Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

Those who enforce the legislation feel that certification cannot be issued retrospectively. An adequate system must be put in place before building commences in order to ensure that it is safe for everyone.

The changes proposed by the Minister in the context of the recognition of the professional qualifications of architects, engineers or surveyors are important and welcome.

The professional organisations, in their report to the working group on strengthening building control regulations, made the point that the compliance system has delivered a reasonable level of compliance where responsible clients and professionals are concerned. There is no doubt about that. The reality, however, is that a person with no knowledge of or interest in the regulations who wishes to evade the system can do so, with all the potential consequences for building standards, safety and consumer protection. Where this is combined with a person prepared to issue an opinion on compliance in respect of such buildings, the limitations of the existing system are obvious. The report continues that it is unlikely that the level of resources necessary for a full-scale approval system, covering design and construction of every building and involving multi-stage inspections, are or would be available.

There is clearly a problem that the professions are trying to address in their recommendations and the Minister has taken a number of them on board. That still leaves the problem, however, that many people have circumvented the system. Will the Minister give us the Department's statistics on non-compliance on fire safety before Committee Stage? That is the only way we can understand and deal with the problem.

I share people's concerns about bad builders and the dangers that exist for people living in accommodation they have built. Deputies are concerned about the poor quality of many buildings. They also know the names of those engaged in poor quality construction throughout our cities and towns but I do not propose to mention them.

The new system must be better than that currently in place. While I do not oppose this aspect of the legislation, I am concerned about the proposals and have yet to be convinced they are necessary. How will one be able to determine a building is safe without first stripping it down to its core?

I understand approximately 85% of retention applications for buildings constructed without planning permission are approved. This is a high proportion and one I assume will also be reflected in the area of fire safety compliance. Given that today is the anniversary of the awful Stardust tragedy, it is important to emphasise the need to ensure the proposed changes are not being driven by commercial and vested interests. This point has been strongly made in representations I have received.

I ask for clarification on an administrative aspect of the Department's work. I have been informed that evidence has been notified to the Department — in fairness the official to whom I spoke today was not aware of its extent — to show that a number of people who have applied for a fire safety certificate have been issued with the number on their application rather than the number on their licence. This practice gives rise to further queries being made. The problem is that a person applying for planning permission serves a commencement notice which includes a reference number from the application for a fire safety certificate. When the applicant proceeds to work on the building, he or she will receive requests for further information with the result the building is completed without a fire safety certificate having been issued. Given this has occurred throughout the country, the system is clearly under-resourced.

In addressing this matter, which the Minister intends to do, we must ensure we introduce the best possible system, one which is full-proof, universal and policed. The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland contacted me today on this important issue. I understand the intention is to visit between 12% and 15% of all buildings constructed after the legislation is enacted. We need to be certain that compliance with fire safety requirements is audited.

I welcome the proposal to make regulation of professional qualifications more watertight. A mechanism similar to that applied by the Revenue Commissioners is required. For example, the likelihood of receiving a Revenue audit is much higher for those who fail to submit VAT returns or other required documentation. A well-resourced inspectorate will be required to ensure the large number of buildings which receive fire safety certificates in accordance with the new regulations are visited to monitor compliance and ensure transparency in all these key areas. Such a measure would boost public confidence.

The Minister indicated he would address the issue of the resources he proposes to allocate to make the provisions of the Bill work. Significant investment will be required in this area because highly qualified architects, construction engineers and other top grade professionals will be needed to do the work. It will also be necessary to introduce a career structure, either at local authority level or across local authority boundaries. It is vital that sufficient financial resources are provided to ensure the legislation is enforced and the best qualified people are recruited to enforce it. Attractive salaries must be offered to overcome the difficulty in attracting recruits to the public service when the private sector is doing well. That is the competitive nature of life. It is important to have the right reasons for attracting the right people to the job. Those are my main queries regarding the Bill at this point.

I acknowledge the motivation of the Minister and the various professional groups is excellent. On the issue of professional qualifications, Deputies who were previously involved in local government will have advised people seeking advice on building houses or extensions to ensure the work was done well. The first question put to me was always who I would recommend to design a house or extension. I always advised that people use a person with professional qualifications, which does not mean someone with a sign on the door saying "Architect", "Planner" or "Designer". If people checked qualifications more often, much of the poor building work, the jerry-building, particularly in the area of small extensions, would be eliminated. Those who suffer most from this problem tend to be those with few resources who know little about construction. It is vital to provide assistance to members of the public in this area.

As the Minister stated, the Bill establishes a register for architects, building surveyors and quantity surveyors, strengthens enforcement of existing building control law, allows for the energy rating of buildings and legislates for the disability requirements for commercial buildings and apartment blocks. The Fine Gael Party fully supports these aims, many of which are long overdue.

It is absurd that in 2006 one need simply put up a sign with the word "Architect" on it outside one's door to classify oneself as such. Last year, a "Prime Time" programme showed that property consultant, David Grant, had made 132 planning applications to a local authority since 2001, yet the council could find no record of any planning officials having met him. It emerged that the council had refused 67% of Mr. Grant's valid applications, which the director of planning at Fingal County Council, Mr. David O'Connor, described as a very high rate of refusal by any standard. It is bizarre that the failure to pick up on the fact that an applicant is not qualified cannot be addressed by any legislative provision, although I accept that finding a solution to this problem is not easy.

Registration has been in place in the United States since 1990 and the United Kingdom since 1930. Which model should we aspire to emulate? As was pointed out to me earlier today, the best model in the world is in place in the United States where much more aggressive legislation is in force and compliance with strict standards is almost universal. In addition, a highly professional organisation is responsible for monitoring compliance. We should aspire to have a similar system. It is easy to put down the Yanks whom we sometimes assume do nothing right but in many cases, particularly in regulating the construction sector, they have adopted the best model in the world.

I thank the association of building engineers which made a submission on the Bill and indicated to my party its support for the legislation. It is a sign of a good Bill and a good industry when those who are about to be regulated welcome the legislation. Legitimate, reputable architects and quantity surveyors have nothing to fear and will be able to benefit considerably from the Bill. Only the cowboys need worry.

The benefits should be felt greatest by consumers who, once the Bill comes into force, will be offered greater protection than heretofore. Some years ago the Competition Authority noted that the case for regulating those who describe themselves as architects had "not been adequately made". In a consultation paper on the architectural profession the authority suggested that a regulatory impact analysis be undertaken before the proposal to regulate the profession was progressed. The paper stated that registering the title of architect could create "substantial barriers" to entry to the profession in circumstances in which the excess of demand over supply for a limited number of third level places was already "huge". I inquired into the issue today and was happy to be informed that we now have approximately seven architectural schools in Ireland, North and South, and that an increasing number of places are being made available in our academic institutions. Criticism has been made of the length of time it takes to qualify as an architect, which is approximately five years, with two further years post-graduation. I accept that we now have universal application of academic standards across Europe and universal understanding of what constitutes a qualified person.

I welcome that the profession is opening up alternative ways to qualify as an architect. One does not necessarily need the 400 or 500 leaving certificate points in order to enter the profession. Students of normal to high intelligence in the top 20% who obtain approximately 355 leaving certificate points must also have their day. It is an issue that could be universal to——

See this speech in context