Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

I indicated on Committee Stage I would reconsider this matter in the meantime. It may well be that I will be obliged to reconsider this matter further between now and the Bill's appearance before the Dáil because the Department received a complex submission from the architects' body late last Friday. It was too late to be considered in the context of Report Stage in this House and consequently I may well revert to it.

However, my Department has consulted the principal stakeholders since Committee Stage and it is fair to state there was no consensus on the 5% retention proposal. While I stated previously there was some merit in the idea as a means of seeking to ensure completion, there also are practical difficulties. During my time as a solicitor in previous years, when a one-off house was built, the person who owned the site would get it built in stages. However, when it came to the end of the completion of the particular dwelling, a dispute always arose about whether the owner of the site was entitled to retain the balance, that is, the last amount. I accept we have moved on and that facilities such as mediation etc. now are available. However, I believe there would be a considerable risk that the 5% that was to be taken from every unit owner would end up residing in a management company and that no one would be able to get his or her hands on it.

I also alluded previously to the practical issue regarding how the cumulative amount of 5% from all the units should be released and who would determine when it should be released, which leads one back to issues regarding architects' certificates. As I stated previously, there is a risk that developers might seek to build into the sales price an additional 5% at the outset, which obviously would not be in the consumers' interests. While I can accept the point that this is less likely to happen in the present economic circumstances, this legislation is being enacted not simply for today or tomorrow but for years to come and the property market will not be down at the bottom, as it is, forever. I anticipate that as always when such issues arise, as was the case in respect of housing grants, they really only act as an opportunity for the builder to jack up prices by the commensurate amount.

I have alluded to the making of a fairly complex submission by the architects' body. It is described as an interim working draft, represents a work in progress and obviously must be considered in the meantime. The working draft appears to require that planning authorities should provide certification that development has been completed in accordance with the planning permission and any planning conditions attached to it. My understanding is that planning authorities no longer follow the practice of providing certificates of compliance. It appears it is dependent on the local authority completing a taking in charge process where it arises under section 180 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. I understand that in certain cases this may be a lengthy process under existing statutory provisions.

As regards building control standards which also must be complied with, section 6 of the Building Control Act 1990 provides for the making of regulations requiring the submission of certificates of compliance prescribing the form and content of such certificates and designating those who may issue them. To date, however, regulations have not been made under section 6 of the Act mainly because, I understand, of professional indemnity insurance issues on the part of the architects' profession. It is not clear from the architects' submission that a solution has been found to this issue since it states they did not have sufficient time to consult their professional indemnity insurance advisers before submitting this working draft.

In view of the fact that policy responsibility for at least some, if not all, of these areas rests with the Minister and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I will be forwarding the architects' submission to the Minister, Deputy Gormley, for an assessment of the proposals set out in it. The architects are prepared to issue and stand over certificates of compliance which may facilitate further progress on completion issues. Obviously, the question of cost is one that will have to be examined. I also want to seek the views of the Law Society on the matters raised in the architects' submission.