Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)

I thank my colleagues in the United Left Alliance for bringing forward this motion. Having spent my whole life in the building industry, it is my view that the building regulations are very good. The problem is that their enforcement has been extremely poor. If the rules in place had been properly adhered to, the problems at Priory Hall and in developments like it would never have been allowed to occur. While there is undoubtedly significant scope for regulatory change, proper implementation of the existing system would have prevented such failures. Having looked over the apartments at Priory Hall, I can only say the place is a joke and a disaster. That regulatory failures were allowed to happen across the board in this way is deeply unfair to the people who purchased the properties in question.

While the whole business of construction encompasses a broad range of areas of responsibility, there is no doubt that the builder has by far the greatest responsibility. The system of self-certification under which people sign off on their work is good, but the State, through the agency of the local authority, must have a role in terms of enforcement. The engineer, for example, is responsible for the construction design, that is, deciding how the proposed structure will stay in place. The mechanical and electrical consultant stands over what the electricians, plumbers and ventilation installers do. Subcontractors then come on board, including specialist contractors who, for example, install windows. The question then arises as to how those windows have been installed, whether the damp-proof course has been fitted properly and so on. There is also the fire safety issue. Every subcontractor on a building site should have to sign off on his or her work in the same way that the architect, engineer and mechanical and electrical consultant should have to. Needless to say, the builder must also sign off on his or her work.

All of the people mentioned require professional indemnity insurance. A major difficulty is that we are seeing a large black hole because builders are going out of business and their insurance is dying with them. The regulatory requirement is that public indemnity insurance must apply for six years following the completion of a project. Where a builder is going out of business, there is an arrangement whereby the insurance will live on for six years at lower cost to the builder than if he or she were continuing in business. The problem is that some builders who are broke do not bother doing this. There should be a legal requirement on the liquidator in such instances, where a builder has ceased trading, to ensure the insurance is left in place once the bank moves in. The latter, in turn, should have a legal obligation to ensure the insurance is in place in order that the six year period is covered in the event that serious problems with the building are subsequently discovered. Professional indemnity insurance takes care of the matter once a project has been finished, but one must set up the run-off for the next six years if one is ceasing trading. We must have a legal process in place to cover this.

The local authority must oversee all of the parties to whom I referred in order to ensure everybody is doing his or her work honestly and everything is covered. All of the people concerned must sign off on their work and have the insurance to back it up, but without State involvement there is a serious deficiency. To clarify, we will not put a stop to the activities of the rogue builder unless there are ongoing and comprehensive inspections. There was never a situation in Ireland where all jobs were inspected. We had the by-laws which were confined to the cities, while clerks of works dealt exclusively with State work. If the Government is serious about dealing with the problems that have developed in recent years, there must be 100% supervision of what is happening on sites. By my reckoning, this would add some €5,000 to the cost of every unit built in the country. I would consider this a price worth paying, as I am sure would the people present in the Visitors Gallery. The Minister will surely ask who should bear this cost. I contend the State will have its work cut out in seeking to claim it would not be covered by the current levies. If it is not, the Government should introduce a levy, payable when planning permission is granted, to cover the cost of 100% supervision. The person supervising must have on-site experience of construction and an engineering background, although he or she does not necessarily have to be a chartered engineer. The architects, surveyors, engineers and so on going onto a site all understand the principles involved in the work being done but do not necessarily know how it is all put together. Most of them will say as much if they are prepared to tell the truth. Their expertise is of a distinct type.

I will not second-guess the Government because I am not sure what it is planning to do, but given what it brought forward last summer, it is looking to introduce paperwork. I agree with this, but it will have to be paid for. We do not need more bureaucracy and unnecessary paperwork because we are getting carried away with ourselves as it is. We need something which is realistic and applicable.

In regard to asking the architect to submit working plan drawings, an architect designs a building and a number of areas are important to him or her when looking for planning permission, including external appearance, impact on the environment, use of the building and space. If we are going to ask people to submit working plan drawings in advance, which is a good idea, we should not do so unless somebody is to check them. If we do this, we must follow through to ensure the work is done that way. If the drawings are done at the end to deal with adjustments made, we must check them also. The local authority must check this work. The State must take responsibility. Expecting one person to sign off on it is nonsense. We cannot ask an architect to sign off on anything other than his or her work. We must let the others do their work which must be divided up. Not only would architects not be able to take out insurance but we would also be throwing all our eggs into one basket. There are at least six areas, of which the architect's is only one. He or she can only sign off on his or her own work. If he or she is forced to get involved in other areas not in his or her domain, there will be no small architectural firms in Ireland because only the large ones will be able to take out insurance.

To sort out the insurance problem, if we cannot put in place proper legislation to cover the six year period after someone goes out of business, we must introduce a bond system. It would not be an ideal scenario because it would drive many out of business as they would not be able to obtain a bond. It should be possible, however, to put a proper structure in place to cover the person signing off on work. The State must take responsibility for what has happened in places such as Priory Hall because of the lack of oversight which allowed the deterioration of work standards.

On the pyrite issue, HomeBond has walked. I agree that the fault lies with the quarries, but do we expect people to chase them or Roadstone, one of the wealthiest companies on the planet and which has deep pockets? HomeBond should have looked after the people affected, carried out the repairs and chased the quarries involved. That is what would have happened in a proper and a fair system.

See this speech in context