Dr. Richard Manton:

I thank the Chair for the invitation to address the committee. I am the policy officer with Engineers Ireland. I am joined by Mr. John Bailey, who is a chartered engineer and a fellow of Engineers Ireland. Both of us are representing Engineers Ireland at this meeting. Engineers Ireland is one of the oldest and largest professional bodies on the island of Ireland. We have over 25,000 member engineers. Our membership incorporates all disciplines of engineering, from consulting and contracting organisations to the public service, semi-State organisations and academic institutions. Engineers Ireland awards the professional title of chartered engineer, which is the gold standard for engineers working in Ireland. This professional badge of excellence is awarded following a rigorous assessment and is recognised internationally and in Irish law.

We acknowledge the work done by the joint committee and its advisers on building standards and controls. I refer, for example, to the Safe as Houses report, which was published last December. It is clear that we would all like to see an increase in the supply of safe high-quality housing that provides value for consumers, particularly in the ongoing climate of housing shortage. Therefore, Engineers Ireland welcomes in principle this Bill, which endeavours to increase the delivery of much-needed units of accommodation. We agree that bringing vacant properties into residential use, if done correctly, will help to address the housing shortage and to revitalise villages, towns and cities. We commend the move towards co-ordinated building permitting, which we believe should be applied to all building projects. However, we believe the Bill as drafted will have little effect on the availability of accommodation in the short or medium terms. While we do not question the intent of the drafters of this Bill, we are concerned about its potential unintended consequences.

We would like to raise three main points, the first of which relates to building standards and safety. The Bill proposes to replace the statutory requirement for a fire safety certificate, a disability access certificate and compliance with other parts of the building regulations with a works permit. The effect of this would be to introduce a third system of building regulation compliance documentation, following SI 9 of 2014, which is known as BCAR, and SI 365 of 2015, which is known as the opt-out. Since its introduction, BCAR has promoted a greater awareness of the need for proper design and inspection of fire protection measures. An unintended consequence of the proposed Bill might be to relegate this awareness to a works permit scenario, with a consequent lesser emphasis on the importance of the fire safety certificate and disability access certificate documentation. The Bill proposes to revise the technical guidance documents. It should be noted that building regulations are minimum performance standards that are set for the safety and comfort of occupants and the general public. We have particular concerns relating to fire safety. If buildings approved under this system are perceived as being built to lesser standards, this could further distort the property market.

The second point we would like to make relates to the proposal in the Bill to impose a time limit of two weeks on a local authority to revert with the results of a pre-application assessment. No time limit is proposed for the local authority to deliver a decision for the subsequent one-stop-shop application. We note that no provision is being made for the local authority to seek an extension of time for the determination of the application. There is no provision for comment from a third party. No provision is being made to allow the local authority to seek additional information from the applicant. We believe the failure to provide for first-party or third-party appeals of decisions could give rise to a constitutional challenge. If the desired effect of the Bill is to be achieved, the processes needed to accommodate the above issues need to be faster and less cumbersome than the existing processes. All the while, the time required to assess a design proposal will not be affected by this Bill.

Our third point refers to authorised persons and local authority resourcing. The Bill outlines the role of authorised persons in enforcing building regulations and proposes the creation of a new register of such persons. It is absolutely essential that these authorised persons are qualified and competent professionals, and that they are approved for specific activities. For example, a structural engineer would not be competent to review an electrical engineering design. Furthermore, the number of competent persons needed to carry out design assessments and conduct site inspections are simply not available currently in the public sector. We would also question how the qualifications of authorised persons would be vetted before they are placed on a register. It is probable that most, if not all, of the assessments and inspections would have to be contracted out to the private sector where there is an emerging shortage of competent professionals. Therefore, to populate a new core of independent inspectors, and achieve the timelines outlined in the Bill, significant additional resourcing of local authorities would be required. We challenge the assertion that the Bill would not entail a direct cost on local authorities or the Exchequer.

Engineers Ireland commends the work of those who drafted the Bill and the committee. We believe that moving towards a co-ordinated building permit system and a greater inspection and enforcement capacity in local authorities would assist in the efficient supply of safe and high-quality housing. However, we do not believe that the Bill can achieve this objective. We look forward to continuing our engagement with this committee and with the Government in order to develop solutions for consumers and the wider public.