Mr. Frank Kelly:

I would bring it back to the basic point that generally if a contractor is undertaking a project, whether a private house, a scheme or a high-density or commercial project, there is a contract between the client and the contractor. If a defect arises, provided the contractor is still solvent and trading, the contractor is obligated to remedy the defects in the project. If they do not, they are contractually liable and can be procured by the client for the cost of remediation. I am not party to what contracts exist or do not exist in relation to one-off houses. In some cases, it may be labour-only and there may not be a contractor involved.

The other important point touched on today relates to building control. All commercial projects are automatically governed by building control. There is a process of checking and validating on the materials side and the construction side. Unfortunately, under domestic construction, there is an opt-out clause so much domestic construction does not have to be carried out under the building control amendment regulations. That means the duties of the client do not come into play so the appointment of the contractor, the responsibilities, the assigned certifier and the process of inspecting through the building process do not exist. The industry prior to this has advocated that we do not believe domestic construction should be an opt-out. Domestic construction should be brought back in to the building control regulations.

I am not party to what contracts are or are not in place but, certainly on large-scale projects, the contract is in place and the contractor is responsible.