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

Anybody, whether an engineer, a politician or a member of the public, who either has information or believes there has been a breach of building control regulations should contact the National Building Control Office, NBCO, and-or the building control section of the relevant local authority, full stop. The information Mr. O'Connell has given us is very useful. I will certainly be contacting Ms Mairéad Phelan in the NBCO. I suggest that Engineers Ireland has a responsibility to pass that information on, but not in this forum, for legal reasons. I am aware of a number of quarries outside of Dublin. On foot of getting that information, I have contacted the NBCO. It has the statutory authority to inspect.

This is a very serious issue. To go back to the question Deputy Matthews asked, there have been no reforms of any aspect of the regulated regime to ensure adequate compliance with the standards for the manufacturing of building products since this issue first arose. In fairness to former Deputy Phil Hogan, when he was the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government he introduced the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013. He made some changes - although they were not as strong as some of us would have liked - to the enforcement and regulation of the building process. There is nothing stopping either rogue apples or systemic problems in our system. One bad quarry, over a decade, can be responsible for the total number of damaged houses we have in County Donegal today. Whether it is a few bad apples or something more, it is really serious. I wish to put on record that the contact details of the NBCO are public. The NBCO wants to know about breaches, even from those who have heard reports second- or third-hand. It will inspect and enforce the regulations. It is such a big issue.

I will raise a small point in respect of foundations, which is important. The real issue here is not about foundations, block or infill. It is where the aggregate that produces those things comes from. It is possible that in the pyrite remediation scheme there might have been different sources of aggregate going into, for example, the infill and the foundations, whereas in some of the regional markets in the west, the same aggregate suppliers might have been sourced for the infilled foundations in the block. That would mean that the gut response, which in fairness to Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Forde they have outlined here, may be appropriate on the east coast but may not be appropriate in the west. However, we do not know whether that is the case because it was never tested. It is important to make that clear.

I have three questions, the responses to which I think will be helpful. Clearly the review of IS 465 is really important to the success of the scheme. I ask the witnesses to give us some information on where that review is at, who is involved, when the work is likely to be completed and, crucially, if it is possible for the work to be completed before the new scheme opens. That would be the optimal solution. Nobody wants to delay the scheme. If any of the witnesses has information on that, I would be very pleased to hear it.

The second question is for the representatives of Engineers Ireland and relates to the issue of insurance that Mr. O'Connell spoke about. One of my concerns in the way the scheme is designed, particularly for the remediation options and not the demolition and rebuild options, is that there may be conflicts of opinion between the engineer who was originally employed by the family to do the conditions survey and who may at a later date be asked to be the certifier for the works, and the assessment by the engineer working for the Housing Agency. Ultimately, the test of whether an engineer believes an option is the right option is if he or she is willing to certify it and put his or her liability insurance on the line. From the surveys Engineers Ireland has done of its members, are there any concerns about potential conflicts of opinion?

Finally, going back to the issue of foundations, nobody should be delayed. The inclusion of foundations in the cost of remediation is not an enormous expense. In fact, the exclusion of foundations is nothing do with the cost. Our understanding is that it has more to do with the issue around whether a provider complies with the 2008 building regulations or the 2014 regulations. Would it be a good idea to apply the precautionary principle, especially when the cost might be minimal in terms of the overall cost of the grant? Has there been any discussion of the "if in doubt, leave it out" idea?