Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

While I agree with the sentiment of Deputy Lahart on this having to be the final say, it is critical that it is not the final say because the legislation does not go far enough on building control. The other legislation the Minister has committed to for an independent building regulator authority is crucial. The Bill on its own, which is very flawed and I will table amendments to improve it, would not be sufficient. It is a small part of the architecture that is needed and decades overdue in this regard.

I agree with many of the Deputies who are aghast that the intention appears to be that this will not be an independent regulator but, rather, an industry regulator. I understand this is the standard practice in some areas. As Deputy Nash said, there are professions where it happens. This is not a standard area. It is an area where the cost of pyrite remediation is €150 million, the cost of other defects in buildings as reported today is at €160 million, the cost of faulty wastewater system is €300 million and we do not know what the cost will be of fire defects from the Celtic tiger era. It will be at least €1 billion and approximately 90,000 different homes could be affected. It is already predicted that the mica scheme will cost €2.2 billion. While all of this has to be done to correct the mistakes of the past we should not be in a situation where we are spending money that could be much better spent on other purposes, given the huge cost to the State and the taxpayer.

Much more, or just as, importantly is the massive human cost involved for people and families. There is nothing worse in terms of stress or anxiety. People invest not only the largest amount of money in their lives in their homes but also their time and emotion. It is where a newborn baby is brought home. It is where children leave for their first day in school and the place to which they return. It is where big family celebrations take place. It is where people often take their last breaths in their final days. Homes are so important. For people to have the anxiety and stress of seeing them crumble around them and having to explain to children what is happening is a huge personal cost. In my constituency it particularly affected the residents in Priory Hall. Sadly, we had the situation where Fiachra Daly died by suicide as a result of these building and fire safety defects.

After everything that has happened in this country, it is unbelievable that the proposal appears to be that this will not be independent but that it will be will run by the building industry and its representative group. That is very difficult to understand. I appeal to the Government to get this bit right and make sure it is independent. Section 8(7) prohibits a registration body being a body that promotes a political cause. Some of us would argue, with quite a good case, that those who lobby for the building industry have been involved in promoting political causes. This section of the legislation should rule them out. I take it from the commentary on the Bill to date that is not the intention of the Government. It appears the intention of the Government is to go ahead with an industry body appointed to the role. This is completely and utterly inappropriate.

We have failed utterly in this area because of a culture of light-touch regulation. This is deeply embedded in the thinking of the Irish State.

This approach has served the interests of developers and has put the interests of people and families last. As has been pointed out by Déirdre Ní Fhloinn, there have not been any convictions under the Building Control Act, partly because building control authorities are not funded or incentivised adequately to carry out proper enforcement. That is why it is very important that this Bill is not the final word and that we get the independent building control national regulator that has been promised by the Government. That is very important to go alongside this Bill, and it needs to be brought forward urgently. It is very difficult to understand why that has not been done to date.

When I was reading the Housing for All strategy straight after it had been published, one of the most objectionable lines for me - I am glad that it has been corrected since and that a decision has been made on this - was the one in objective No. 25.2 which stated that the Government would examine the merits of the creation of an independent building standards regulator. I could not understand how that still warranted examination, and I am glad that it has moved on from that position.

Before I go into the detail of the Bill, another matter which must be addressed in conjunction with this is the Statute of Limitations. The latter needs to be reformed in order that it kicks in from when a defect arises and not from when buildings were constructed. It is often the case, as many of us will know, that it can take the guts of ten years for actual building defects to become apparent to homeowners. It can take several years and can then take some time for homeowners or communities to get their heads around it and understand how to tackle the problem. Just as they are beginning to come to terms with the issue tends to be the time when the ten-year stipulation relating to the Statute of Limitations kicks in. That is disastrous and it has to be addressed.

This Bill is no substitute at all for a proper national building control authority but combined with it, if our amendments are looked at seriously and taken on board, it could be a very important tool. I certainly have concerns on the narrative around building control through the Bill, which is why we need a building control authority. What consumers can do is always going to be an issue. It is right that they will have an avenue through this but consumer-driven change has its limitations because of the level of consumers’ resources, time, ability, know-how and knowledge. We have to have a body that acts in the national interest in respect of this issue. The onus cannot be placed entirely on individual homeowners who are trying to deal with all of this and do not always know how to navigate their way around it. My concern as regards the legislation is that it could lead to a situation where enforcement - where there should be a range of different levels of enforcement used - of a lighter and less obtrusive form being used on a regular basis.

The Minister noted that eligibility for registration can be achieved through qualifications or experience, or a combination of both. There is very good reasoning behind that. Some of the best builders in this country do not necessarily have qualifications but they have experience in spades. It is also the case that some of the worst builders in this country may have years of experience, no qualifications and can be responsible for many building defects because they have not necessarily gained the knowledge they require through experience, and they certainly have not picked it up by means of qualifications. In measuring experience, it is important that there is some form of quality on that and of being able to ascertain knowledge around building regulations and building control. Experience is very important but the quality of that experience is also very important and attention needs to be given to that.

In the context of Part 2, particularly section 8, to which I have referred already, I emphasise that the history of regulation in this sector is not like that relating to other sectors. It really has been a disaster both for the State and the taxpayer, but also for individuals and communities. To use a model in other sectors and to justify that in this sector, when we have, unfortunately, had exceptional human costs in this, is not satisfactory in any way.

On Part 3, which deals with the membership of the board, this was dealt with in the pre-legislative scrutiny report where there was a recommendation that it should not be five members appointed by the Minister and five by the registration body. The Government is proposing that 50% of the board will effectively represent the interests of the industry. Where is the representation for the homeowners? Why 50% for the industry but not 50% for homeowners and people who have been affected by building defects. It is completely unbalanced. Some of that representation may be acquired through the Minister’s appointees but the Minister is going to have to do a wide range of things through his appointees. Why was the pre-legislative recommendation to increase the number of appointees from the Minister not taken on board in this? It is not acceptable to have 50% representation for the industry provided for in the legislation and not to have, especially given what has happened, representation for homeowners or people who have expertise in raising the issues relating to defects. If the industry is going to be represented, there should certainly be the same level of representation for affected homeowners. That would be a very important experience to bring to the board.

Part 5 deals with requirements for minimum levels of indemnity insurance for entry onto the register. While that is welcome, I am very concerned that this is too weak and that it does not go far enough. What is needed here, which should be abundantly clear after everything that has happened, is robust latent defects insurance to protect the consumer, the homeowner and the family who have bought the home. We have had a recent and current history of insurance schemes around homes and buildings with a whole range of loopholes and get-out clauses that simply do not cover many of the defects that emerge. On reading the legislation, there is nothing that gives me confidence that that is going to change. Yes, there will be limited indemnity insurance required for a builder but there is no guarantee that that is going to go far enough to actually protect the homeowners and the investment that they are making. In fact, the Bill states: “any act or omission of that provider of building works or employee of that provider of building works arising from the provision by either of them of building works.”, which is what is indemnified in the Bill. That is much too narrow.

What will happen is that if a person buys a home constructed using defective building materials, let us say pyrite, the homeowner would have to be able to prove that a builder or their employee, that is a direct employee, were, through their acts or omissions, responsible for that. If the responsibility lay beyond the builder and with the supplier of the materials, it would seem then that there would be no protection for people whose homes would be crumbling as a result of a defective building materials. This is what appears to me. I would welcome clarification on this if the Minister and the Department have a different view and if this could be provided to me at the end, or indeed in writing to the committee. That is a very important point because if this part of the Bill is simply going to repeat a very inadequate and unsatisfactory situation at the moment where there can be levels of indemnity and insurance, but all sorts of limits or loopholes to that which do not protect the homeowner, then that is a serious deficiency.

I have a serious problem with section 60. The maximum penalty under the Bill is 12 months in prison and-or a €500,000 fine. Penalties have to be proportionate. For plenty of building defects and smaller schemes, that may well be proportionate. It is also the case, however, that for some larger schemes, it will not be a proportionate penalty.

We have seen the situation recently where building defects can lead to costs of millions of euro, indeed, up to billions of euro, for homeowners and the State. That is not to mention the human cost. This can absolutely destroy people's lives. It can put relationships under massive strain and pressure due to the worry about it and the financial pressure. Relationships can break down as a result. It can affect people's working lives and their relationships with their children. There are massive human and personal costs from this, so why does the Bill provide that the maximum penalty is 12 months or €500,000? It can affect people for the rest of their lives. If there are very serious breaches that are running up costs of millions for people and ruining lives, those are not appropriate maximum penalties.

Section 63 adds to the problem there. I really hope my interpretation of this is wrong, but from my reading of it this is a very alarming section in the Bill. Where a complaint is made and pursued, it effectively gives a builder or a developer a get out of jail free card or, in a more extreme situation, a get out of jail after 12 months card. It appears to give a builder or developer absolute indemnity against other criminal proceedings. I hope it is clarified that this is not the case and that this does not give them any sort of absolution or protection from criminal proceedings relating to serious breaches of building regulations, fire safety defects or defects that put people's lives at risk. My reading of it is that it does, and that section 63 should not be in the Bill at all. Where did it come from? What is the thinking behind it? I await clarification on this.

I am very concerned about the timelines in the Bill. We have waited years and decades, indeed, for the history of the State, for a register of builders and building workers. The idea that registration will not be compulsory for another two years, especially given that this register has been up and running on a voluntary basis, is simply not credible. We are looking at a two-year delay on that. I am concerned about the registration requirements and who is required to register in terms of it not being wide enough. I know it can be extended in the future, but we must have a situation where everybody who is working in this area, be the person a direct employee or otherwise, should register the person's skills. If the person is registered elsewhere, that might cover it but this is in respect of people who are not.

This is related to issues regarding productivity in building construction, which is also related to affordability. We have a problem with a lack of skills. For example, the number of bricklaying and plastering apprenticeships is down by about 90% since 2004. That is affecting our supply of building workers. However, those skills are also important in terms of standards. The register should be much wider than the original one envisaged. It is not right that people who do their four-year apprenticeship are, in a sense, on the same footing as somebody who does no apprenticeship, training or skills qualifications, and that both can be working side by side in the sector without any regulation of that. Skills lead to better productivity. It is better for the builders in that they can get better wages, and it is better for affordability as well because there is much more productive, efficient building. That must be encouraged.

I am concerned about the potential risk of protectionism. The Minister's comments earlier gave some reassurance on that. It is very important that this is not, and cannot be, used as a mechanism for a closed shop. That would have a knock-on effect in terms of pricing competition and affordability. That is just another reason, a smaller reason, this must be independent. It should not be an industry-controlled register. That makes no sense at all. Quite frankly, the people who have suffered as a result of building defects over the years are not going to accept that, find it credible or get assurance from it.

See this speech in context