Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Catherine Martin for raising this issue and acknowledge the distressing situation in which some owners and residents have found themselves, through no fault or their own, due to defects in buildings. It is an ongoing issue which we have debated here, as the Deputy said, over a long number of years. In general, building defects are matters for resolution between the contracting parties involved, namely, the homeowner, the builder and the developer and their respective insurers or structural guarantee and warranty schemes. While my Department has overall responsibility for establishing and maintaining an effective regulatory framework for building standards and building control, it has no general statutory role in resolving defects in privately-owned buildings, including dwellings, nor does it have a budget for such matters. While I acknowledge that calls for such a fund have been made, it is not possible for the State to take on responsibility or liability for all legacy issues nor would it send the right message to the industry regarding responsibility for compliance. In this regard, it is incumbent on the parties responsible for poor workmanship and the supply of defective materials to face up to their responsibilities and take appropriate action to provide remedies for affected homeowners.

The legislative position is very clear in terms of where responsibilities rest. Under the Building Control Acts 1990 to 2014, primary responsibility for compliance of works with the requirements of the building regulations rests with the owners, designers and builders of buildings. Enforcement of the building regulations is a matter for the 31 local building control authorities, which have extensive powers of inspection and enforcement under the Acts and which are independent in the use of their statutory powers. When a building is constructed and occupied, statutory responsibility for fire safety is assigned by section 18(2) of the Fire Services Act 1981 to the person having control of the building. In multi-unit developments, the person having control is generally the owner management company. Under the Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011, the owner management company must establish a scheme for annual service charges and a sinking fund for spending on refurbishment, improvement or maintenance of a non-recurring nature of the multi-unit development.

In response to the building failures that have emerged over the last decade, my Department has advanced a robust and focused building control reform agenda and will continue to ensure that these reforms have an impact. While that does not solve matters for the existing people, we are confident the proper regulatory framework is in place to prevent this happening with developments commenced after 2014. The difficulty the Deputy raises relates to who can deal with the problems arising in buildings constructed in previous years. The Deputy asked a number of questions, but her principal one was on the Home Building Finance Ireland, or HBFI, scheme. The scheme was established under the Home Building Finance Ireland Act 2018 as a supply-based measure to help address the shortage of new housing and falls within the remit of my colleague, the Minister for Finance. The Minister has been very clear that the HBFI was established on a commercial basis and that its activities must comply with state-aid rules. Any funding provided by the HBFI will be backed by appropriate security and normal banking terms. As such, conditions will apply and HBFI will not be in a position to offer cheap or subsidised credit. It is not about subsidised credit but a cost-neutral approach.

It is important to recognise the complexity of the funding of remediation works. These are high-risk projects which pose significant issues for lenders having regard to access to appropriate security. While the HBFI will be open to considering all residential development construction-related activity, it is the responsibility of applicants to ensure their applications for funding are commercially viable to allow the agency to comply with state-aid rules. I am advised by the HBFI that only a small number of calls and emails have been received on this type of funding to date and that no inquiry has progressed to a full application to date. People are welcome to progress to a full application but it must be on a commercial basis and security must be provided. Lending of that nature will probably not suit circumstances such as those outlined by the Deputy in respect of developments in need of remediation. It is not that they are prohibited from applying. No one has misled anyone in that respect. However, such an application might not be approved due to the requirements around commercial viability and securing the loan.

See this speech in context