Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the speakers because the information we are getting is exceptionally useful. I have a number of specific questions. To go back to the issue of the defects insurance about which Mr. Fitzpatrick and Ms Ní Fhloinn spoke in the first round of answers, if I understand it correctly the liability for the cost of the repair still rests with the homeowner, albeit they have an insurance policy which will cover that. There is a cost over the lifetime of holding the policy. Is that the only model in place in terms of cases where defects are found and there is a financial cost to it or are there systems that work in other countries where, for example, if a builder or whoever is found to be responsible they share part or all of the financial liability as opposed to it just coming from the insurance?

Given the complexity of the buildings and the fact that there are so many moving parts in terms of architects, builders, sub-contractors, semi-skilled labour, apprentices and assigned certifiers, what happens if a dispute arises where someone says that they did their part of the properly but someone else did not do their part? Does that disrupt the insurance coverage? That is potentially a complex set of arguments and while these are pre-2014 buildings, issues have arisen which are trying to be resolved now and one of the comments I hear from homeowners is that they get completely locked in with regard to who is responsible for the defect that has been found and how they deal with that.

I wonder if losing one's livelihood is enough of a penalty given the scale of some of the bad buildings, so to speak. I am talking about the pre-2014 ones we know of, but we have to assume that something like that could happen again. Let us hope not but if I am responsible as a developer for 250 apartments that not only have no fire stopping or any fire safety requirements, is it enough for me to lose my right to practise in that profession? Should there not be some greater level of penalty, whether it is financial liability, prosecution etc.? Perhaps they exist and I do not know about them but I am interested to hear the witnesses' views on that.

In terms of there being no bending of the rules, I always work on the basis that I trust people but the harder we make it to bend the rules the less likely the rules will be bent. Arguing for as tough a regime as possible is not in any way casting aspersions on the professional credibility of the individuals but I always get nervous when we are encouraged to take a certain level of issues on professional trust and the good name of the professional because it harps back somewhat to the old self-certification regimes we had previously, although, strictly speaking, I know that is not the case.

I also wonder to what extent any of this can be applied retrospectively, particularly in regard to Construction Industry Register Ireland, CIRI? For example, if I am a contractor of one kind or another and CIRI has been put on a statutory footing and I apply to go on it, if I was involved in something prior to the statutory establishment of CIRI such as a Priory Hall type situation or something like that, could I be automatically excluded from membership?

Again, are there precedents from other jurisdictions for applying such retrospective rules? Ms Ní Fhloinn spoke about effective redress. Perhaps she would elaborate on what she means by that, both for the pre-2014 builds and the post-2014 builds. As regards dispute resolution, how does that happen in other jurisdictions?

Mr. O'Boyle correctly highlighted the difference between the multiple-unit developments and the single or terraced houses. If I buy a home in an apartment complex, for example, are the certificates and warranties I get with the purchase for everything across the boundary door of the balcony? How does all of this conversation affect the communal areas, the communally insured areas, the roof spaces and so forth?

We are also not just discussing new builds. The Government is about to launch a major refurbishment strategy and the committee is putting pressure on it to ensure that we get more than 6,600 of the currently vacant stock back into use over the next number of years. How does all of this apply to what we are hoping will be not just a stock of new builds but also a significant increase in the number of vacant properties being brought back into use?

On the issue of costs, we have seen the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland study of the eight housing developments in Dublin. If I recall correctly, the report referred to certification costs of €5,000 to €8,000. However, other industry commentators who have detailed knowledge of this have put other figures into the public domain. In some cases they go as high as €35,000 in terms of overall compliance costs. While some of this is straying into the other work the witness is doing, and I am not asking the witness to comment on that before it is finished, is there a sense from the industry that the level of compliance costs could reach €20,000 or €30,000 on units and is that a concern, or is the €5,000 to €8,000 range from the report of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland closer to the ballpark?

I am midway between Mr. O'Boyle and Ms Ní Fhloinn with respect to the responsibility for the inspections lying with the local authorities and fire officers. They have the local knowledge and the Acting Chairman and I are strong defenders of increasing the capacity of local authorities to do that work. However, I like what Ms Ní Fhloinn said in terms of not taking that away from local authorities and fire inspectors but having some type of State-wide building authority that ensures consistency, collation of data and so forth. If it is not about taking the responsibility away from local authorities or fire officers but working to increase, enhance and strengthen that and provide good data, is it something that could be helpful to local authorities in their work?

On the issue of effective redress, the big cases in the public domain are units that are all pre-BCAR. We will be examining recommendations for future legislation and consumer protection. Are any of the witnesses aware of other jurisdictions that have introduced stronger consumer protections and allowed them to be applied retrospectively for a limited period of time to buildings that were built prior to those regulations coming into effect? Is that legally possible and has it been tried in other jurisdictions? Is it something the committee should examine, so it is not just somebody who acquires a property built today who gets the better protections but also the people who are currently seeking assistance from the State to deal with the legacies of the time pre-2014? Can we do something for them in this as well?