Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This a very strange way to constitute the board. I will outline my objections to the section and then propose my alternative. I see no reason the chair of the board should exclusively be any of the four categories stated, namely, a former judge, a practising solicitor, a practising barrister or a registered construction professional. I do not think a registered construction professional should be the chair of the board full stop. That makes no sense whatsoever and would create the perception, at best, that the board does not have the level of independence required if the chair is a registered construction professional who is practising in the industry. With regard to being a practising solicitor or barrister, it is a bit like the list of people on a passport form who were deemed to be of sufficient good standing in the community to be able to sign the form. I do not know if those lists are still on the forms but barristers and solicitors were on them. These could be solicitors or barristers who have no knowledge of the areas in question. It is likewise for a judge. I do not understand why, given the particular functions of the chair of a board, it would be restricted to that group of people. That is the first problem I have with this section.

Second, 15 is a large board for a register. This is not a corporation or a body that has huge functions. It has very limited and narrow scope and that is one of the weaknesses of the register. Fifteen is too large a number. Ten would seem much more appropriate for it to conduct its functions very efficiently. There are five appointees by the Minister and five persons who are nominated for such appointment by the registration body, of whom at least two are registered construction professionals. Why should the registration body be able to appoint a third of the board and why should two be practising professionals?

What I am proposing is basically a complete replacement of this section. We have already dealt with my alternative amendment for the chair of the board so I will not return to that but I think ten is an appropriate number. I know the Minister of State will not accept this proposal but I ask him to deliberate a little on it. In order to ensure we have the right range of people with the right skills, we need a combination of the Public Appointments Service, PAS, and nominating bodies. It would be a little like what happens currently with An Bord Pleanála. There would be ten nominating bodies, which could nominate one, two, three four or five people as they saw fit. Those people would then have to go through the Public Appointments Service to be interviewed and approved in that manner.

The reason I have listed the organisations here is that there is clearly a strong argument for the inclusion of the relevant Departments, including those of the Minister of State and his counterparts. It is logical for the National Building Control Office to nominate a person or persons who would then go through the PAS. It is reasonable for both the employers and the trade unions to have nominating rights. There is also a role for the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland and the Irish Planning Institute, and I have also included the Construction Defects Alliance, which is the representative body for homeowners affected by Celtic tiger era defects. The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government has appointed that organisation to the working group on building defects, which was a very positive move. That was not done for the previous working group on defective blocks or pyrite. This amendment does two things. It makes sure that Departments, professional bodies and affected homeowners have a pathway to membership on the board but there is also the robust mechanism of the Public Appointments Service to ensure they are fully qualified and are the best people for the job. The board would then have the merit of being a more representative, more qualified and more skilled body, as verified by PAS. It would also be slightly smaller and streamlined. In the current section 22, there is an in-built majority on the board, whereas this would have a much more independent flavour to it. The Government is saying it wants to achieve that independence and my amendments facilitate that.