John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, for his presence to take this Topical Issue, which I can probably divide into two parts. The first part seeks to open a proper debate regarding the need for a regulatory body for the construction industry. The second point is to highlight, as I am sure most colleagues would be able to do, a specific circumstance relating to a home or homes constructed in my constituency where there has been a wholly inadequate response from the construction sector, via HomeBond, which is the agency charged with remedying and making right issues that people have with recently purchased homes.

People may know that there is no regulatory body, as such, for the construction industry. It is mostly self-governed and self-regulated through self-certification, which we know has led to the many issues we face at present such as the mica and pyrite scandals and the defective apartments. The latter affected my constituency in particular, although not as widely as in other constituencies. I have not been a public representative for as long as you, a Chathaoirligh, but for a total of 24 years, and until the defective apartments issue came along, I can say, reasonably fairly, that there were very few defects in the homes constructed in my constituency throughout that time.

It was exceptional but clearly with apartment defects it was the rule, rather than the exception. The CIF is the de facto regulator of the construction sector. It does this through operating and maintaining the construction industry register of builders. To get onto that register, it is necessary to tick a number of boxes. To stay on it requires compliance with a certain number of rules and regulations. The CIF also operates and manages the insurance scheme in place to reimburse home buyers through its HomeBond facility. This is problematic in the sense that the CIF is the body charged with remedying the defects, faults or snags that the builder overlooks or fails to do, as is the case in these particular circumstances I am going to raise. However, it is also the register of builders. It is the representative body, and a powerful one, for the construction industry. Given the events and experiences relating to defective apartments, in particular, and the scandalously high proportion of them built at a particular time in our history that have defects, we cannot have the body that represents builders in charge of remedying building defects. That is the first point.

The second point is the one I raised. It relates to a specific issue in my constituency. I will not identify the estate or the builder. Why would I stigmatise a builder who actually built 300 or 400 units on this estate and they all seem to be built reasonably well and to a high enough standard? However, a few houses suffered particular issues. Those issues relate to significant heat loss, water ingress, dampness, mould and leaks. The residents in question initially sought redress and assistance from the builder. This proved fruitless. Then they turned to HomeBond. It is months since HomeBond has engaged. It did initial inspections. There is a strong suspicion on my part that it is going to run the clock out of time and the homeowners in question will be left then to foot a substantial bill themselves. That is essentially the thrust of where I am coming from. I will have a few more points, depending on the Minister of State's response. I thank him for attending.

See this speech in context