Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Jun 1988

Vol. 381 No. 8

Estimates, 1988. - Local Government (Multi-Storey Buildings) Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Quinn

I was quoting:

Subsoil condition and lack of effective remedial action allowed an underground lake of gas to accumulate around and beneath the building... calm weather conditions prior to the explosion restricted ventilation, thus creating the most favourable conditions for the accumulation of an explosive mixture within the flats.

I turn now to conclusions in this report.

A summary of Conclusions

7.1 The primary cause of both the Raglan House and the Dolphin House incidents was leakage of gas. The committee is satisfied that the need to control the risk of occurrence of a gas explosion is the primary lesson to be learned from the incidents.

7.2 The basic aim of the relevant current structural design procedures is to prevent accidental damage to a structure which is disproportionate to the cause of the damage. Neither Raglan House nor Dolphin House are shown to have suffered damage disproportionate to the cause of the damage.

7.3 The Raglan House and Dolphin House incidents as reported by Cremer & Warner Ltd. do not indicate that the accidental damage provisions of the current structural engineering design codes need to be amended.

7.4 The Raglan House and Dolphin House incidents present no new evidence to cause particular concern in relation to existing buildings and their ability to resist accidental damage.

I have summarised that report for Members of the House and people reading this debate later. The report is available in the Library. In essence what clearly must come out of this debate is that our standards of structural design in terms of current practice and their execution are not below European standards and in many cases are in excess of them. Therefore, we should not allow the tragedy of these two accidents to cause us, because of a badly written section of the Cremer & Warner report in relation to structural design for reasons I have read into the debate, to cloud judgment or be allowed to stick. The bottom line at the end of the day is the credibility of an Irish engineer in some years' time looking for a contract or whatever and one of the most famous international firms saying that Irish engineering standards in design and construction are not acceptable.

I want to turn to the Bill before us. I have demonstrated that over reaction to the unfortunate accidents as demonstrated in the Government's response by way of a statutory provision is inappropriate. We need a statutory provision; but in a Building Control Bill, not this legislation. Again, let me quote from a document which has been prepared by the Joint Committee of the Engineering Institutions on the disproportionate collapse of buildings and which contains some comments on the proposed Local Government (Multi-Storey Buildings) Bill, 1988.

The committee's report dated October 1987 which I have quoted presents the committee's view, with the reasons for it, that legislation of the type proposed is inappropriate. The committee here deals only with the Bill as presented but the comments presented are intended to be read with the committee's earlier reports.

Comments

1. “Competent Person”

a. We query the wisdom of allowing self-certification as proposed. We would again strongly urge that the offer of I.E.I. to assist in preparing a list of suitable experienced chartered engineers should be accepted. Provision could be made, we understand, for equivalently qualified engineers from other member states of the EC.

b. In relation to the structural engineering experience of competent persons, we consider that experience should be required in structural design and (rather than or) appraisal of multi-storey buildings. We consider this to be of critical importance. At the very least, experience should be required in structural design of multi-storey buildings and structural appraisal of existing buildings.

2. “Multi-Storey Buildings”

a. We would suggest that a penthouse or other habitable top floor should be defined explicitly as being a storey. There are a significant number of buildings that this would apply to. Similarly, clarification in relation to basements would be advisable.

b. What will the situation be in relation to premises that were completed originally before 1950 and have since been refurbished either (a) prior to publication of the relevant design Code in the First Schedule or (b) after publication?

3. “Robustness”

We consider the definition of robustness to be a bad one. If robustness must be defined we suggest it be defined as the characteristic of a building which militates against disproportionate damage occuring to a building in the event of an accident. However, in the context of legislation, it would be more pertinent to define "disproportionate damage" which is not defined in any of the design Codes in the First Schedule.

4. “Specified Building”

Since the word "specified" has other firmly established engineering connotations we suggest some other term should be used such as "designated building".

With regard to floors, the definition refers to buildings constructed "wholly or in part" using precast concrete floors. There could be a significant number of hybrid buildings. Thus a multi-storey building with only one floor of precast concrete units has to be subjected to the same appraisal as a building where all the floors are precast. And the preliminary cert., clause 3(I)(a), will require thorough investigation to ensure there is no area in the building where precast units were used.

Does the last Section of the definition mean "and, wholly or in part, either p.c. frames or p.c. wall panels or masonry walls” i.e. is any building with some p.c. floor units and some loadbearing masonry, however limited, a “specified building”?

We assume the term "precast concrete floors" is intended to encompass situations where p.c. floor units were used on roofs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I hate to interrupt Deputy Quinn who has experience in this area but perhaps he would agree that in the matter of definition we should not dwell too long on it but rather raise it again on Committee Stage.

Mr. Quinn

In fairness to some of the technical points I am raising and having regard to the way in which Committee debate frequently arises, if I raise these queries, without arguing their merits or demerits at this stage, it facilitates the House and the Minister to have an opportunity to clarify these points on Committee Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Traditionally, whether accommodating the Minister or otherwise, we try as far as possible on Second Stage to deal with what is in the Bill or should be in it and we refrain from examining the Bill minutely.

Mr. Quinn

I appreciate what the Chair has said but I am raising questions about definitions. I should like to remind the Chair, whose interventions are designed to be helpful and speed up the business of the House, that there are almost two pages of definitions. The definitions are critical to the operation of the Bill and clarification on how they will be interpreted is at the core of whether the Bill is worse than I fear it is going to be.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy accept that on Committee Stage, when we will be going through the Bill word by word, it would be a more appropriate time to deal with the definitions?

Mr. Quinn

If I had your faith in the ability of the Government and Fine Gael Whips to so arrange the programme for the House as to provide for a full Committee Stage debate without a guillotine — tragically that has not been my experience in recent weeks — I would be prepared to defer some of my comments to Committee Stage. As an elected Member I must point out that there have been very tight floor arrangements made between the Government party and the main Opposition party which has severely curtailed time for debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will accept the Chair is not aware of that and even if that were so it would not be a justification for the Deputy trying to circumvent what is laid down in Standing Orders in respect of a Second Stage debate. I know I will not have to pursue that at any great length and I ask the Deputy not to go into great detail on Second Stage.

Mr. Quinn

I take the Chair's point and in order to facilitate the House I will make the document I am quoting from available to the Minister. Section 3 is the key section of the Bill and I expect we will be dealing with a similar provision in the Bill dealing with building control. Will certification be the responsibility of the firm or the individual? Who will carry the professional liability? What will their exposure be in terms of the courts and costs? Many designers, architects and engineers cannot afford the cost of professional liability insurance. The premium for large to medium-sized architectural firms for professional indemnity liability insurance can run from £5,000 to £20,000, depending on the amount of cover one tries to buy. Many limits are imposed and fully comprehensive cover is not provided. When the Bill is passed local authorities will demand certificates for office blocks and flats that are built. The person who issues that certificate will have to be competent and will have to have adequate insurance cover.

Section 5 deals with the requirement to submit further certificates where a building has been altered subsequent to the issuing of the original certificate. I should like to ask the Minister to elaborate on that provision when replying. How does he see it operating because in my view it will amount to an enormous imposition on local authorities? Getting an engineer to move in and assess what is required is at one level an enormous task. If it is not strictly defined in the Bill, and clearly codified in the regulations, we could have different standards of certification and investigation with different cost implications. The report states:

We note there is no attempt made to define how exhaustive should be the engineer's investigations on which he bases his opinion. Such a statement is a normal feature of all appraisal reports certificates and is normally determined as part of the engineer's brief by the client, or by the client and engineer by mutual agreement. The form of the certificate should be amenable to particular circumstances.

I will accede to the Chair's request in regard to dealing in detail with the sections. I understand the Minister has a copy of the document I referred to and, therefore, there is no need for me to read it into the record of the House.

In my view the Bill is unnecessary. It will not make one building in the State any safer in real terms because the standards of engineering, construction and design both in the competence of the professionals over many years and the standard of the buildings — irrespective of what may have caused explosions as dealt with by Cremer and Warner — are very high. Our buildings are not substandard in structural stability and design. That is particularly true of buildings of five storeys and more built since 1950. They would have been designed and built by a competent contractor. The need to reassure public opinion is not necessary. In my view the Minister should have brought in a Bill dealing with building control and I should like to urge him to introduce such a Bill in the near future. I look with horror at the waste of scarce parliamentary and drafting time in putting this Bill through the House when a Bill on building control would have been better. A lot of time has been spent on the Bill by officials in the Department of the Environment where the embargo still applies. The Attorney General's office have also had to devote a lot of time to it.

The Bill will result in extra conveyancing and insurance costs, particularly for those who live in blocks of flats of five storeys and more. We have a lot of that accommodation around Dublin city. Is the Minister prepared to have discussions on this with the Incorporated Law Society and the building societies so that they will not look for certificates of compliance under the legislation every time a property changes hands, as would be the norm in relation to the buying and selling of apartments? Those of us who deal in conveyancing will be aware of the amount of paperwork involved, of the assurances and reassurances that solicitors seek from time to time at the behest of a building society or other financial institution. The Bill will add another level of bureaucracy to the system.

The Minister should agree to give this scarce parliamentary time to his colleague, the Minister for Energy, so that he can reassure the House and the public that Dublin Gas, now that the structures under which it operates have been clearly rationalised, has improved. He should assure us that the relationship between Dublin Gas and BGE has improved and that they have, however slowly and sluggishly, a new system of management and improved work practices at all levels. He should assure us that the gas system is safe.

This is a response to an unfortunate accident in which a number of people were killed and is based on a report which was seriously defective in its structural analysis as to what happened. It seeks to impose a new level of requirements which is without precedent in Europe. I have not been able to establish through my engineering colleagues whether the Germans, the Italians, the French or the British require this level of certification. I am not aware of the specific type of certification as distinct from a building design code. The construction codes in relation to engineering, which are implicit in the building regulations that come under the Building Control Bill, will address themselves to standards of safety. Can the Minister point to any other country that has a large stock of buildings and is of the same level of economic development as ourselves, or even higher, that has sought to impose upon itself this kind of requirement? I would be surprised if he can cite any such countries. I have made inquiries from the people to whom I have referred earlier, many of whom have international experience, and they indicate that they are not aware of any such requirement.

I have in this House berated the Minister over the last few months for his very inadequate legislative performance and track record, having regard to the enormous amount of work that was ready on his desk. The sadness is that he comes into the House with a Bill which is not necessary and which will, unfortunately, impose additional costs on the construction industry at a time when that industry is this year recording approximately 10 per cent of a decline in output as against last year.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Thank you for your co-operation in respect of Standing Orders.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Unlike Deputy Quinn, I welcome this legislation, albeit legislation with certain weaknesses which need to be addressed. I hope the Minister and the House will address those weaknesses during the Committee Stage of the Bill. Before I comment on what I think are the weaknesses I would like to say that I have been chairman of an ad hoc informal committee of Dublin TDs of all parties who have been pursuing the question of gas safety in Dublin for some considerable time. I raised in this House the question of gas safety in high rise buildings before the Raglan House explosion — from those benches over there — when very few people were interested in the subject. Two weeks before that explosion took place I warned in this House that that was a possibility. I have pursued this matter in the House. I, more than any other Deputy, have urged the Minister to introduce this legislation as soon as possible. Therefore I am glad that it is before the House.

A number of reports have been referred to, specifically the Cremer and Warner report, but I have not heard any reference so far to the Dutch report, the VEG Gas Institute report, which was made public by the Minister for Energy on 20 August 1987. It is a technical audit of the New Dublin Gas distribution system. For some time I have suspected that the report, which was made public and circulated to the press, a copy of which I received on request from the Department of Energy, is an incomplete report. It seems that either all of the report was not published or that the report is written in pidgin English, in which case it would appear that it was issued in some haste.

I would ask the Minister when replying or, if he is not in a position to tell the House tonight, on Committee Stage, having checked in the interval, if the report as published by his colleague on 20 August 1987 contains all the report of the VEG Gas Institute, the Dutch consultants, who were called in to audit the gas distribution system. Will the Minister assure the House that there are no other sections of the report or no other secondary reports which have not been made public.

The report is badly written, albeit a devastating report, which suggests the setting up of an independent inspectorate to police the safety of the gas grid. That independent inspectorate should be set up, particularly in relation to multi-storey buildings. I feel strongly — and I have raised the point in this House over a considerable period — that there should be a Minister responsible for the safe distribution of gas in our city. The public and this House are not being told all the facts with regard to the gas grid in the Dublin region. There is reason to be concerned about the safety of people on the streets, adjacent to buildings and in buildings, particularly domestic buildings and multi-storey buildings. I am not just referring to Raglan House or Dolphin House. No reference has been made to the fact that the only reason there was not injury or loss of life in the latter case was that it was raining and the children, who normally play in the forecourt of the flats where the explosion took place, were indoors. It was miraculous that nobody was hurt in that case.

Reference has been made to Nicholas Street, which I raised in the Dáil, but no reference has been made to the explosion two weeks ago in Oliver Bond flats in my own constituency where a man was severely injured in a flat which did not have a gas appliance and did not have in use a gas system inside the flat. Similarly, in my constituency, in Slievenamon Road in Drimnagh, a house, which not only had no gas appliance but which had no gas pipe leading into it, was damaged. An explosion from the gas mains on the footpath outside the house blew the window frame from one end of an extension right across the extension, blowing out the front windows and thereby wrecking the house. The people who lived there had to vacate the house for a considerable time. In relation to domestic dwellings, and in particular multi-storey dwellings, it is time that this independent inspectorate was set up to police the safety of the grid and report to a Minister who would be responsible and who, in turn, could report to this House. It is a serious matter and has not been taken seriously by enough people in this House. I regret to say that I am in no doubt but that there will be further explosions. I have been warning about this since before the explosion at Raglan House and I have given five examples of it, the most recent one in Dolphin House in my own constituency.

I wish to refer to a document which was sent to me by a consultant engineer. I will quote it into the record of the House because I think the Minister will find it of interest and it is a matter which requires consideration. It is headed: "Submission to Mr. Gay Mitchell, T. D., in relation to structural damage to Raglan Road Flats as a result of a Gas Explosion". It states:

Were it not for the diligence of Mr. Denis Wall of Dublin Corporation Bye Law Department in implementing the Corporation of Dublin Bye Laws to the standard of the Proposed Building Regulations there would be no control on tall buildings of this nature in Dublin.

The Minister of the day may have said that buildings shall be constructed in accordance with these Building Regulations but this does not have the force of law, as all of us are aware. As it stands now the only statutory instruments which we need to work to are the Corporation of Dublin Bye Laws which were made circa 1890 and adopted by Dublin City Council in 1949. Bye Laws have only been adopted by Dublin, Dún Laoghaire, Cork and Galway and do not apply elsewhere. Nor could they be applied elsewhere as there are no officers, that we are aware of, outside these centres who have any structural engineering experience.

Even so all other centres outside Dublin only request an Engineers Certificate and are normally not given any structural details with the Planning and Bye Law Applications. This is hardly any way to control building.

It has taken the Stardust fire to push for a review of the Fire Regulations and we are now obliged to design for fire in accordance with the Greater London Bye Laws. It now takes this incident to push for a review of Structural Regulations. Without the passing of the Building Regulations by the Oireachtas there will be no change in the control of Building Construction. Alternatively it should not take a great deal of effort to get Part E of the Proposed Building Regulations adopted into the existing Bye Laws by the various Corporations and then at least we would be working to a consistent standard in these areas.

For your information the Irish Standard on Load Bearing Masonry Construction was only adopted in November 1986, prior to that Irish Structural Engineers were obliged to conform to the British Standard Code of Practice BS5628 and we still design Steel Reinforced Concrete, Timber and Foundations to British Standards. Either then strive for the adoption of the entire Proposed Building Regulations or for the adoption of Part E only and we may have some control on the Structural Design of Buildings. With regard to the structural damage caused to this structure it should be said that these structures are more soundly constructed and considerably more robust than those built to standard construction, and were an explosion of this magnitude to occur in a standard building it would level it to the ground.

That is a pretty devastating indictment. While I believe the Building Control Bill needs to be proceeded with soon, nevertheless, the Local Government (Multi-Storey Buildings) Bill helps. I hope the Building Control Bill, with a strengthened Multi-Storey Bill will be enacted by the Oireachtas before the summer recess.

I understand the main problem with the Raglan Road building was the cavity beneath the building. It is all very well to require people to submit certificates but what will be done to ensure that the reconstruction or safety work has been carried out? That is not clear from this Bill. There are penalties imposed for submitting false certificates or for unreasonably refusing people access to a building but in my view there do not seem to be sufficient penalties if people refuse to carry out reconstruction or safety work.

I wonder why this legislation is confined to five storey buildings or higher. Dolphin House and Oliver Bond House are only four storey buildings. In the area I live, Rathmines, there are a number of very large houses with returns to the back, which are let in flats. It would be very difficult to get out of these houses in the event of an explosion. Why are buildings of that kind being excluded? A three storey building over a basement would be equivalent to a four storey building, and with returns to the back, they could be the equivalent of five storey buildings. Many of these houses would have the possible defects and dangers of a five storey building. That needs to be looked at.

Another point occurs to me which is not mentioned in the legislation. I understand that a proposal, which may be proceeded with, has been presented to the planning commission of Dublin Corporation to build an underground development under O'Connell Street in Dublin. Presumably that development would not be covered by these regulations. In Stockholm, for instance, not just the basement of buildings are below ground. Such developments would not be covered by regulations here. The Minister might look at this because this could be the way our building developments will be going in the future.

Section 3 of this Bill refers to the appropriate codes of practice and standards relating to gas distribution, service installations and use. There appears to be a commonly held belief that once there is no gas appliance in the home, or once there is not a gas service into the home, everything is safe. Not only was there an explosion in a flat in Oliver Bond House where there was no gas appliance but the flats had been cleared within the previous eight months by the Gas Company's task force. There has to be some tightening up of the supply of gas to these buildings, and furthermore there should be penalties where gas is carelessly or inadequately installed, or where the Gas Company do not meet the standards which should be set down in this legislation.

Section 6 refers to buildings owned by local authorities within their own functional area. There are many buildings in Dublin which should come under these regulations. For instance, Ballymun flats come under these regulations because they are five storeys or higher. Who will be responsible for checking Dublin Corporation to ensure that they comply with the standards laid down, ensuring that the gamekeeper does not turn poacher? Who will ensure that the local authority comply with the standards laid down? There should be some form of independent check on local authorities, perhaps neighbouring local authorities should be given the statutory responsibility to examine each other, because there must be some way a local authority can be brought to task if local authority buildings which have been found to be inadequate are not put right. This is a weakness in the Bill. The same standards should apply to the local authority as they apply to the private sector. It does not appear under these regulations, that that would be the case. These regulations should be tightened up so that local authorities are required to meet these requirements.

It is unclear from reading section 14 what penalties will be imposed on an owner who cannot submit a certificate as required by the legislation and who does not carry out the work over a specified period. It seems that too much emphasis is being put on the need to have a professional person supply a piece of paper. What will be done to ensure the owner of the building carries out the work? There are penalties provided in the Bill for people who prevent unreasonably the owner of a building, or a local authority, from examining the building to ensure that repairs are carried out, but what will happen to the owner of the building who refuses to carry out the work? How long will the owner be given to put the house in order? This is very important and is another area which needs to be tightened up.

As regards penalties, the Bill should be stronger where work has not been done and an accident occurs due to negligence. If somebody has been told a building is faulty, if the owner does not carry out the work and subsequently there is an accident which results in serious injury or loss of life, there should be a section in the Bill laying down penalties because that is criminal negligence. However, the Bill does not refer to that matter.

A section should be inserted in this Bill to the effect that owners of multi-storey buildings who do not comply with the law, where there is subsequent loss of life or injury to anybody as a result of defects in their buildings, will be prosecuted. Prison sentences should be included in the Bill for that sort of negligence, because it is criminal.

The report of the task force on multi-storey buildings published in August, 1987 has been mentioned. There are a couple of matters in that report to which I should like to refer. First, would the Minister explain to the House the meaning of the term used in the report "disproportionate collapse"? What is considered disproportionate?

Paragraph 1.2.1 of the summary of that report in Chapter 1 states:

The Task Force considers that the most appropriate way to ensure that future multi-storey buildings have sufficient robustness to resist accidental damage is the introduction of a building control system. Accordingly it is recommended that the Building Control Bill should be enacted as soon as possible so that the regulations can be put on a statutory basis.

Certain amendments to the proposed building regulations have also been recommended to ensure that the regulations will include due provision for modern codes and standards dealing with the prevention of disproportionate collapse and for minimising the possibility of accidental damage.

It seems very clear from this report that the Building Control Bill should be passing the Legislature in tandem with the Local Government (Multi-Storey Buildings) Bill. Perhaps the Minister will indicate when it is expected that that Bill will be brought before the House. I would urge that it be allowed to pass before the summer recess.

In the report of the task force at paragraph 1.3.2 under the heading of Gas Safety, which is an important section, it is stated:

There is a lack of the necessary technical information on which to make a comprehensive assessment of the state of the gas distribution systems generally. Statistical comparisons with other networks show an unacceptably high level of leakages in the recent past in Dublin due in part to the absence of systematic repair and replacement programmes. Recommendations are made in respect of the data collection necessary as a prerequisite to proper assessemnt of the condition of the network.

This multi-storey building Bill came about largely because of the explosion in Raglan House and other high rise flat complexes in Dublin city. It would be a weakening factor in that Bill if we did not address the question of the availability of the necessary technical information on which to make an assessment about the whole safety of the network. There can be explosions from pipes adjacent to buildings. For instance, in the case of Raglan House, if we deal with all the cavities and ensure that the building boiler regulations are complied with, where in this Bill is the DART system prevented from loosening the gas supply service which runs adjacent to the DART system and to Raglan House? There is no such provision in this Bill. It is very clear that the whole question of gas safety must be considered. It is mentioned specifically and clearly in the report of the task force that this question must be addressed.

At paragraph 1.3.4 of the report it is stated that the task force endorses the recommendations of Cremer and Warner in respect of training of staff with responsibility for all aspects of gas safety. This is specifically in relation to their terms of reference on multi-storey buildings. Where is the legislation to support that? Surely we should be insisting on standards outlined in the Cremer and Warner report and strongly supported and endorsed by the Minister's own task force on multi-storey buildings. There is no mention of that in the legislation before us tonight. Comprehensive legislation dealing with the safety of multi-storey buildings, the safety of people living and sleeping in those buildings, in the shape of sections to deal with this matter should be incorporated. Their omission is a defect in the legislation. I ask the Minister to address that question on Committee Stage. At paragraph 1.3.5 of the report it is stated:

The absence of proper records and repair history of the layout and condition of gas distribution systems was noted. The need for comprehensive records is emphasised.

Where is the legislation compelling that? Who is requiring people to do that? There should be a Minister responsible and an independent inspectorate and this House should be accounted to in this respect. It is a matter of public safety and I am afraid that it is not being taken seriously. The horse already has bolted, but when the whole herd of horses bolt, when something very serious happens it will be too late. We have this Bill before us and we should be looking at the question raised in the report of the task force. We should be compelling, by law, the keeping of comprehensive records in relation to the safe distribution of gas in this city.

Paragraph 1.3.7 of the report states:

Systematic leak surveys of all mains and services is recommended. The continuing improvement in gas safety standards should be sustained by independent monitoring of the gas utilities performance.

Independent monitoring is not provided for, and why not? Why should the Gas Company be allowed to continue to sell and distribute gas into Raglan House, Dolphin House, Oliver Bond House, Nicholas Street or anywhere else without some sort of independent overseeing as recommended in the report of the Minister's own task force? I am not saying that because of Raglan House, Dolphin House or Oliver Bond House. I was saying it before any of those explosions occurred. These matters should be in the Bill. There is no reason that there should not be a section dealing with the need for independent monitoring, with the emphasis on the word "independent".

Elsewhere in the report it is mentioned that certain measures should be considered, one of which being to prohibit portable LPG cylinders within certain buildings and to check, test and remedy gas installations within the buildings. There is no point in having such recommendations in the task force report if the legislation does not address them. It is all pie in the sky. Nobody will be compelled to do anything recommended in this report unless we in this House write it in to the legislation. We should do so because it is a serious matter.

In paragraph 2.4.2 it is stated:

Leak surveys should be carried out annually on all multi-storey buildings in piped gas areas until the incidence of leaks falls to one per ten buildings surveyed.

There is no mention of that in the legislation. The Bill is welcome but only in tandem with the Building Control Bill and I urge the Minister to ensure that it is passed before the summer recess. We will certainly facilitate the introduction of that legislation. There is also a need for a much strengthened Local Government (Multi-Storey Buildings) Bill.

On Committee Stage, I urge the Minister to take account of the matters raised here, and which were also raised by his task force report, and to strengthen the Bill so that people can sleep safely in their beds and that there will be no repetition of the tragedies. There is no point in making sympathetic speeches in the House in relation to tragedies — now is the time to consider the safety of people living in multi-storey buildings.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

I thank Deputies for their Second Stage contributions and by and large their recognition of the need for it.

The unfortunate natural gas explosion at Raglan House has been the major impetus for the Bill and, since that explosion, there have been three major reports, Cremer and Warner, VEG, and the task force on multi-storey buildings with extensive recommendations in relation to gas safety. A comprehensive ongoing monitoring system has been established between the Department of Energy and Bord Gáis Éireann to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in these reports. In addition, the Minister for Energy has appointed a technical officer of his Department to monitor and report on progress in these reports. The officer has been appointed on a full-time basis and significant progress has been made in implementing the recommendations.

I do not propose to go into detail about progress on individual recommendations except to say that special attention has been given to gas safety in multi-storey buildings, all of which have been surveyed, inside and out, and necessary repairs carried out. A survey around all apartment blocks has been completed. Nearly all mains in close proximity to buildings have been surveyed, as well as bridge crossings and main network value locations. Perhaps that is the cause of the holes to which Deputy Quinn referred but they are necessary to achieve what was required in so far as gas safety is concerned. A second survey of all other public buildings has started and the frequency of these surveys has exceeded the recommendations in the report.

The Minister for Energy assures me he is confident that a proper safety framework is now in place for gas distribution. It must, of course, be remembered that not all the responsibility for the safe management of natural gas — or other fuels — rests with the supplier of the fuel. The consumer has an important role to play by way of ensuring that fuels are used safely and that appliances are properly maintained. Many of the actions required under the Third Schedule of the Bill are specifically related to the safety of gas installations in those multi-storey buildings which require a certificate under the Bill. The owner, in consultation with his advisers, will be responsible for carrying out those actions which are necessary. In general, however, a major responsibility also lies with those who are responsible for the design, construction and maintenance of buildings to ensure that natural gas and other fuels are installed and used safely.

Deputies asked why the report concentrated on buildings of five or more storeys. The report by Cremer and Warner on the explosion at Raglan House recommended that the task force investigating multi-storey buildings should initially concentrate on buildings of five or more storeys and, depending on the findings, consider buildings of four or more storeys. The task force recommendations for appraisal referred only to buildings of five storeys or more. In framing their recommendations they considered the proposed building regulations, British and Irish codes of practice and standards, including Irish standard 325, Part I, which clearly distinguishes between buildings of up to four storeys and of five or more storeys. They also considered the amendment, in the aftermath of the Ronan Point explosion, of the United Kingdom building regulations relating to the design of buildings of five or more storeys (paragraph 5.5.3) of the task force report and the report which they commissioned from the joint engineering committee. The task force found no evidence to suggest that buildings of less than five storeys should be included in their findings and recommendations, a conclusion supported by the different treatment relating to the structure of buildings of less than five storeys and of five or more storeys in Part E of the proposed building regulations, that is, that part dealing with structural strength and stability.

Mr. G. Mitchell

That is following an increase in a country where they are used to high rise buildings.

Mr. Flynn

The question of pre-1950 buildings was raised and it should be noted that the joint engineering committee consider there is no evidence that post-1950 buildings generally are less robust than pre-1950 buildings. The task force share that view which is reflected in the proposed legislation and is concerned solely with particular construction forms about which the task force were concerned. The pre-1950 buildings would not have been constructed using any of the three construction forms of concern, and Deputy Quinn agreed in that regard. These are the only forms of construction which the task force considered it prudent to have appraised. I mention this because Deputy Keating was concerned about it.

The task force considered that there is no evidence of cause for general concern for earlier multi-storey buildings but the risk of accidental overload should, as with all buildings, be kept as low as possible. The question of voids under buildings was also raised. If a building cannot be certified as being built in accordance with codes and standards that take into account the issue of disproportionate collapse, with which this Bill is primarily concerned, then the owner and his consultant engineer will have to see that voids under the buildings are ventilated so that there cannot be a build-up of gas which could lead to an explosion. This is provided for in the Third Schedule of the Bill.

All the recommendations of the task force are being implemented between my Department and the Department of Energy. One of the most important recommendations, dealing with the structural quality and safety of buildings, is the amendment of Part E of the building regulations which has been completed, and I will be publishing it within days. All the recommendations from the task force are well advanced and a number of them, which require new codes of practice, have been taken up with the gas technical standards committee to have the codes and standards changed. Other recommendations requiring amendment to the proposed building regulations are also being implemented and, like Part E to which I referred earlier, the amendments will be published when finalised.

Mr. Quinn

There is still no Bill to give effect to them.

Mr. Flynn

The Bill is Item No. 27 on today's Order Paper and when the Whips agree to go ahead it will suit me.

Mr. Quinn

Even the Minister's charm has limits.

Mr. Flynn

I should like to be able to publish all the amendments together so that people who use the building regulations will not have to consult a whole series of documents. I can assure Deputy Quinn that all these matters are being dealt with. I does not matter whether it is through my charm, persuasion or perseverance, what I am concerned about is getting the job done in a satisfactory way in order that people would be able to consult a proper document to ensure that their buildings are built in accordance with proper standards.

Mr. Quinn

But no law to enforce it.

Mr. Flynn

As I have already told the Deputy, Committee Stage of this Bill is listed as Item No. 27 in today's Order Paper and I am ready to go whenever the Whips agree to take it.

Section 4 (3), which relates to the issuing of certificates, was referred to. I would like to state that a certificate must be provided for the entire building but in the case of multi-ownership it would be sufficient if one of the owners provided such a certificate. It would not be necessary for everyone who owns an apartment in a building to go out and get an independent certificate. Deputy Quinn seemed to feel that an undue cost burden would be placed on individuals who might have part ownership or multi-ownership of a major building.

Deputy Mitchell referred to the issuing of certificates for local authority buildings. It would not matter whether the competent person to sign the certificate is employed by the local authority or not. The person is defined specifically in the legislation as someone having particular qualifications. Where he works or whom he is employed by does not matter; it would not affect his professional competence to examine and certify a building. He has to be a competent person of a certain type and that gives the necessary credence to the certificate he would have to sign.

There was one matter raised by Deputy Quinn to which I should now refer. A number of other points were raised but really these were more appropriate to a Committee Stage debate and, rather than detain the House this evening, I will be quite happy on Committee Stage to deal with the definition of disproportionate collapse and all related matters as that is the right time in which to do so.

Deputy Quinn referred to the form of words used on the certificate. I would like to say to the Deputy that we gave to the engineers copies of the draft certificates at a meeting which we held with them at the beginning of the month of May. That meeting was held specifically to discuss the provisions contained in the Bill. At that meeting we provided copies of draft certificates. The only reply which we have received since then is the letter which was delivered today of which Deputy Quinn has a copy. They did make one comment——

Mr. Quinn

That letter does not refer to the certificates as such.

Mr. Flynn

No, but at that meeting we provided them with copies of draft certificates. I would be happier at this stage if they had responded and given an indication of what might be suitable in so far as they are concerned but to date they have not done so. I hope that they will do so in the immediate future.

At that meeting they said that they want to qualify any certificate to be signed with reference to what they had done during the appraisal. I would like to hear from them on what they would require and what they wish to see included in the certificate; but there would be a danger in allowing them to qualify the certificate which would be meaningless if qualified in a certain way. I would not be too willing to allow that to happen. However, if Deputy Quinn could use his influence to get an early response from them on what they would like to see included in the certificate I would be grateful to him.

Mr. Quinn

I will talk to them tomorrow.

Mr. Flynn

I would be grateful if the Deputy would. It could tidy up the Committee Stage and we would like to get the matter finalised. I am not going to refer to some of the points raised by Deputy Quinn as they are more suitable for discussion on Committee Stage. But he made one point in respect of the financial institutions requiring certificates and that point was also referred to by somebody else. Under the Bill a certificate would be required for the whole building. If someone who owns an apartment in a building wishes to sell it and the buyer or the loan company wants a certificate it would be adequate for the owner to produce a copy of the certificate provided for under the Bill. That might put to rest some of Deputy Quinn's objections.

Mr. Quinn

Suppose the loan company do not share the point of view and refuse to give the loan?

Mr. Flynn

I do not think that is going to happen.

Mr. Quinn

That is my fear.

Mr. Flynn

It is a hypothetical situation. This can be checked with the building societies, the banks and other financial institutions at a later date, but it has not been our experience that they would see as invalid a certificate which concerns the whole building. I do not see it as a difficulty but, now that the Deputy has raised it, I will consider it further.

Questions of definition were raised on what is the difference between "disproportionate collapse" and "progressive collapse." Let me say that that is a matter which could be raised on Committee Stage and I will deal with it at that time. However, I will have to respond to Deputy Mitchell's point on who is going to police the local authorities. Under the Bill the local authorities would be treated in exactly the same way as every other owner with the single exception that they would not have to notify themselves that a certificate is required. That would be unnecessary. The local authorities would have to get a certificate signed by a competent person as indicated in the legislation for any of the specified buildings in their own functional area just like any other owner. This information will be recorded in a register which will be open for inspection by any member of the public, and that is important. If any tenant in a local authority multi-storey building has any doubts, all that they would need do is consult the register when they would be able to see when the certificate was provided and who signed it. Of course, they would also be able to examine the certificate should he or she wish to do so. Members of the public will have much of their anxiety put to rest by the fact that they know they can go along and look at the register to see if a certificate of appraisal had been signed by a competent person in respect of their building.

Deputy Quinn referred to the Cremer and Warner report at length and was particularly critical of its structural section. He referred to it as being "weak" and "badly written." I am not going to challenge his attitude in this regard except to say that I do not know what is to be gained from carrying out a critical analysis of that report, unless of course he was defending some interests, which he is quite entitled to do. But he would at least have to agree that the intentions behind this legislation are good and that this point of view is shared by all of the other Deputies who contributed to this debate.

A considerable amount of anxiety has been expressed by many people on these matters over the past few years and I have been under some pressure for some time from many Deputies to bring in this legislation so that people's minds can be set at rest in so far as their homes are concerned. It means that individuals, be they in local authority tenancies or people who have purchased apartments in multi-storey buildings or whatever now can have recourse to a register which shows that their building is of a certain type of structure, has been appraised and, in effect, is safe to the degree that any building can be safe where maintenance of existing services is attended to in a proper way. I made the opening remark that, of course, there is a great obligation on individuals themselves, apart altogether from the nature of the building, to maintain the appliances they use to ensure that they are kept in proper condition. That is important also. Over and above that there is a genuine public demand that, as such, a register would be available for public examination, that competent people would be stating that buildings of a certain kind were safe and properly constructed.

In advance of all the certificates being issued — here I may be sticking my neck out somewhat — I share Deputy Quinn's view that the vast majority, if not all, of these buildings are well constructed. I would think that would be a fair comment, that the vast majority of these buildings have been constructed in a proper fashion, in accordance with a proper code of practice and so on. But, if there was just one building where there were voids, where gas could accumulate, or even one part of a building, that would justify the introduction of this Bill, to put the mind's of people living there at rest. I would not put a value on any life, even £20 million, in answer to Deputy Quinn.

There are not that many buildings in this country about which we must be concerned in the total in so far as multi-storey, over-five-storeys, are concerned. It is not a great burden on owners to incur the small expense involved in getting a competent person of the kind indicated in the provisions of the Bill to issue a certificate of appraisal. It gives the owner the comfort of knowing that when he has a property for sale it is saleable, that he can sell it as being structurally sound in accordance with good building practice and that it has been tested in every way possible to ascertain that it is robust.

There are advantages for all concerned, albeit with a little cost attached in so far as the competence certificate is concerned. In the long run, the public would think it incumbent on me to see to it that what was a very big scare in this city just a short time ago would be addressed finally by way of legislation to guarantee that proper certificates of appraisal are forthcoming for the types of buildings such as are intended to be covered under the provisions of this Bill.

I will be happy to give a complete breakdown of information on any other matters that may be raised on Committee Stage. I thank Members who contributed, those who welcomed the Bill. I hope that Deputy Quinn — who was not as forthcoming in his welcoming of the Bill — can be convinced that there was a need for it and that its introduction emanated from a genuine response to that need.

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Mr. Flynn

Tuesday next, subject to agreement between the Whips.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 14 June 1988 subject to agreement between the Whips.