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

I will make a closing comment related to fire safety and Grenfell. It is important to remember that Grenfell was not only about the cladding system but also the failure to maintain the building properly, particularly the systems to ensure the exit doors closed in time as people fled from the building. There was also an outdated stay-put policy for high-rise buildings which does not exist here. It was the combination of those three things that led to such a high level of fatality. It is also important to note that prior to Grenfell, the British were having the same sorts of conversations that we are having because there had been previous fires where people had either been seriously injured or small numbers of people had died. There was inertia in the system to properly grapple with that.

The frustration for some of us is that while there have been some changes, the core of Part B and the technical guidance documents is out of date. They are just so old, going back to 2007. From my point of view, the review must do two things. For the information of the witnesses, the committee will have a session with the various players. We need to have the highest possible fire safety standards but we must also allow new building technologies to be used to build taller buildings. They do not have to be high rise. Dublin is a low rise to mid-rise city and does not necessarily need a large number of high-rise buildings. I have never met a public fire safety official who said it is not possible to build a 20 m timber-frame building that is fire safe. The conversation is tell those who want to do that what is required. The frustration for me is, one we discussed last week with the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, is that it takes so long to update those building regulations. I think that is the bigger issue.

I have campaigned on fire safety and building defects for a very long time but I am a strong advocate of taller timber-based buildings. It speaks to the point made by Mr. Searson and Mr. Downey that there is no contradiction in wanting these technologies to be used. The crucial point has to be made, however, that we have many buildings with old-fashioned technology that do not meet standards. Even in buildings such as Milford Manor in Newbridge, County Kildare, modern methods of building technology were used but the problem there was compliance and building controls. There is, therefore, a set of other issues. It is not that there cannot be a higher density and higher timber-based buildings but there must be proper standards, building control and enforcement.

The point being made is that if we move towards new building technologies and the majority of manufacturing takes place indoors, a good building control regime and independent inspection can provide a higher level of visibility as construction proceeds. It is rather like the manufacturing of anything else in that it is about the ability to make sure everything is being done on-site. Dublin City Council has got itself into difficulty with two of its new building technology schemes. This has been well reported and much of it was due to things simply not being covered on site and timber-based products getting wet because the workers were not properly trained. If that is all done off-site, and it is all manufactured and then assembled, that fixes those issues. It is important that the public hears us say that.

My final question, at the risk of asking our guests to repeat themselves, is that if our committee was to make three recommendations to the Government, and the three organisations presenting got to choose one recommendation each, what would be top of their list? It is to help us prioritise what we have been hearing because there have been a lot of good ideas in the discussion today.