Mr. Alan Baldwin:

I will start by making a number of observations and then let Mr. Kevin Hollingsworth share some of his experience. The first observation that was made stemmed from our relationship with BCAR as assigned certifiers. To speak from practical experience, when we take on an instruction and we start the process of preparing and submitting the documentation, it is a desktop exercise. We are not engaging with any person. There is no third party on the local authority side. It is very much a process and procedure that one follows. There is no relationship between us and the local authority. It is a formality in terms of what one sends in and companies do it to a good standard. We are very pleased with the system because it supports high standards which is what the society is about. There is no relationship with the building control authority. It is a desktop exercise. In terms of our experience over the past three years, to echo what people have said previously, I do not think I have ever met a building control official.

Over the past three years we have been heavily involved in numerous projects where there was a requirement to provide fire safety certificates, disability access certificates, DACs, and act as assigned certifiers and designers. I can honestly say that I have never met a building controller or am aware of meeting anyone coming to our sites.

As for the end user who is the consumer, I am strongly of the view that we need a standardised system. We need a person to act as a watchdog who has control and oversight. As I travelled here this morning I recalled that when I left college 20 years ago, the 1995 construction regulations on health, safety and welfare were introduced. At that time the regulations were fairly radical in terms of the responsibilities, procedures and processes that they introduced. At the time the construction industry and the other stakeholders needed time and we need time with the BCAR system to come to terms with how it works. The existing health and safety model and regime in the construction sector is first class and the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, model is a very good. The HSA is involved in oversight and enforcement and it works. The new process could work well if we learned some lessons from the HSA model and applied them to building control. We need a watchdog that barks and bites occasionally. Regrettably, and I will not be thanked for saying so, prosecutions will be necessary just as there were prosecutions when the health and safety legislation was rolled out. There were some high-profile instances in which members were penalised quite significantly, and rightly so, but that is what is lacking in the current system.

On the capacity of a local authority, my society actively encourages the Government to look at current resources in the local authority. To echo one of the other speakers, an analysis probably is needed on how many building control inspectors exist in this country. The Government must first provide a report that sets out the current number. Is it adequate? Probably not.

As for how the private sector can help, independent oversight has advantages. It might be that the local authority could engage an assigned certifier independently of the overall process. As to how that could be funded, the model already exists in respect of the financial contributions obtained from developers and just needs to be extended to allow that facility to happen. There are costs and fees associated with providing assigned certification. It is difficult to quantify the level of fees. Throughout the industry there have been many reports, from different institutions, on the level of fees. From personal experience I know that fees are dictated by the complexity of the job, how much work is involved in assessing the information that one has been provided with and how frequently one must attend a site. Site inspection is a fundamental part of this exercise. It is not just confined to a desktop exercise and one needs to be on site. There are costs associated with providing the service. I genuinely cannot give an average figure as the fee varies from site to site. I am happy to say that with most of our clients, the service has become part and parcel of what one provides. One must do things to a certain standard anyway. As one must now upload additional information or documentation on to the building control management system, BCMS, the clients are already paying for it so the information exists and should be made readily available to the local authority. As to whether the local authorities are scrutinising the information, I leave it up to the committee to decide. I suspect they are in some instances but a risk management strategy should be put in place to assist local authorities to identify buildings they need to look at. I do not think the model exists to physically look at property.

On who should foot the bill for latent defects, I like the idea of an insurance bond. Similar bonds exist in the motor industry for those who do not have insurance but have been involved in an accident. As to whether I am suggesting a levy, Members of Parliament are the policymakers and make the decisions but, ultimately, the scheme must be funded in a certain way.

My colleague, Mr. Hollingsworth, shall comment on some of the other questions.