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

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 45, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “(i) failure to comply with building control regulations.”.

Section 44 deals with complaints and this specific provision details the grounds upon which complaints can be made by complainants. I understand the intention of the Bill, and the complaints section deals with complaints with respect to the specific requirements of the registration process and register. The officials very helpfully explained some of that to me after Second Stage in the Dáil, for which I thank them. However, I want to make the case that the grounds upon which a complaint can be made should extend beyond the pure formalities of the registration requirements.

It seems that in the drafting of the Bill, there was an attempt to separate the registration process and the criteria required to comply with that and building control. The argument could be made that if somebody has a problem with a failure to comply with building regulations, he or she should raise the matter with the building control authority, which is the local authority or the National Building Control Office, or take the matter to the courts. The problem, which we know from extensive experience, is that neither of those options provide any meaningful remedy for which a person who is affected by, for example, a failure to comply with building control regulations, as per my first amendment, or failure to comply with planning permission, can seek adequate redress even in the limited form of having somebody struck off the register. It is virtually impossible for a homeowner affected by building defects to take a case to court and win. Both Deputy Cian O'Callaghan and I have a significant amount of experience of working with homeowners who have been in that situation. Unless a person has very deep pockets and a significant taste for gambling, the courts do not provide an effective remedy.

Likewise, for the building control authority to seek a remedy through building control enforcement is equally as lengthy and cumbersome. Somebody might say why do we not reform those two processes and that is the way to do it. I fully agree with that but when it comes to defective buildings, a belt and braces approach is the right approach. Therefore, if a company, individual contractor or professional is on this register and is in clear breach of building control regulations, the person affected by that should be able to make a formal complaint on the grounds of breaches of building control regulations. The consequence of that, were the person successful through the various processes provided for, would be to have somebody struck off the register. For example, the developer who was responsible for Priory Hall is back in the building game, albeit in the North of our country. There is nothing stopping that individual from coming to the South, setting up a new company and engaging in construction work activities. There is nothing in the Building Control Acts that ensures the individual is prevented from practising as a construction industry professional. They can be struck off a company's board of directors or placed in insolvency or all sorts of other things.

We need to send out a clear signal that the value of this register is not only that individuals have to comply with the terms and conditions of the register but that they could be struck off and prevented from ever practising again if they are in breach of building control regulations and if the complaints process finds that to be the case. That would be a powerful signal to the industry. This is not just about complying with the paperwork. This is not just about complying with the registration requirements; it is about complying with the law. Today, there is nothing that allows any court in this country, as far as I am aware, to strike a construction industry professional off the register and put him or her out of business. We have an opportunity to do so and I urge the Minister of State to consider widening the scope of the Bill. I realise what I am proposing is outside the scope of what was originally intended. I understand that better now following the conversation I had with the officials. However, if we let this opportunity pass, we as an Oireachtas will not be forgiven for not having a very effective remedy to ensure a person or company that has built defective buildings in the past can be prevented from building another building or construction project in the future. That is a deterrent that would start to clean up those elements of the industry that have been in the past and, unfortunately, in small instances in the present, responsible for shoddy work.