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

Alongside the question of who the registration body is, this is probably the single greatest weakness of this legislation. There is nothing in building control regulation or enforcement or in planning law that empowers any agency of the State to prevent someone from building again in the future if he or she has a proven track record of being in breach of building control or planning. I made this point at the end of the last session but I wish to repeat it because it is important to understand where I am coming from.

Take, for example, the developer that built Priory Hall, the developer that build Beacon South Quarter, the developer that built Brú na Sionna or whatever. The Minister of State knows them as well as I. These are houses, apartments and duplexes that hard-working families spent considerable sums of money on to purchase as homes. In each of those cases, even if building control had been taken to its absolute limit, which it was not in most cases with the possible exception of Priory Hall, and the building contractor, developer or other associated construction professionals had been found to be in breach of building controls, fined or even imprisoned – breaches of the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations can carry custodial sentences – none of that would have prevented the very same builders, developers or contractors from starting up the next day, creating new companies and getting back in the game. In fact, the developer of Priory Hall is back in the building game in another jurisdiction. That is a matter of public record.

I accept that what I am proposing is outside the scope of what the Government is bringing to us, but my argument is that we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to provide a level of deterrence to ensure that construction industry professionals operate with the level of competence that this register requests them to have. I know that the Minister of State will not accept my amendment, but this is one where I wish to at least try to reason with him to go away and consider the proposition. If we do not do this, either in the form of my amendment or some other amendment that his team comes back with, we will essentially be saying – because the Government has no other plans to deal with this dilemma in any other part of the legislative programme – that we do not believe that people who build defective buildings should be prohibited from building more buildings. The Minister of State referred to a failure of competence. What better example is there of a failure of competence than building Priory Hall, Brú na Sionna or Beacon South Quarter?

I appeal to the Minister of State to extend the scope of this legislation beyond what it is currently being proposed to do. This would give a level of comfort to people, be they signing a contract for a home extension or buying an apartment, duplex or house. Yes, there are building controls and people could make formal complaints to the building control authorities, which could instigate an investigation and pursue the matter.

In parallel, they could take a case to this register and if they could demonstrate a failure of competence and compliance with building control regulations, that person would be struck off. I will give one example and then I will conclude. The example I will give is in the public domain and well established.

There is a former Ben Dunne gymnasium on the Coldcut Road in my constituency. A developer bought it and successfully applied for planning permission for 37 apartments. That was a good thing because the area needs apartments. He decided not to proceed and applied for 48 apartments, was refused by the local authority, appealed to the board and yet fitted out the 48 apartments and got tenants for all of them. They are all fully occupied today. Not a single certificate under the building control (amendment) regulations was submitted to the local authority. There was no commencement notice, fire certificate or completion certificate.

The developer is flagrantly in breach of building control regulations and planning permission but is permitted to continue to develop on a case-by-case basis subject to getting planning permission and all the rest of it. Even if South Dublin County Council concludes a successful building control enforcement action against him, which is a big if, and gets the maximum fine of €5,000 per breach of the building control amendment regulations, which is what that legislation stipulates, he can still go out the next day and continue the same practice. That must be outlawed and this legislation provides us with an opportunity to do that.

The Minister of State can see I am genuinely passionate about this issue having worked with many of these issues, as has Deputy Cian O'Callaghan. I know the Minister of State will not accept this amendment now. I urge him to discuss the matter with his officials and find a way of ensuring that someone who has been found to be in breach of the building control regulations will not be allowed to be on this register.

In the case I am talking about, the developer in question, who is also a landlord, took a bunch of tenants to the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, over rent arrears. In the case in the RTB - again this is on the public record - I testified and demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that he had not complied with building control (amendment) regulations. He had not supplied any certificates for the 48 apartments. He accepted that on the record of the RTB hearing. It is a matter of fact, established in the legally binding determination that is published. That should be sufficient evidence for somebody to make a complaint to the construction industry register, outlining that as this individual has accepted they flagrantly broke building control (amendment) regulations and building control law, they should be struck off and never be allowed to build again. That is what I am urging the Minister of State to do.

This legislation provides an opportunity to do this, although perhaps not with the wording or in the section I have proposed. If the Minister of State does not accept this, he will be missing an opportunity to make a profound change to our building regime and construction sector, and I think people will not forgive the Government. People will look on this as a lost opportunity to do something really significant. Whatever the Minister of State might say in response to me, I urge him to go back to the Department and consider this because it could be a really positive step if it is done in the right way.

People will thank the Minister of State personally and the building industry would also benefit from it because it would help to flush out the rogue operators and ensure that good, professional, high-quality construction industry professionals would be able to operate in a much cleaner environment.