to what Senators might have been told, it just applies to new builds and does not apply to extensions under 400 square feet or refurbishment. I know what Senator Mooney is probably getting at. There is a limited number of people in some counties who have been worried for a considerable period of time that they would be taken out of this business because of the new regulations we are bringing in on a national level. I have brought in new regulations to deal with that whereby the route to become a member of a professional body is being eased considerably. They have had a difficult experience in the past when applying to the Royal Institute of Architects but they can also apply to the professional bodies such as Engineers Ireland or the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland.

If people become registered members of those bodies, they can undertake the necessary certification or be classified as assigned certifiers. I encourage draftsmen, some of whom I know well in my constituency, to apply to the registered bodies. The technical assessment route was quite expensive and could have cost up to €15,000 just to apply to the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland, RIAI. I have taken that issue on board and discussed it and others at length with the registered bodies. I have asked the chairman of the admissions appeals board, Mr. Garrett Fennell, to do a report. This is signalled and on the website. Many recommendations could be made to make it easier for people to register with the professional bodies and allow them to continue their work. They have built up a great deal of case work over the years. That work can be taken into account when registering.

I am conscious of the fact that professional bodies have not been good at accepting applications in a way that helped people into the system. Some of them have set up exclusion zones. I will continually monitor that situation to ensure that the recommendations of the Fennell report are implemented so as to reduce the cost considerably and to take account of people's case work in the technical assessment route to registration.

I am also monitoring what implementing these regulations will cost self-builds and direct labour. Many professional bodies have made outlandish quotations in my constituency and around the country. I will not allow any professional body to view this as an easy way of engaging in financial extortion of people in rural Ireland who wish to build their own houses through direct labour by seeking extraordinary amounts of money to certify compliance with SI 9 of 2014. I assure the House that, for the first time since the Act was passed in 1990, everything possible is being done to ease the burden on people who wish to comply with the regulations or become members of the registered bodies, having built up experience in the construction business, particularly during the boom times.

For the first time, there is a chain of responsibility in the consumer's interests. From the beginning to the end, a consumer will know that he or she will get a much better deal in terms of mandatory certification of the work done. Anyone who gets a mortgage from a financial institution requires sign-off from an architect, engineer or chartered surveyor, be one's property a self-build or an urban development. A number of examples involving costs and insufficient numbers to make the market for quotations in particular areas competitive, particularly as regards self-builds, have come to my attention. I will monitor them carefully.

Senator Reilly mentioned a number of valid issues, for example, architectural technologists. The Building Control Act 2007 provides for the registration of persons entitled to use the professional title of "architect and building surveyor". The title of "chartered engineer" is protected by separate legislation, but the registration of title is necessary in order to protect consumers from unqualified persons passing themselves off as construction professionals. The best interests of the consumer should be our starting point. Unqualified persons passing themselves off as construction professionals is now less likely to occur, as the statutory certificates required for building control purposes must be given by registered professionals following the regulations that have come into effect.

The profession of architectural technologist is unregulated in Ireland. Any such person who possesses the requisite competence in design and construction may seek inclusion on the statutory register. It has been brought to my attention that a number of chartered architectural technologists have succeeded in becoming registered architects or building surveyors in recent times. It is a question of having the confidence in the new arrangements to re-apply. If someone does not succeed, he or she can appeal that decision. I have put in place all of the appeals bodies that were lying dormant when I became Minister so as to ensure that people who believe they have the professional competence can become registered under the relevant bodies.

I am surprised that Senator Norris would take the side of a vested interest - the RIAI - and believe everything it told him. The majority of architects are not against these proposals. In fact, the majority are in favour of them. Some media speculation may have misconstrued the situation. The former president of the RIAI, Ms Michelle Fagan, is on the oversight group that is monitoring these regulations and has come out in their support. I am surprised that people are taking a certain view about the concerns expressed by the RIAI, Engineers Ireland, the Society of Chartered Surveyors and so on. These concerns have been part and parcel of the discussions for two years and bodies have had plenty of opportunity to make a case and comment on the regulations. Indeed, they have been changed a number of times. If people want to support a closed shop mentality, that is their business, but I am coming from the point of view of the consumer. As Senator Power mentioned, we do not want to revert to the days of Priory Hall. There are many Priory Halls around the country where a coach and four were driven through our modest regulations and professionals - architects in particular - signed off on buildings as matters of opinion rather than as part of a mandatory certification and chain of responsibility process.