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

Apologies for the disruption caused by the adjournment earlier.

I wish to ask a range of different questions. We have discussed with the witnesses and others before today the whole issue of consumer protection element of building regulations and standards, and whether it is latent defects insurance or some other system can provide greater protection. When we put that idea to the Department at an earlier stage of pre-legislative scrutiny one of the arguments that the officials made was that there is a range of different pieces that will improve the building regulations architecture and they have to do them piece by piece. Therefore, they argued that this is one piece in a bigger picture. I would like to here how the witnesses will respond to that argument. Would the witnesses prefer to see the consumer protection bit in place first? Would they prefer if the consumer protection and the industry register were located in the same place such as in the form of a building standards and consumer protection agency or some such body?

Clearly, many of us have raised this question. We will meet the CIF and others later today. I wish to forewarn them, since they are in the background listening, that we will raise the issue of independence. When we raised the issue with the Department the officials replied that this is the way this is done in other aspects of industry such as the Royal Institute of the Architects in Ireland and others and they operate a similar kind of mode. In fact, the officials in the Department went so far as saying that other countries are looking to Ireland and considering this model to see if this is the way they should go. How does the CIRI register, as constituted in the heads of a Bill, compare with the system that operates in the sphere of architecture? Are the systems comparable? I believe that there are differences between the two representative bodies in terms of who they represent and their roles and functions.

In terms of scale, there is a much smaller number of architects or consultants than workers in the construction industry. It is all very well to say that we will have a register. Given the scale, and the witnesses mentioned there could possibly be up to 250,000 on the register, how long would this process take? How big an enterprise is this when compared with some of the other registers that exist for other professions?

I keep asking people what has been learned from the voluntary register as it has existed for a period. Have the witnesses had any interaction with the process? Can they indicate whether the process has changed things? Have the witnesses sought information from the voluntary register in terms of some of the issues they have raised such as transparency and accountability?

Have they had to make freedom of information, FOI, requests for information that may have been refused? Can they give us an indication as to whether they have direct experience in this regard? Do they know others who have engaged with the voluntary register and, if so, has it made a difference?

Notwithstanding their very clear concerns about the location of the register within the Construction Industry Federation, the board membership was an issue of considerable debate previously in that the question whether or not it should have a majority of ministerial or industry appointees arose. Before we get to the Chinese walls argument, will the witnesses give us their views of the board structure and membership as currently outlined? Do they think any changes could be made to it at least to improve the legislation? Regarding the Chinese walls, is Ms Hegarty suggesting that her preferred option is that this is taken out and put in some independent body? If that is not on the table from the Government's point of view, what kinds of changes would she like to see to what is on the table at present in terms of creating greater Chinese walls so it is not just a matter of a different telephone number or a different office? What is best practice in this regard?

Do the witnesses have any information about what other jurisdictions are doing or have been doing in this area of regulation of the industry? Would they like to suggest any models of best practice? They may wish to come back to us on some of these issues in writing rather than orally. The point they made about conflicts of interest was very well made. For the sake of clarity, can they give us a number of notional examples of the conflicts of interest they would be concerned about that could arise from the Bill as it currently stands?

My last point concerns the point Ms Ní Fhloinn made about enforcement and legal action. That only refers to enforcement action and legal action taken by registered authorities within the State. What about, for example, enforcement actions, legal actions or indeed convictions taken against developers, builders or contracts who reside outside the State and are tendering for work? We know this is becoming increasingly common in commercial and residential construction, and that is clearly a gap in the Bill. How can we try to close this gap down?