Seanad debates

Thursday, 10 April 2014

Building Control (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2014: Motion

 

12:00 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am not interested in what the Senator has to say; I listened to him before.

What occurred in 1990 was a panic reaction to the Stardust disaster. Panic reactions are never much use. The measure under discussion will not protect the consumer. Why has the Government found it necessary to exempt some of its own developments?

I, too, have received a lot of correspondence, including from two people who were presidents of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, RIAI. One is president of the Architects' Council of Europe, an RIAI council member since last January and an honorary member of the American, Russian and German architectural institutes, and was a member of the Government's building regulations advisory body from 2000 to 2007. The members of the architects association voted 500 to eight that this was a dangerous proposal. We seek its annulment.

It is not just a question of rural matters. However, they are significant. Requiring a competent builder to be appointed closes down the centuries-old tradition that flourishes in rural areas and still flourishes in well-regulated countries such as the United Kingdom and Sweden. It does nothing for the new house buyer except set up an artificial paper trail. Self-certification does not work, will not work, has never worked and should be withdrawn.

Two sectors, in particular, are affected by the proposal. One is the contract building sector and the other, which will actually be protected by the proposal, is the very speculative sector that brought this country to its knees. The new building regulation, SI 9, creates a new bureaucratic and untried system for the industry. It is 27 pages long and there is no requirement that the Building Control Authority should inspect either the information to be lodged or the work on-site. How practical is that? The certificate of compliance must be validated and registered by the Building Control Authority before the building is opened, used or occupied.

The nub of the matter, which I would like the Minister to take very clearly on board, is that there is no provision for a retention fund, as there was in the past. How is this protecting the consumer? There is no provision for a defects list and remedial works 12 months after completion. I refer to the checklist we all know about. Anybody who has bought a house will have got a checklist from the builder. The sensible, successful system developed over almost 200 years and which has served the country well has been abandoned with regard to the vast majority of buildings for a system that is close to the discredited one used by speculative builders. That is the problem.

There is another really dangerous element. The certificate does not contemplate the existence of fraud, dishonesty, fraudulent concealment, defects or omissions that a reasonable inspection would not have disclosed. In addition, the architect used to be able to rely on the advice of consultants. The SI certificates hold the certifier to be solely responsible. We are actually to criminalise architects. This may happen because of a bureaucratic delay within the system. The Minister is shaking his head but this is what I am advised.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.