Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Jun 1984

Vol. 351 No. 8

Building Control Bill, 1984: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

At the outset I wish to thank all Deputies who contributed to the debate and in particular I am pleased that the need for the Bill and for building regulations has been appreciated. A number of points were raised during the debate on which I would like to comment.

Deputy Molloy expressed his concern about a lack of consultation with the industry prior to the introduction of the Bill. I can only say that Deputy Molloy must not have been fully informed on this matter. In fact there have been extensive consultations with representatives of the industry, particularly since 1981, but also before that when the 1976 draft of the regulations was issued for comment. The 500 comments received on the 1976 draft were fully considered and incorporated, in so far as they were acceptable, in the amended draft regulations published in March 1981. While there were meetings with representatives of the industry prior to 1981 the frequency of meetings increased dramatically from 1981 onwards when our proposals for a certification system of control were being formulated. These proposals were in fact circulated to the industry in April 1981, September 1981 and April 1982 and were the subject of numerous meetings with the industry at both ministerial and official level. The comments of the industry representation at these meetings were taken into account when the Bill was being prepared. I must emphasise that I am satisfied that every opportunity was given to the industry to express their views. The industry would concur with this.

I take this opportunity to repeat what I said in my opening remarks and that is that the Building Regulations Advisory Body, which will be broadly representative of the industry, will be used as a forum through which the consensus views of the industry as a whole can be articulated. This is important particularly in relation to the proposed certification system of control.

I was surprised at the Opposition's suggestion that I should postpone proceeding to Committee Stage of the Bill until both the building regulations and building control regulations were published. It is not normal practice to publish proposed regulations before the Bill is enacted. In this instance we published, for reasons I have already given, a draft of the building regulations in 1976 and 1981 and a final draft revised in the light of the recommendations of the Stardust Tribunal and other developments since was published on 16 May entitled Proposed Building Regulations. An Foras Forbartha have also published a guidance manual which explains the regulations both diagrammatically and in the language of the industry. The publication of the manual has been welcomed by the industry and it has been favourably commented on.

As regards the building control regulations, I referred in my opening remarks to the proposed system of control and how it would work. I referred also to the fact that we proposed to have further consultations with the industry on certain details of the system which had to be resolved. My officials and I have had meetings with the industry recently on this and we propose to have further meetings. I do not propose to hold up the Committee Stage of this Bill until the details of the control regulations are agreed with the industry. To do so would be both unnecessary and inappropriate. However, let me repeat that I propose to have full consultation with the industry through the medium of the Building Regulations Advisory Body before making them.

For Deputy De Rossa's information there will be 35 building control authorities and not 80 to 90. All the county councils, their four county boroughs, Dún Laoghaire Corporation and Athlone, Drogheda and Dundalk Urban District Councils will be designated as building control authorities. The Dublin area will, therefore, have three building control authorities. However, section 2 (4) enables authorities to make arrangements for the joint performance of any of their functions should they so wish. Deputy De Rossa also suggested that we are following the UK in our proposals for a certification system of control. Indeed the words he used were that we "slavishly copied" the British. It would appear that he would need to check out where he is getting his information from because, again, he is wrong. Our proposals for a certification system of control were being developed long before the British ones and differ substantially from the system proposed in the UK.

From the debate there appeared to be some confusion as to the position in relation to the exemption of low rise housing from the control arrangements. This confusion arose from a lack of appreciation of the distinction between the building regulations and the building control regulations. The difference between the two kinds of regulations is that the building regulations will lay down the technical standards while the building control regulations will deal solely with procedural and control arrangements such as the details of the certification system. I wish to make it clear that while low-rise housing will be exempted from the need to submit certificates of compliance with the regulations it will still be required to comply with the technical requirements of the regulations and will be subject to the inspection and enforcement procedures in the Bill at the discretion of the building control authority.

Deputy Allen suggested that a provision be inserted in the Bill to the effect that no building be sold in the absence of a certificate of compliance from the building control authority. While there may, in theory, be some attraction in this proposal, I think that it would give rise to serious practical problems. However, copies of certificates of compliance lodged with building control authorities will be available to potential purchasers of buildings should they so wish it.

Concern that decisions by building control authorities on dispensations and relaxations would lead to different standards around the country was expressed. There may indeed be different decisions in different building control authority areas but these differences should relate to the particular circumstances applying in that area or in the particular case in question. However, I will be monitoring the situation on an on-going basis to ensure that, as far as possible, a consistent approach is adopted by building control authorities to applications for dispensations and relaxations.

Another point raised by Deputy Molloy and some other Deputies during the debate was that of the civil liability of designers and builders and the possibility that non-compliance with building regulations extends this liability in some way. I understand the industry's concern about this general issue given the trends that have evolved in case law in the past decade, particularly in Britain, in regard to liability for defects in buildings. The main cause of concern seems to be the open-ended nature of such liability. There is no significant evidence, as far as I am aware, that building regulations have been a factor in, or a cause of, the developments that have taken place in case law dealing with liability for negligence related to buildings. While as I said, I can understand the industry's concern on this issue, I am satisfied that the general issue of liability is not appropriate to be dealt with in the context of the Bill.

Deputy Molloy feels that local authorities should have more responsibility and that certifiers should have less. This is to deny the whole thrust of the proposals in the Bill which is that the industry should certify its own work. This is not unreasonable — architects, engineers, builders and others are responsible in any event for their own work and, as such, are liable in a case of proven negligence. This approach underlines the thinking behind section 6(4) which exempts a building control authority from ensuring that a building is free from defect or complies with the regulations or that a certificate of compliance is accurate. There is general agreement in the industry as a whole in regard to the merits of the proposed control scheme. Given that we are opting for a procedure along these lines, it would be illogical to impose liability on local authorities for ensuring that buildings comply with building regulations.

The point was raised that State and other public bodies should be included in the control system. While I am confident that standards of construction of public buildings are sufficiently high, I pointed out in my opening remarks that while I propose to exclude them for the present I will be reviewing the situation in the light of experience. I would also like to emphasise the fact that although such buildings will be excluded from the control system they will be subject to the requirements of the building regulations.

The question of who will certify compliance with the regulations was also raised. I accept that there may be problems in designating certifiers but this will be fully considered in consultation with the industry through the medium of the advisory body. In particular I am aware that there are professional people who are not members of any professional body or who do not have a formal qualification. I would like to assure them that their position will be taken into account at the appropriate time.

In relation to the assertion that the Bill will increase costs, a point raised by Deputy Durkan and other Deputies, I should like to say that the purpose of the certification system of control as proposed is to reduce costs. It was in fact the industry that requested this particular system rather than an approval system as a means of reducing costs and eliminating long and unnecessary delays. In relation to additional costs arising from the implementation of the regulations I am satisfied that standards in the proposed building regulations are already being widely applied and that additional cost, if any, will be minimal.

Deputies Calleary and Allen raised the question of the situation of the authorised person under section 10 of the Bill and I think I should take this opportunity to clarify the responsibilities of building control authorities and the situation regarding their powers to ensure compliance with the regulations. While it would be inappropriate, for the reasons I have already given, for a building control authority to be held responsible for ensuring that a building is free from defect or that it complies with building regulations, this does not mean that the local authorities should be powerless to do anything by way of inspection, if evident breaches of the regulations are brought to their notice. Section 7 to 9 dealing with the issue of enforcement notices, section 10 dealing with inspection by an authorised person and section 11, which relates to an order of the High Court in particular cases of breaches of the regulations, are the relevant enforcement sections. As regards section 10 to which Deputy Calleary refers, while this section imposes no obligation on a building control authority to inspect a building in any particular circumstances, or at all, I would expect that the authorities will avail of the powers of the section if and when they feel it is necessary to do so. It will be a matter for each authority to consider objectively to what extent and in what manner they will make use of the powers of the section having regard to the particular circumstances prevailing in their area, the financial and other resources available to them, their capacity to carry out inspections, and any other factors that may be relevant.

I would like also to refer to the further point raised by Deputy Allen regarding the acceptance of the certificate of compliance by agencies such as, the national house building guarantee scheme, building societies, and others, which carry out inspections of new houses for their own purposes. While this is naturally for these different agencies to consider, I have some doubt as to its practicality given the different purposes of inspection involved for each agency.

Deputy De Rossa indicated that the standards in the regulations should apply to existing buildings. While I take the point, it would be impractical and indeed unreasonable to require a building owner to apply the building regulations standards to a building which was built in accordance with the accepted standards of the time it was built, and which had proved to be adequate for the purpose for which it had been built. The building regulations would of course apply should that building be structurally altered or undergo certain changes of use. However, having said that, I should also point out that local authorities have other powers available to them in relation to dangerous buildings.

Deputy De Rossa also raised the issue of insurance by architects, builders and other certifiers against negligent certifying and negligent design. I should point out that the principal objective of the Bill is to ensure that buildings are built to adequate standards for the primary purpose of protecting public health and safety. I do not see a need in this context for specific legislative provision to be made in the legislation in regard to the question of insurance cover for approved certifiers, although this is no doubt a matter that will receive careful consideration from the professional and other interests that will be involved in the operation of the certification system.

Deputy Bruton felt that we should implement the parts of the regulations dealing with fire first. Following the Stardust Tribunal recommendations to this effect such a course of action was considered very seriously, but was found to be impractical as all the parts of the regulations interact with one another and it would not be practical to make the fire parts of the regulations in advance. However, I can assure Deputy Bruton that as soon as possible after this Bill is passed, the proposed building regulations will become law. In the meantime I have asked all those concerned with their use to regard them as if they had statutory backing and to apply the standards therein, including the fire standards, when designing and constructing buildings.

Deputy Walsh raised the question of the selling of houses on which small extensions were carried out without building bye-law approval and the difficulties created because of this. I would refer the Deputy to my opening remarks in which I clarified the situation — subsection (7) of section 20 of the Bill covers this matter and effectively gives an amnesty in such cases.

In conclusion I would refer briefly to the point made by Deputy Molloy in relation to section 16 (4) which may in certain circumstances extend responsibility for an offence to a director, manager or secretary of a corporate body. This is not an unusual provision. A similar provision is contained in the Fire Services Act, 1981, and other legislation as well. I would draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that it becomes operative only where an offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of the person involved, or is attributable to any neglect on his part.

Again, I wish to thank Deputies who contributed to this debate. It is important that the Bill proceed as quickly as possible, not only to enable the building regulations to be made at an early date but also to enable the establishment of the Building Regulations Advisory Body for the purposes of consulting the industry generally. There has been a lot of discussion about building regulations over the years. Now that we have got this Bill this far, I do not want the momentum to drop. I will be happy if we pass this legislation, set up the advisory body and, after full consultation with the relevant bodies, get agreement particularly on the question of certification. Once we get that, I do not see any great problems. As I said, we have had discussions with the industry and in my view we are going in the right direction. Now that the Second Stage has concluded I can have further discussions with the industry and when the Committee and Final Stages are passed, we will make the regulations as soon as possible.

We are agreed to the Bill being read a Second Time but we are not agreeing to further stages being taken until adequate discussions with the various interested groups have taken place, especially in the area of certification. I am disappointed that no talks have taken place since the Minister last spoke on this Bill in the Dáil and my information is that no talks have taken place since then.

I met representatives of this industry before the Bill was introduced and I gave them an undertaking that when the Second Stage was completed, I would meet them again.

We will oppose the taking of the Committee Stage until the talks have taken place.

Question put and declared carried.

Could the Minister indicate when Committee Stage is to be taken?

I shall be talking to the bodies involved and shall then leave it for agreement between the Whips.

Could you now indicate a date, Minister?

Two weeks from now.

That is very impracticable, as the Minister knows well. The House is about to rise at the end of this session. The Minister should be more realistic when he states a date. If he indicates a date in October or November, we shall give our agreement to it. One cannot have the kind of talks required within two weeks, especially when the House is supposed to be rising next week.

I am not sure of the actual date. I am anxious to get this legislation through. If I can get early agreement with the industries, I shall be seeking that we take Committee Stage as soon after that as possible. I shall be meeting with the industry as soon as is practicable.

There was nothing to stop the Minister from having full discussions over the past five weeks.

Could the Minister indicate what exactly he is looking for from the industry concerned? Is this House dealing with the legislation, or is the industry doing so? What functions has the industry in passing legislation through this House?

They would not be charged with implementing it.

When legislation affects particular industries, it is only prudent to talk to the industries concerned and seek agreement. That is why we want to have discussions with them. They have an input; they will be part of what happens under this Bill. It would be rather dictatorial if we were to take a decision to ignore them and proceed. That is not how it should be done. I am surprised at Deputy De Rossa adopting that attitude.

Does this mean that the Minister will bring in amendments to this Bill?

This is not Committee Stage. It is the conclusion of Second Stage.

The Minister and Deputy Molloy have been allowed to speak. I am anxious to know if the Minister proposes bringing in amendments after his discussions with the industry.

If we see the need for amendments, we should bring them in. If we do not, we shall not. I have given a commitment when Second Stage is completed to meet the industry. That I shall do. When our talks are concluded, I shall then seek to have Committee Stage dealt with.

This is an intolerable situation. The House has discussed this Bill on Second Stage and the Minister has not indicated that he will bring in amendments. Yet he is saying that after he has discussions with the industry he may bring in amendments. Who exactly is making our laws, the Minister in this House or the industry?

To clarify the situation——

I am surprised at Deputy De Rossa. That is the normal procedure.

Would the Minister please excuse me? In view of the impending Recess, apparently next week, would the Minister indicate a date in October or some other month on which Committee Stage will be taken?

I want to answer Deputy De Rossa's question.

My problem is that I am interested in pushing this legislation through.

If we see the need for amendments, we shall bring them in. I am amazed at Deputy De Rossa.

Why did the Minister not have these discussions before the legislation was brought before the House?

Hear, hear. They should have been held.

I am amazed at Deputy De Rossa's rigid attitude in wondering whether we should or should not discuss this matter and whether, after discussions, we should not bring in amendments.

This was only a token exercise.

Deputies, please, to clarify the situation——

The Minister had no hope of proceeding with all Stages of the Bill.

I am ready to proceed with them.

Minister, please. To clarify the situation, would the Minister indicate the date on which Committee Stage will be taken?

The first sitting day after the Recess. What is Deputy Molloy talking about?

The Minister will then be in a position to put down his amendments. Does the Deputy accept that?

It is agreed, but I hope that the Minister will have an opportunity to have full discussions. It was only a public relations exercise to bring the Bill in here. There was no intention of proceeding through all Stages.

We have that intention.

Committee Stage ordered for the first sitting day after the Recess.
Top
Share