Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late but I had an interview and work to do for another committee. I welcome the professionalism and the presentation that I have heard here today. I wish to stress that my following comments do not relate to anyone present.

My first question is a generic one that has already been asked. I refer to who is and who is not a builder. In other words, who registers? I have talked to a few people who are involved in the Dublin chapter of the Institute of Clerks of Works. I sought their views on some of the issues mentioned in the legislation, and specifically, section 5(4) that states: "Entry on the register shall be open to Builders." Who is a builder? Individual builders must register. As already mentioned, what about individuals who work for a building contractor? These are persons who are primarily responsible for the building works and usually operate in isolation from the person named in the registration. The principals of large contractors rarely visit sites and if they do it is in the capacity of supervising the carrying out of any works. Let us say site staff have executive powers. In terms of how the works are carried out, to whatever standard but not required, will this give large builders a loophole that those with executive powers can then avoid? I am talking about foremen, site agents, managers, contract managers and health and safety specialists. Is there an issue around this matter? I refer to requiring the registration of people who are not builders, and I do not know how a builder is defined, but I mean people who carry out acts.

An interesting comment was made earlier. Deputy Ó Broin mentioned that if something is wrong in a house if it was not caused by Johnny then it must have been done by Peter, but the arbitrator will say one must go after Peter and not Johnny. Would it helpful to define the level of work that a person carries out on a building site? Should we identify him or her as a builder for the purposes of the Act?

I welcome the continual professional development that is clearly taking place. I shall outline a related matter that has been brought to my attention. Let us say I have been disqualified for whatever reason but readmitted to the register. What requirements are on me, let us say for the previous two years, to show that I have a specific additional amount of continual professional development done in that period? The CPD may even relate to the reason I was disqualified in the first place. Should we insert an extra requirement to cover such instances?

The code of conduct does not mention ethics. I do not think that ethics were mentioned in the Bill. Can the delegations answer my query? It would be good if ethics were mentioned.

My next query is about the requirement for the board to publish investigations and decisions. I suggest that the information is published quarterly thus ensuring there are regular updates.

I wish to make two more points, one of which has already been discussed. I refer to instances where an individual is not a builder. Section 3(2) states:

This Act shall not apply to: (a) building works carried out solely and exclusively by an owner or an occupier involving the construction of a new single dwelling on a single unit development or the extension.

My point is that such people are exempt but a contractor is not. Should we restrict the exemption so that it does not apply to a person who wants to build a dwelling? Can the witnesses qualify the exemption? Would it make sense to restrict the exemption? A person might be able to build an extension or a bathroom but he or she might not have the capacity or knowledge to build an actual dwelling. A person who is not competent enough to build a dwelling can carry on because he or she is not deemed to be a builder for the purposes of the Act.

My last point is the most important to me. Notwithstanding all us great and good people sitting here with our wisdom, knowledge and professionalism, I can bring everyone to a house in Drogheda, County Louth, that was completed for a local authority in the past couple of years. The tenant of this house complained to me about a problem. Then we discovered that there is rising damp not through the walls but in some of the internal walls. A member of the family has a disability. We discovered there was no damp-proof course when we got the local authority, after some months, to excavate around the outside of the five-bedroom house. Without doubt, the lack of a damp-proof course provides there are still cowboy builders. What can the tenant do? Notwithstanding all of the issues that have changed, houses are still being built without a proper damp-proof course and it has taken six months for the tenant to be offered alternative accommodation. We lodged a freedom of information application with the local authority. The reply did not show any report whatsoever in relation to the missing damp-proof course. What do the witnesses think of the matter? I know it has nothing to do with them. I want to know what the hell is going on because I am concerned about the matter.

My next query is more for politicians than the professionals present. Let us say a council tenant finds himself in that situation. Due to the fact that he is a tenant, did not buy the house, and does not have specific knowledge or access to information, how does he vindicate his rights? In the context of the lady and her family that I mentioned, she approached me because I am a Deputy, then I contacted the council and she eventually got an offer of alternative accommodation this week. How can such people vindicate their rights? Can the lady I mentioned, or somebody on her behalf, complain to professional bodies? The problem with the house happened under the council's watch. This is what is going to happen in the new phase of all of these thousands of houses that are coming. How do we police the matter? I have written dozens of letters and held loads of meetings about the matter.