Ms Orla Hegarty:

I draw the distinction between authorised persons and certifiers. Authorised persons are defined under the 1990 Building Control Act and there is nothing new in that respect. I mention it because they are given much legal powers. An authorised person has the authority to go on a site and take samples of materials, as well as seeking documentation and, effectively, take enforcement through the local authority. It is a very powerful role. Certifiers do not have authority to go on a site unless permitted to take samples and get documentation. They act for the owner, who appoints them, rather than the local authority. If a certifier sees something that is remiss or about which they are concerned, they could be fired by the owner of the building and replaced by somebody else. The local authority would be none the wiser. An authorised person has duties to report and would be involved in the enforcement process. It is an important distinction.

Another benefit of having an independent system is something we are seeing now with the Carillion collapse. One of the issues in this jurisdiction is that the entire certification process is tied up in contracts. People due to be paid and to whom moneys are outstanding can now effectively hold certifiers to ransom by withholding certificates through the chain of construction contracts. An independent system takes that completely out of it and allows the State, in a case where there is a contractual complexity, collapse or a default, to still do the independent inspection, sign off and open the building on the other side. We could be in a position where certificates would not be available, for example, if people are not paid. The assigned certifier at the top of the chain would not have documentation, meaning the building could not be occupied. We have created a very difficult and complex position by putting that into contract and not keeping it independent.