Mr. Damien Owens:

I thank the committee for the invitation to give evidence to it on the operation of the defective concrete block scheme. As the Cathaoirleach said, I am a chartered engineer, as is Mr. Keogh. Engineers Ireland is one of the oldest and largest representative bodies on the island of Ireland, with more than 25,000 members, of which more than 9,000 are chartered engineers. This membership incorporates all the disciplines of the engineering profession in Ireland in consulting and contracting organisations, the public sector, semi-State bodies and educational institutes. Surveys indicate that 92% of the public place a high level of trust in the profession.

Engineers Ireland awards the professional title of chartered engineer in line with the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland (Charter Amendment) Act 1969. The registered professional title is recognised internationally and under Irish law. According to the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations, BCAR, 2014, chartered engineers are one of the three professions which may act as assigned certifiers. Engineers Ireland has also established and maintains registers of suitably qualified persons in specialist areas including: IS 398 pyrite assessment and remediation; historical landfill; and IS 465 mica and pyrite. Our members contribute to the development of national standards and policies with consultative groups across the industry. The views presented here combine the views of many of the practitioner chartered engineers on the IS 465 register maintained by Engineers Ireland.

The role of the registrant, an engineer on the IS 465 register, as set out, is purely to prescribe and oversee testing and provide guidance on appropriate remedial works. The background to the role of the registrant engineer was presented to this committee in 2022, together with the feedback in that regard. In the interest of time, we will not present this information again. Engineers Ireland has not received and does not receive any funding for the establishment and maintenance of the IS 465 register of engineers.

Since the inception of the IS 465 register, Engineers Ireland has provided constructive feedback based on the experience of the operation of the defective concrete block scheme. The most recent request for feedback from registrant engineers has highlighted a number of areas which are a continuing source of concern, including insurance risk.

To date Engineers Ireland has delivered six courses on the IS 465 standard for potential registrants over a three-year period to a total of 103 engineers. Today, the IS 465 register has 32 registrants, a figure that has not changed appreciably during the last three years. There are a number of reasons for the reluctance of engineers to join the register. A key factor is the risk profile of the scheme.

Registrants report difficulty in obtaining professional indemnity, PI, insurance without which an engineer cannot practice. Though PI insurance has become increasingly difficult and expensive to obtain, many registrants also report exclusions. One such exclusion states:

This policy shall not cover any Claim or Defence Costs:

arising out of, based upon or attributable to:

the use, specification, testing, remediation, remove or exposure to Pyrite or MICA or materials or products containing Pyrite or MICA whether or not there is another cause of loss which may have contributed concurrently or in any sequence to a loss.

The lack of professional indemnity insurance cover is especially acute for remediation options 2 to 5. The PI underwriters are unwilling to take the risk of the PI policy being called on if there are claims resulting from cracking of retained blockwork in the future. Insurers see the risk being entirely and unfairly taken by the engineer who carries out the remediation works. They believe the residual risk of retaining blocks combined with the number of houses affected is too great for them to take on.

The implications of the restrictions of PI insurance cover extends to potentially stifling innovation in the sector. I am aware of at least one company that has developed a novel solution for remediation which reduces the time and cost of remediation. However, the company is unwilling to deploy the solution at scale due to potential insurance liability issues. Innovative solutions which can rapidly address a homeowner’s remediation may therefore not be deployed and any savings to the State will not accrue.

Our understanding of the process of deterioration of defective concrete blocks continues to evolve. It is recognised that NSAI has undertaken work in this area. A recent online event hosted by Engineers Ireland provided an insight into these concerns. Some engineers are of the opinion that IS 465 is not fit for purpose as long as it does not consider sulphide oxidation in Donegal defective blockwork and that the standard should be updated as soon as possible based on available research. Almost ten years have passed since the defective concrete problem was raised with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Dwellings as far back as 1994 have been found to have muscovite mica and pyrrhotite equivalent total sulphur levels above allowable limits. There is still much debate about the causes. It is imperative that meaningful research is carried out and brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

The scheme will need to have flexibility to incorporate new findings as they arise. One such example of flexibility is that engineers have observed cases where homeowners, who need to test their property for house sale, have discovered the blockwork is defective even though there is no visual damage. These homeowners should be included in the scheme. Criteria must be put in place to allow remediated properties to be sold and mortgaged. This would provide certainty to homeowners and the conveyancing sector. The operation of the mundic scheme in the UK may provide an example of an enduring model to support commercial transactions of impacted properties.

There are a number of operational considerations. For example, engineers are concerned that the process for approval of interim payments at stage 3 could be very slow and unwieldy as currently envisaged. We suggest that a certified payment approach should be adopted. This is the construction industry norm and is accepted by financial institutions, whereby the value of the completed works is certified by a chartered engineer.