Mr. Alan Baldwin:

The Deputy has raised a number of points. From a voluntary registration point of view, on a personal level I have not experienced any changes or impact from the voluntary register system to date.

I accept the point about the complexity of construction techniques and how the register would work in practice. We referred in our opening statement to the complexities and to how the construction industry is changing annually. It is very important that everyone involved in the construction sector maintains continuing professional development. There has to be training in place.

There is a difficulty with the register at the moment. To take the example outlined, if there is an issue with a house or an apartment, to whom does one take the matter? The Building Control (Construction Industry Register Ireland) Bill provides that one would take one's complaint to CIRI and register it. I stand to be corrected but my aspiration is that there will, under the CIRI system, be a series of subcategories that will be determined by the Minister, in consultation with whoever is on the board, and for each of those there would be specific elements within a building structure. There is the possibility that could become terribly complex because one could have 50 to 60 subcontractors on a very large complex build so there is the potential for that to become a bit of mess in terms of how we get to the right person. In reality, what we are expecting is that a main building contractor will register under the scheme and he will be ultimately responsible for the build. If it is the case that some of that responsibility is assigned to another registered contractor who is an expert in firestopping or fire-sealing, then it would seem to me that the second contractor is the person who the claim would be made against. That would be my expectation. That is really important because if all we do is create a register for the main building contractors, it will serve no purpose. The problems most consumers have encountered in the past probably stem from things they cannot see and that in many instances have been carried out by unskilled personnel simply because there is not an expectation or requirement that they need any training. They simply fit the product; they do not know whether they are fitting it correctly. That is a really important point.

I hope the register will provide for a very simple system in terms of recognising the various parties involved in the construction. Ultimately, it will be down to the appeals committee to decide the outcome and it may refer the matter back to the party that made the complaint for the issue to go to mediation or arbitration. That is something we could talk about as a panel and whether that is the appropriate course of action. If one has bought something, the suggestion is that one takes one problem back to the person with whom one has the problem in order to enter into mediation. However, that might not provide one with the necessary redress one was hoping for. While mediation is very beneficial, it can also be very time-consuming and expensive, so we have to look at all of those things.

The possibility of a public register was mentioned. I do not have any particularly strong views for or against it. The current register is working fine, it just needs to be put on a mandatory footing and quickly. It was mentioned that there is no voice on the board advocating for the consumer. The Minister makes the appointments so one would hope something could change to recognise that.

The question about sanctions is interesting in terms of how we deal with serious breaches of building regulations. The intention is simply to remove somebody from the register and, in doing so, prevent them from being able to undertake the work they rely on from a livelihood perspective. I think it is recognised that, from the perspective of the proposed Bill, there is no redress so one is still left with a problem even though someone has been removed from the register. Perhaps Mr. Isdell has something to add to that.