John Dennehy (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

Like previous speakers, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Building Control Bill 2005. It is important legislation that adds to our control mechanisms in the building industry and related matters. Considering the size of that industry, the Bill is timely and welcome.

In general, speakers welcomed the Bill. A number of contributors are professionals in the field, including a number of architects, and they appeared to generally welcome the Bill, although we will have some questions about it on later Stages.

I appreciate that the Bill will not cover a number of issues involving the building business about which we have concerns, including unfinished estates and so on, but I presume further legislation will be brought forward to deal with those matters and the planning and development area generally.

I agree with the comment of the Minister, Deputy Roche, at the outset of the debate that this is a good day for the consumer because consumers are most at risk when anything goes wrong. Whether it is poor design work at the outset, the involvement of bad builders or poor insulation, invariably the consumer must pick up the tab and is in difficulty. The Bill will cover a number of those issues.

The issue that has received the greatest attention and on which we have been lobbied the most by way of correspondence and directly is the need for the registration and recognition of the titles "architect", "building surveyor" and "quantity surveyor". Some people will argue that some of these professional groups could set up a monopoly. That question has been examined by the appropriate authority and it can be dealt with in time if necessary. The argument that persons employing such professionals are entitled to be assured they are appropriately qualified takes precedence over that point.

This House recently passed similar legislation regarding health professionals, and the same objective applies in both cases, that is, there is a State guarantee in place whereby if a person in a certain profession advertises for business, the user of that service is assured it will be of a professional standard. It is imperative that the back-up is in place for that. The point about the health professionals, including psychologists and so on, applies equally to that.

I watched some of an RTE exposé recently that concerned a person who described himself as an architect in action. In many instances the outcome for the clients involved was a nightmare. The primary problem, as pointed out in the programme and after it, was that the so-called architect appeared not to have broken any law at the time because there was no measure in place such as those we are about to enact. We must learn from those cases and be proactive in that regard.

As I said, there has been a fair degree of lobbying by architects and those in other professions to bring forward this Bill. I compliment the Minister on his work on that to date and wish him well in getting the Bill passed by the Oireachtas.

Two areas strike me as needing attention, at least one of which has been catered for in the Bill and was referred to by other speakers. It is where a person practising has gained alternative experience or training to that covered under the syllabus of the two professional groups mentioned in the Bill for monitoring it. The same issue could arise with people coming here from other countries who have had similar training. There must be some degree of flexibility in that regard. Legislation can be fairly rigid and when an anomaly or other problem arises, there is no flexibility in the Act.

I had a recent example of that when I was approached by a constituent who highlighted the restrictive nature of legislation. That case involved the need for a landlord to register private tenancies under the private tenancies registration requirements. That landlord, through no fault of his own, had previously forwarded a form to register for an earlier tenancy but because of a delay in getting a PPS, he was late in forwarding the required form. He was penalised by approximately €160 but this citizen is involved in many charities and it was more of a blow to him that he was breaking the law than paying the funding. When he made his case, which was a reasonable one, the response he got was that there is no facility in the legislation enacted to allow for a deferral, an allowance or leniency.

We must be aware of those types of cases. Politicians can call the shots on a case as they wish in terms of legislation but there must always be some element of discretion. I have appealed for that in the past on other issues. A similar happening could arise in this legislation. That is why I would like that aspect teased out further on Committee Stage to ensure we do not have such a bureaucratic type response to anybody who has a legitimate claim to be registered, and genuine cases will come forward. I heard references earlier in the debate to what I understand is a facility to cater for people in those circumstances and I would like to hear more on that. The grandfather rule was mentioned but I am not sure in what context.

The second question I want to raise under that section of the Bill relates to Brendan Behan's belief that any decent new Irish organisation would have, as its first item on the agenda, a proposal for a split.

See this speech in context