We have amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Quinn. We also have amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Keating. Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 are related.
Local Government (Multi-Storey Buildings) Bill, 1988: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, subsection (1) (a), line 20, to delete "or" and substitute "and".
This amendment relates to the definition of a competent person and it is a response to representations I have had from the Association of Consulting Engineers, the body representing the people who in respect of the structural stability of buildings would be the persons who would be described as competent persons. They are asking that a competent person would be a person who has had experience in structural design and appraisal of multi-storey buildings. Structural design, as the House will accept, is a multi-disciplinary type of activity in that there are many different kinds of structural designs ranging from roads, to bridges and so forth. The experience in the structural design of multi-storey buildings should be combined with some experience of the appraisal of multi-storey buildings. This would limit to a degree the number of people who would be described as being competent but the amendment has been suggested to me by the body representing those people who will have the responsibility to make this unnecessary legislation work. I would ask the Minister to be generous in his response as this amendment does not effectively alter the definition. To some extent it ameliorates the very different concerns of the people who will have to make this legislation work.
I support Deputy Quinn's amendment. The Minister is aware from representations made publicly and privately by the Engineers' Associations of the concern that this Bill will not work. It is accepted that there is a great deal of goodwill on the part of the Government in bringing forward this Bill, but the Engineers' Associations made a very strong case as recently as last Sunday on the radio that they are most concerned that the Bill will make a bad situation worse and that it has tackled the problem in the wrong way. In terms of the wishes for some amendments by the engineering associations, the Minister should be very forthcoming on this because, as Deputy Quinn pointed out, they are the people who are being asked to undertake what they see as an impossible job. They need every possible assistance if this Bill is to have any chance of working. I suspect that we might end up before very long back in this House changing this Bill drastically because it is unworkable.
I support Deputy Quinn in his amendment. It is a minor amendment in some ways but it would strengthen that clause by ensuring that the people doing that inspection would have a very broad ranging expertise not only in structural design but also in the appraisal of multi-storey buildings.
This point was raised on Second Stage and I considered it. I do not see this legislation as being in any way contentious and I want to be as helpful as possible. This legislation is trying to satisfy a requirement which at the time of these disasters seemed necessary. The Bill is limited in scope. It is only seeking to do one thing in so far as the structural safety of certain kinds of buildings are concerned. I went into all that before in relation to the difference between progressive collapse and disproportionate collapse. We have come up with the right formula here. A competent person in relation to the structural appraisal of a building is defined in this legislation as a chartered engineer who has experience in the structural design or appraisal of multi-storey buildings. To require experience of design and appraisal would have been unnecessarily limiting and Deputy Quinn accepts that. As far as I was concerned that might have led to an unnecessary shortage of persons who could have issued the certificates. I was trying to be as accommodating as I could so far as the associations and the professional groups are concerned, to keep it as wide as possible and not to limit it.
Deputy Quinn made the point that the limiting factor of doing what is suggested here now might not be in the long term best interests of those people who are seeking it. It must be remembered that a chartered engineer will have a third level degree course, but in addition to that he will normally have about four years of practical experience as well. On the basis of the definition in the Bill he must also have experience of the structural design of multi-storey buildings. All these things are limiting in their own way. We are getting down to a small number of people and I am trying to leave it as broad as possible within that framework to enable them to make these certificates available. I am satisfied that such engineers — the type that have been suggested here in the interpretation of a chartered engineer with the kind of experience I have mentioned — are competent to discharge the function required under the Bill. I fail to understand the implications in the amendment that this might not be so because it says that certain people might not be competent to do the job, but I do not accept that.
That is what I am saying.
An engineer may have experience of design and of building generally but not of multi-storey buildings. He could also have experience of appraisal of buildings, including multi-storey buildings. If that amendment were passed, as suggested, then such an engineer would not qualify under the Bill and that would limit it still further. That would not be in the best interests of having the legislation implemented. For that reason I fail to see a good argument to accept the Deputy's amendment.
If this Bill was to be confined exclusively to chartered engineers in the Republic of Ireland and in the United Kingdom — there is a certain degree of interconnection between both associations — then the standards of competence, training and experience to which the Minister has referred would be accurate but, as he would be the first to recognise, within a period of less than three years the boundaries, the definitions and the territorial exclusivity of practising professionals will be removed following the completion of the internal market and we will have a much wider range of diversity in relation to chartered engineers.
One of the implications of 1992, from the point of view of professional recognition, is that a chartered engineer anywhere in the Community from the Peloponnesus back up to the north of Denmark and from the north of Scotland down to Portugal will qualify. We will have a situation where any engineer in any part of the Community representing 320 million people can come in and sign a certificate stating that this building is competent. This is the first instance, in my immediate experience in this House, where the practical realities of 1992 are beginning to dawn. I want to ensure that we will avoid the potential abuses that that lowering of standards will imply.
With regard to professional architectural and engineering standards, there is no doubt that the current standards of professional practice and qualifications pertaining in the Republic and in the United Kingdom are higher than in a number of the other European countries. That is a matter about which I do not want to be contentious, because I welcome 1992. What I am trying to say is that in this regard we are asking for a competent person to have not only the necessary formal qualifications but experience in relation to structural design and the appraisal. As I said on the Second Stage debate — I am not going to refer at length in relation to this matter — you are asking people to diagnose after the event if a building has been satisfactorily constructed. It is like asking a chef to diagnose from the end product whether a particular meal, cake or product has been cooked, baked or made strictly in accordance with the written recipe. Without actually putting a laser cut through a section of the building, it is very hard for that to be done. A person must have the direct experience of building multi-storey buildings and appraising them — the two go hand in hand. This is not a political amendment put in for the sake of trying to improve the legislation, which has been drafted by technical people in the first instance and by the people in the Department of the Environment. I have already indicated to the House where the amendment has come from. It has been suggested by the very people who will have to give effect to this legislation. While in theory it would limit the number of people who would be available in this State to serve as competent persons, in terms of distorting the market so that there would be a monetary gain for those people who would be able to combine both combinations of experience, that of appraisal and of structural design, I do not think it would have that effect. If the Minister is so motivated, as I suspect he might be, I will support his concern that this limiting amendment would have a distortion effect on price and would drive up the cost of professional fees. However, I do not think it will have that effect.
In response to what the Minister has said, standards throughout the Community will be uneven after 1992. The standards of a chartered engineer, as we have traditionally come to know them in this country, will no longer apply after 1992 and there is nothing we will be able to do in respect of this legislation. Therefore, I suggest that we should have this combination of experience and appraisal in relation to design. If the fear of the Minister is that this may have an impact on the cost of professional fees, and consequently on the cost of the end user, by getting a competent person — so now defined if the amendment is accepted — then I do not think that that would be the case.
I take the point made by Deputy Quinn. I suppose after 1992 there will be so many changes in the technical engineering and financial world that we are only beginning to see through the window as to what will happen. So far as I am concerned, I sincerely hope that all these certificates will have been furnished long before 1992. If they have not, the whole thing will have failed.
They will not be furnished.
Between now and 1992 I think that the certificates of appraisal that would be required will, as far as I am concerned, have already been discharged and have been submitted to the local authorities and the registers will be there by that time. Any limitation on the number of people capable or, indeed, competent to do their job would involve not just the cost element, which I did consider. It is a fact that has to be taken into account and could cause further delays than those which would be inevitable in some of these matters, and it would also be an inhibiting factor. I am satisfied that the chartered engineers, as I have outlined, can do the job before 1992.
I will not make any comment as to whether Irish chartered engineers are more competent than anybody else. I take it that in the fullness of time, as in many of the other professions which are being considered now, in the framing of new directives under the EC there will be comparative standards applied throughout the Community. I can see that that will not happen in 1992. There will be much discussion about that before it is applied. We have seen the same argument put forward as far as nursing and medical qualifications are concerned. I think we are a bit down the road from that. I do not see that as a good argument for seeking this amendment, particularly when one considers the provision that is made for providing these certificates. Under section 4 of the legislation they will be superseded before very long by the Building Control Bill when it is passed by the Dáil. That, as I told the Deputy some time ago, is on Committee Stage. We have had enough of delays waiting for further control measures to be introduced. This can go on and we can keep adding on to such measures.
I would be much happier if we were discussing that Bill instead of the measure that is before the House.
We should get on with that matter in the autumn and get it off the agenda. Then, it takes over all questions as far as such certificates are concerned. We are talking about a limited provision to deal with a problem that arose. In my view this is a good way to do that. I do not want to limit the type of engineers but the amendment would do that. The type of chartered engineer we are talking about, a person with experience following years of practice in structural design of the type of buildings we are talking about, will do the right job as far as I am concerned. I should like to ask the Deputy not to press the amendment.
How does the Minister envisage the competence of these chartered engineers being checked? Does he envisage local authorities setting up a register of people who will be acceptable or does he envisage them examining the competence of the person who will hand in the certificate? I notice that the Minister does not make it an offence to submit a certificate without having the said competence. How does the Minister see this provision being put into effect?
I do not see any difficulty in so far as the legislation states the type of person we are talking about. I have every confidence in the associations of the various professional groups to indicate that those people are competent, just as I have in the medical profession. They are either qualified, with certain experience, or they are not. In my view the profession would be in a difficult position if they allowed themselves to have members sign certificates that were inaccurate or illegal. I do not see this as a problem and that is probably the reason the profession have taken such a keen interest in this. It will be their members who will be signing the certificate and their professional credibility will be on the line.
Is the Minister saying that the professional organisations will, effectively, be establishing some type of register to put this provision into effect? Presumably, as experience is a very elastic concept, somebody will have to decide when a person is experienced. How do we, in effect, say how that will be decided? Is it up to the engineer to look into his heart and decide he is so qualified? Does the Minister envisage that the liability the engineer would incur if he certified it without adequate experience is the effect of policing?
No, that is covered in the legislation. The certifier will be required to state that he is qualified, in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, to do the job. If he makes a false statement then the penalties in the legislation apply. The certificate, as I pointed out last week, is open for public inspection. I was very anxious to have the provision in the legislation so that they would be available for everybody to see. In the certificate the certifier will be stating he is a qualified person. In my view simple professional etiquette would require that he is such a person. If it is established on inspection of the local authority register that he is not, then the penalties apply.
The point being made by Deputy Bruton is a valid one. The section refers to a person who "has experience in the structural design". The Minister should not think for one moment that any Member on this side of the House is questioning the expertise and ability of the engineers of the country because that is far from the position. In fact, it is a measure of their very high standards that they are so intensely critical of the Bill and doubtful about whether its provisions are workable. They know the pitfalls and that is why they are raising objections, despite the fact that they would stand to benefit greatly financially because of all the extra work that will arise at a time when there are so many problems in the construction industry. Suddenly, they will be handed a lot of extra work, plus fees, but they are saying they do not want it, that it is not possible to do this. I should like to know who will evaluate the experience? Which body will say that an individual has enough experience to be a certifier? Will it be left to the engineering body or a local authority?
Before we dwell on section 1 proper I should like the House to concentrate on Deputy Quinn's amendment and dispose of it.
The level of experience necessary is not specified because it is considered impracticable to include such a definition in the legislation. For example, does five years experience mean five years continuous experience or to have had some experience from at least five years ago? In any event, the type of training and education received by engineers together with the practical experience necessary for them to become chartered, is adequate and equips them to do the job. I do not see any argument in that. If engineers have that type of experience, training and skills and become chartered I cannot see how they cannot be regarded as competent to deal with the matter. The question of whether they want to do the work is a different matter. In this section we are referring to certain types of people having the competence to sign certificates. This section outlines the experience and qualifications they have to have. I do not want to put a limiting amendment into this section that may mean less people, more cost, bigger delays and the job not being done any better.
Is the amendment being pressed?
It is obvious that the Minister is not disposed to accept my amendment but I will not put it to a division.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
We will now deal with amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Keating. Here I observe that amendments Nos. 6 and 10 are related and that amendment No. 17 is consequential on No. 6. I am suggesting, therefore, that we debate Nos. 2, 6, 10 and 17 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"(d) in relation to the provision of electricity into a multi-storey building, a chartered engineer or electrical contractor entered on a register of electrical contractors who has experience of the design or distribution of electrical services by reference to the appropriate codes of practice and standards as set down by the Electro-technical Council of Ireland or equivalent codes of practice and standards recognised in another Member State of the European Community, as specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act;".
I am happy that the House is taking the amendments together and I should like to appeal to the House for support for what is a very fundamental issue. The Bill before us is the legislative response of the Government to a specific incident but it affords us an ideal opportunity to deal in a comprehensive way with serious problems in relation to the potential which exists for explosions and fire in such buildings. The purpose of amendment No. 2 is to facilitate an arrangement whereby we could have the same standard of inspection for electrical supply as we have in the Bill for gas supply. The reason for my concern is simple. There is a number, probably running into double figures, of people in this country who die every year on account of fires caused by electrical failure. It is very difficult to pin down the figures. The certified figures amount to about half a dozen but they do not include all the available figures. This is the first Bill under which we have had the opportunity of doing something about that problem.
I want to explain briefly to the House the present arrangement in relation to the installation of electrical wiring. I am not saying that this is the norm. Most people engaged in this industry are legitimate and genuine. I was interested to hear Fine Gael's justified concern with regard to certifying standards of competence for adjudication in relation to the first amendment we dealt with. There is no certification of any kind in the area of electrical safety. We should bear in mind that there cannot be a gas explosion without some form of ignition or some form of spark. It seems that the two are inextricably bound up together
Any individual who perhaps does not even know an electrical plug from an electric kettle can walk into an ESB store and ask for, and on occasion has received, what is known as a completion certificate, a small pink slip which, when it is signed, the ESB accept for the purposes of giving electrical supply to a house or a building. The problem is that there is no policing of this arrangement. The ESB have expressly written into their rules for accepting those certificates the clear statement that they do not accept any responsibility for the quality or safety of the wiring which they say is the consumer's own responsibility. The ESB are not required to ensure that an installation is safe before connecting up to the national grid. Unfortunately, as in every area where there is an opportunity for the rogue, a number of people have got involved in this area and because they are completely unpoliced and in some cases unqualified or under-qualified they are likely to get business because their costs are lower. On occasions they have done significant wiring installations in private homes and in some cases in blocks of dwellings.
I am not saying that all electrical contractors are engaged in this abuse. The vast majority of them are genuine people and have a pride in their standards. The public believe that the ESB give supply on the basis that the wiring is safe. I want this Bill, in the case of multi-storey buildings at least, to ensure that we can deal with that. The ESB give no such guarantee. They have written into their rules that that is the consumer's responsibility. We know from experience that there have been many occasions on which such wiring has been grossly defective and dangerous and has caused fires despite the fact that it was carried out on the basis of a completion certificate signed by the person who did the work, and who need not be qualified in order to get the certificate, and accepted by the ESB who say that it is not their responsibility. I have taken the liberty this morning of bringing into the House a number of pieces of wiring which has been installed into private homes in this context. I am not going to make a big play of it.
It would be inappropriate and unprecedented that we should have anything like a demonstration in the House of the kind contemplated by the Deputy.
With respect, it is not unprecedented.
The Chair is the judge of those matters.
I distinctly remember the incidents and I can draw them to your mind if you wish. I remember the former Deputy Myra Barry very effectively bringing in a basket of groceries but I am not doing that. I am not making a big play of it.
That may have happened but it does not necessarily mean that it was correct or proper at that time.
I see nothing wrong with bringing in something to illustrate my point but I am not pressing it.
I do not think the Deputy will be allowed to press it.
I am making the point clearly, and I do not intend to be dissuaded from it, that these are examples of wiring in respect of which completion certificates were signed alleging that they were installed properly and in respect of which the ESB gave supply. In those examples there is fundamentally incorrect wiring which would facilitate in some cases overheating and overloading, embody very bad practice and, in short, would lead to fires which would cause deaths. That is the present arrangement in relation to electrical supply in this country. This is not the ideal Bill for dealing with this issue but it is very relevant to it. It deals with the adequacy of supply in terms of gas availability for these buildings. Unless there is a spark there cannot be an explosion. A simple electrical switch creates the opportunity for a spark and if the wiring is wrong there could be an explosion.
I want the Minister to accept the spirit of these amendments. I do not mind about the wording of them; I am not the draftsman. I want to ensure that the cowboy operators in the electrical supply area are prevented from operating and I want it done now. I assume that, on the basis of our concern about professional standards, I would have a broad base of support in the House, including from the Minister's party. The issue is very important. It is a question of life and death, the same as the basis for this Bill. The present arrangement is highly unsatisfactory. I am not going to dwell on this matter too long but I just want to make the point that even in internal documents in the ESB's operation procedures there are clear and very explicit references to their non-acceptance of any responsibility for the safety of the wiring of an electrical supply. There are circumstances in which they accept that it may not even be necessary to have a completion certificate in cases of urgency, which we cannot fault them for. The certificate is in some cases worthless because it allows the person to certify in all cases. I do not know if that is satisfactory, particularly when there is no policing of the arrangement whereby those certificates are available. I am very adamant that this matter must be dealt with. If we had building regulations I presume it would be dealt with there but because there are no such regulations it is even more imperative that we deal with it at every opportunity we get. At present there is an abuse of the system and unfortunately people have died from fires as a result of faulty wiring.
The amendment is based on the fact that most consumers believe that when they get supply the wiring is presumably safe. There is no such guarantee, either implicit or otherwise. The ESB say quite specifically that that is the individual's concern and that they are not interested. Perhaps that is being a little harsh on them. They want to do the job and I am not blaming them for not doing it. They are not statutorily obliged to do it and the Government have not asked them to do it.
Amendment No. 2 is a logical extension of a set of provisons which the Minister has asked us to accept, which seek, in relation to the structure of a building, the inspection of a chartered engineer who is experienced in that area, in relation to the installation of gas in a multi-storey building, a chartered engineer who is experienced in that area and in relation to the distribution of gas in the vicinity of a building, a similar form of inspection. I am asking that in relation to the provision of electricity to that building there be similarly a provision which requires some form of registered electrical contractors who are qualified and able to do the task. It is not a peripheral matter but fundamentally a matter of life and death. It is a major omission in the present arrangements governing buildings, the structure of buildings and the supply of services at present available in this country and I cannot over-emphasise it.
I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy but I want to dissuade him from making what is tantamount to a Second Reading speech on Committee Stage of the Bill.
I hope I am not doing that.
You are going on over-long, Deputy.
I am on the amendment. I want to press this point as hard as I can. I am very strongly committed to what I am trying to achieve here. Amendment No. 6 to section 3 raises the same topic and is an equally fundamental point. The concern expressed by a variety of interests and bodies, and most forcibly by Deputy Quinn on Second Stage and by the Association of Consultant Engineers, is that if the purpose of this Bill is to try to ensure that the incidents which gave rise to this Bill cannot recur, there is no point creating an arrangement where there is an inspection of buildings, if possible deficiencies in the gas supply system, which could give rise to an explosion, are not dealt with at the same time. If there is an explosion it does not matter how structurally sound is a building. It is important to refer to the report of the task force on multi-storey buildings. They say explicitly in their recommendations it is important that deficiencies in the gas supply system be dealt with.
There is no harm saying, in passing, that the basis of this Bill could be open to query on the basis of unsatisfactory data collection on multi-storey buildings. There was no response from many people to whom questionnaires were sent. I want to ask the Minister a question: when the task force were doing this work, they asked the local authorities for their observations on the Bill. I was very startled to hear some authorities did not even bother to reply. A total of 425 questionnaires were returned. Does the Minister have power to compel local authorities, who are supposed to be answerable to him, to answer a questionnaire sent out in his name? Many of the replies were unsatisfactory and, as far as I am concerned, many local authorities are out of control. If we cannot even get a simple response to a questionnaire affecting public safety, how can we be sure about the integrity of the measures now being proposed on the basis of that research?
May I appeal to the Deputy not to stray too far from the amendments before us?
Would the Chair repeat the numbers of the amendments we are taking together?
Certainly. I understood we had agreement to debate amendments Nos. 2, 6, 10 and 17 together.
Amendment No. 6 to section 3 seeks to insert in the Bill, "the supplies of gas and electricity to the building are provided in accordance with the appropriate codes of practice". If that does not happen, what we are doing is creating a legislative device which allows appraisal of the building structurally but which may not deal with the fundamental problem of standards of supply. It is the latter that will give rise to explosions. Some way has to be found of dealing with the admitted deficiencies in that supply system where it is clear that we are, to some extent, out of line with standards in Europe.
There is a set of recommendations on pages 4 and 5 of the report of the task force on multi-storey buildings which point to fundamental problems in that supply. According to these experts some 20 per cent of the gas service pipes in Dublin alone should be replaced over the next four or five years, and be subject to further reviews. They say that having regard to the absence of significant mains renewal work over the past ten years or more in Dublin, it is recommended that 15 per cent of the Dublin network should be replaced in accordance with specified criteria and so on. They talk about leak surveys, data collection inadequacies and raise a series of very serious questions about gas supply.
If this Bill is designed to deal with the risk of potential explosions in these buildings, how can we pretend that the gas supply network, the basis for potential explosions, can be forgotten, that we can turn away and say that is another day's work. That is the purpose of the amendment. I am open to any wording the Minister might suggest. I am not pretending my amendments are the last word nor do I see it as my job on Committee Stage to suggest perfect wording.
Amendment No. 17 arises from the other amendments. If one accepts the provisions I am arguing for, one would logically have to provide a set of provisions in accordance with which those installations should take place. I am suggesting that that would be the national rules for electrical installations published by the Electro-technical Council of Ireland in 1984 and its amendments and revisions. I am open to suggestions if there are better European or other standards about which I am not aware.
The essence of my contribution is this: electrical supply is equally important to gas supply in terms of potential for loss of life. The evidence shows there is an inherent weakness in the system — I am not blaming the ESB for that — and that it has cost lives. It is important that those matters be rectified, that deficiencies in the gas supply system and the appalling potential for abuse in the electrical supply system be dealt with. This Bill is the first opportunity we have had to deal with these matters. If my suggestions are incorporated in this Bill, these matters will be dealt with in the context of buildings which fall under the ambit of this Bill. I am making a very strong case that that should be done.
Before the Minister says, as I suspect he may, that this is not the appropriate vehicle for looking at electricity safety, it appears that this issue falls between all stools. Recently on the ESB Bill I tabled an amendment asking him to consider requiring the ESB to use their powers to deal with this problem but he rejected the amendment for no good reason. The Minister for the Environment has responsibility for the general safety of the housing network — I fear he will again say this is not the appropriate vehicle to raise this matter — and although the ESB have powers under the legislation they do not seem to see this as their primary concern and do not wish to go beyond the meter and into the safety aspect of the buildings.
While the Minister may argue that this is not the appropriate vehicle to raise this subject, this is a real issue which needs to be dealt with. This legislation was introduced because of an accident and pointed up the fact that safety was no one's first concern and in that case it was a litany of failures in safety regulations. This electricity issue looks like another area which State agencies do not see as their primary business, and as a result it has fallen from public attention. There is a problem to be addressed here, if not today then on another occasion.
Amendment No. 6 seeks to broaden the appraisal to the supply of gas rather than simply the structure of the building. Even in the narrow context of the building, the task force drew attention to items such as the assumption by Irish codes of practice that there would be one air change per hour. They drew attention to the fact that there can be inadequate flues provided in buildings, and particularly in apartment buildings. This can be a problem. As I see it, the issue of ventilation will only be addressed under this Bill if there is a danger of the progressive collapse of the structure. It will not be addressed in any other circumstance. I wonder whether we should exclude examination of the items listed in Schedule III when examining five-storey buildings.
Deputy Keating recognises that this is not the appropriate legislation for this. He admitted it.
I did not quite do that.
It is conceded also by Deputy Bruton. I can understand the level of concern about this matter but it is not appropriate to this legislation. This matter was mentioned to me before and discussed at some length on Second Stage. It is appropriate to warn people about the need for proper electrical installations, not just in five-storey buildings but in all buildings. I have no complaint with that. It is right that public representatives should draw attention to this matter. I am concerned about it too, and about the code of practice and the standards in all buildings, not just multi-storey buildings. While I can sympathise with some of the remarks, this legislation does not cater for such matters. Both the Long Title and the Short Title of the Bill make it clear that it is a response to the recommendations of the task force in relation to the safety of the structure of multi-storey buildings. The Bill is not a suitable vehicle for dealing with building services. There is a distinction between structural matters and services.
All we are asking is that the Minister convey his concern to the Minister for Energy, who does not seem to share it.
The task force made no recommendations relating to the influence of electrical services on building structures. I do not concede the argument about flawed electrical installations on which the proposed amendments are based, but in any event a Bill dealing only with multi-storey buildings would not be the appropriate vehicle to deal with such concerns, even if they were valid.
All the task force recommendations concerning existing structures, multi-storey building design and gas matters are being dealt with positively, as instanced by this Bill. Progress is being made in implementing the gas-related regulations.
It is accepted that accidents happen because of fire. Many such fires are the result of faulty electrical appliances being put on the market. The fault does not attach to the electrical supply but rather to the appliance. Undoubtedly fires cause damage and loss of life but very often they do not affect the structure of building. When an electrical appliance goes wrong and causes a fire in which somebody dies, the structure of the building does not collapse.
I am sure that is a great relief to the person who is dying.
I agree that it is no comfort, but let us get the problem in proportion. The legislation deals with structures rather than services. We are talking about a structure which collapsed due to a different problem. This is the problem with which the Cremer and Warner report was concerned.
Section I deals with gas.
One hundred per cent of the 29 Cremer and Warner recommendations relating to gas have been completed. That was a publicly declared schedule. Some elements concerning training, public awareness and on-going activities of that kind are not complete. There were ten short-term VEG recommendations and they are 90 per cent complete. The remainder are expected to be complete in about a month's time. The medium and long-term recommendations are in progress and will all be complete within the three-year time frame laid down. There were 30 task force recommendations related to the Dublin Gas network. There were procedural improvements and a whole range of other things. I understand they are 60 per cent complete and that the longer term recommendations by the task force will all be in place within the three year time schedule.
That could not be. Is the Minister saying the whole network will be replaced in the next three years?
The short-term ones are already in place and it is indicated to me that all the recommendations will have been put in place within a three-year timescale.
The second survey, related to the entire 2,600 kilometres of the network, is complete. The third survey of the network is planned for the second half of this year. The survey to which the Deputy did not refer is the 120,000 services survey which I understand is well in hand. Its projected timescale for completion is before the end of next year. A fourth survey deals with apartment blocks and it has also been completed. Nearly all the gas mains in close proximity to buildings have been surveyed, as well as the bridge crossings, a particularly difficult job, and the main valve connections and locations. There was a second survey on public buildings, which I understand has started but has not been completed. The frequency of these surveys is in accordance with the recommendations of the reports that came to us and were acted on with all expedition. As far as I am concerned, Dublin Gas has established for itself a solid data base on the conditions of the network and that will be improved upon in time. Good progress has been made as far as that is concerned.
We are talking here about structures, about certain types of buildings, not services. The long and short Titles do not include that and, consequently, I cannot accept these amendments and the Deputy who put them down knew that. All I can say is, and I think he will be satisfied with this, that I recognise what he says is a matter of concern to him——
Not to me but to many thousands of people.
It is a matter of concern to the House and, if he can take it in good faith, I see it as a matter of concern to myself. If he would like I will take the points made by him, some of the examples quoted by him — for example, certificates of competence and completion certificates — and speak to my colleague in Energy, who has direct responsibility for these matters. Of course, I would expect the Deputy himself to take a suitable opportunity in the House here, whether it is on the Estimate for the Department of Energy, at Question Time or on Private Members' Business, which would be an excellent time to raise this matter——
Is the Minister offering some of his time for that?
I am not offering the Deputy anything. I am just putting it to the Deputy — and the Ceann Comhairle should be doing this — that there are vehicles which would enable the Deputy to have quite a wide discussion on this aspect in isolation from all other matters instead of raising it in an inappropriate way at this time, because it is not relevant under this legislation. I will be supportive of the Deputy's point of view in putting the matter to my colleague and I suggest that the Deputy would take other time that might be available to him in the House in order to discuss it.
Let us dispose of this question of the inappropriateness of it. What I said was that it was not necessarily an ideal vehicle in the sense that it is not exclusively designed to cope with questions of electrical and gas safety. It is perfectly appropriate to deal with questions of safety of electrical and gas supply in buildings which are being treated of in this Bill, that is, multi-storey buildings, particularly when there is a specific reference in section 1(1)(c) to the question of gas supply. Therefore, there is nothing inappropriate about it. It is not just appropriate; it is urgent and necessary. The Minister asked me to have good faith. I learned at school years ago that basically faith without good works did not boil down to a great deal. If I am not to press the Minister on this I want an express commitment from him. I have a great deal of regard for the Minister but I am not going to go down on my knees with thanks because he said he would speak to his colleague. I expect he will do that because he is a concerned public representative. What I want to know is when this House will have a comprehensive response, and a legislative response if it is appropriate, to the serious issue involved here. I want the time for that. Otherwise, I will just have to press my case.
If I were the Minister for Energy I would be happy to discuss this with the Deputy.
This is the Minister's Bill.
It does not deal with services.
It does deal with services. It deals with gas supply.
The Deputy is right on this one. The Building Controls Bill is the right place for it, but it could be taken here.
The Building Controls Bill does not take it in here and does not take it in in other jurisdictions either, and Deputy Quinn knows it is because the local authority is not competent in the implementation of services of that kind.
Precisely the reason I am pressing this matter here this morning is because it will not come up in the building regulations. When will it come up? If I had the feeling that there was a Bill down the line in a few months' time that would deal with this, I might not be putting this case. But there is no Bill, not just on the horizon but in any part of the circumferences of the legislative globe, and I do not believe there is any intent to bring in such a Bill. I just want to clear up the point.
The Deputy knows it is not for me to bring in such a Bill.
The Minister has brought in a Bill here this morning which seeks to deal with gas supply. Section 1(1)(c) says that "in relation to the distribution of gas in the vicinity of, or the provision of gas services into, a multi-storey building, a chartered engineer who has experience in the design or appraisal of gas distribution systems ..." etc. If I were, for example, to seek to delete the word "gas" and insert the word "electricity" it would be perfectly in order. It is the Minister's Bill, so I submit that it is a Bill which deals with services. Electricity is a service and it is not a service which is fundamentally different. I have made the point, although I have no technical qualification in this respect, that if there was all the gas in the world in a cavity under a building, nothing would happen unless there was an igniting mechanism of some kind and that can only be an electrical spark, so it is germane and as far as I am concerned it is very important and we should treat of it in this Bill. The only dissatisfaction I have is that if the Minister accepted this amendment it would not deal with all buildings throughout the State but at least would deal with these.
The second point I want to make is that the Minister gave a blanket assurance about the surveys that were carried out and the recommendations being implemented. There has been some progress, and so there should have been. If some of us had had our way, the people who oversaw that regulatory vacuum would have been dealt with very severely. The fact that that series of omissions, which it has now been attempted to rectify, has existed for years is a disgrace. The facts are that the recommendations in the report of the task force on multi-storey buildings will not be implemented in three years, regardless of what the Minister has been told, and I assume he has been told by the Gas Company.
I would draw the Minister's attention to two or three paragraphs. Under gas safety, on page 2 of the report, it is stated, just in case we have any bland assurances accepted in the House, that there is a lack of the necessary technical information on which to make a comprehensive assessment of the state of the gas distribution system generally and that 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. If one flicks over to page 4 there are a number of recommendations, and I am not going to read them all because it would take too long. They include a specific recommendation that 15 per cent of the Dublin network should be replaced. They include the recommendation that some 20 per cent of gas service pipes in Dublin should be replaced over the next four or five years. They include the recommendation that leak surveys of all mains services should be undertaken; and some of that, but not all, has been done. It is recommended that they should be carried out annually on all multi-storey buildings. That is not in the Bill and will not be in the Bill and will not be done. Data collection, the targets to be achieved, the use of new materials and technology, a change from the old system of piping that was there — all these things are not going to be done in the next three years, or ever, unless we make some attempt to change the Bill along the lines I have suggested.
I am not pretending I have all the answers either. We are just making an honest attempt here to deal with central issues. The facts are that, as the Association of Engineers said, in the Minister's report, which is just over one year old, 30 recommendations were made relating to the gas supply system and only one relating to structure. That is the Bill that should be here this morning — one on gas supply, not one on structure. There is no evidence whatever that structure is a widespread problem; and it would not be a problem at all if the Government had acted in relation to the building regulations, making sure that building was done in accordance with certain standards. So, the urgency is in the area of supply of gas and electricity, both of which together, in the present environment, facilitate the kind of tragedy we saw and will continue to see unless we get some form of commitment; and those recommendations, which are being nibbled at by the services, will not be implemented unless the Government take action.
Just to give the Minister one final example before I sit down of how inadequate those services are, the Gas Company in Dublin and the local authority in Dublin have only begun to talk to each other. They are so ill-integrated that at present there is hardly a street in Dublin that does not have an opening of some kind made by the Gas Company, and the reason they do not want to have absolute completion on those and to clean the street and allow it to revert to the jurisdiction of the local authority is than then they get a bill from the local authority. I understand that at present the Gas Company owe £2 million to the local authority. It is incredible that in a city of our size — and this would not be tolerated in any other city in the world — all of the different utilities do their own thing. One roadway at the back of this building was dug up over 70 times in a two-year period and yet I am supposed to accept assurances about the capacity of these utilities to provide a safe supply. I will not and the Minister should not either. I am pressing this amendment.
This Bill is based on information received in replies to a questionnaire set out by the Minister. Why did the Minister not insist that the local authorities answer this questionnaire and answer it satisfactorily? Has the Minister the power to do this and, if not, is he going to take it? If the local authorities do not comply with a request from the Minister how can we expect the ordinary person who has no statutory obligations to do so? Why did the local authorities not answer the Minister's questionnaire?
May I put the question?
There is no point in getting too excited about this, Deputy Keating.
I am not getting excited about this.
The Deputy obviously has a very deep concern about some of these matters and I think there will be an appropriate time when he will be able to make that concern known.
When?
If the Deputy wants to make statements about certain things that is a matter for him. All I am saying is that I am concerned with the safety of structures and buildings. I hope it will not happen, but if there should be a gas explosion I hope a building will be able to withstand that explosion. This matter has been discussed in this House on many other occasions, during debates on other legislation and on motions, and I suggest that this is not the time to do so. It was never intended that all the network would be replaced immediately and the Deputy is aware of this——
I did not say that.
The Deputy asked a simple question——
The Minister should not misconstrue what I said.
The Deputy asked if the pipes have been replaced and what I am saying is that a replacement programme was drawn up which was to be carried out over a number of years——
The Minister said three years.
——with a specific percentage of the network to be replaced over recommended periods. That is being complied with fully. By way of information, over 30 kilometres of mains have been replaced, including the Bray line and the Grand Canal project. As I understand it, Dublin Gas are well on target to replace over 80 kilometres of the network this year. About 2,500 services have been replaced so far this year and accordingly progress on replacement, both mains and services, is ahead of the targets set down by the task force. The Deputy may think that this is not adequate but at least they are ahead of the targets set out in the reports.
I would also point out to the Deputy that there is fire safety legislation in place, the Fire Services Act, 1981, and fire officers are inspecting public buildings for fire risks. I recognise the Deputy's concern and I appreciate how he feels that something should be done about the problem which he has highlighted but it is not for the Minister for the Environment to initiate such moves. Can the Deputy not leave it at that? I may very well share the Deputy's concern and hope that an initiative may be taken in respect of some of these matters but I am not conceding the point to him as it is not for the Minister for the Environment to deal with the matter. What we are talking about is ensuring that structures will be able to withstand disproportionate collapse following a gas explosion. That is why the reference to gas is in the legislation. What I am concerned about is whether a structure is strong enough to withstand a gas explosion and what we are talking about now is the safety of structures.
What about the local authorities.
As far as I am concerned, the local authorities will not deal with this matter as they are not competent enough to deal with matters in regard to electrical installations and gas. We should not seek to give local authorities the authority to deal with something which they have no competence in and I am not going to do so.
Normally, the Minister is very sharp and on the ball and listens very carefully but this morning I think his mind must be on the first tee——
He is preparing for the Department of Finance.
——as he does not appear to be listening. Is that what it is?
The offer has not been made sweet enough as yet to entice the Minister.
The Minister cannot say that we are not doing our best for him.
Anyway, Deputy Keating knows well that he is using this occasion to get a little bit of publicity about a pet subject of his. Why does he not let the matter rest and leave it at that?
I am surprised, a Cheann Comhairle, that you did not take the Minister to task for being grossly out of order, by speaking from a sitting position and for making an unwarranted attack which is completely out of character. Let me ask him two questions. He is very wrong by the way——
I share the Deputy's concern.
Let me finish, please. This Bill is about the safety of buildings and the safety of supply and therefore it is perfectly in order to discuss this matter today. I did not need to come into this House to say what I have said as I could have said it somewhere else. If I could get a commitment from the Minister that action will be taken, with a timescale, I would be relatively satisfied. Can the Minister tell me if he has seen the completion certificate, which is a pink slip, which I have been speaking about?
The certificate of completion which is supplied to the ESB following the installation of a new appliance in a new or reconstructed building by an accredited contractor?
Accredited by whom?
All I am asking is whether that is the certificate the Deputy is talking about?
Yes.
I am aware of the existence of such certificates. I believe they are pink in colour.
Have you read them? Why does the Minister not send one of his officials down to Fleet Street where he will be handed one over the counter? If he wishes, he could set up this evening as a contractor in his spare time and get supplies from the ESB. That is the standard of safety which operates at present.
He could take a career break.
I take it what the Deputy is saying is that there is malpractice——
What I am saying is that there is small number of rogue people engaged in malpractice and they are being facilitated by a weakness in the system. I am not saying that the ESB are at fault as they are doing their job and provide a supply on receipt of a certificate. I am not saying that the majority of those who instal wiring are involved——
We have been over all of this before.
The two questions I want to ask the Minister are, first, whether I can be given an unequivocal guarantee that the completion certificate loophole will be closed and that some policing will take place. In fairness I should say that the public at present do not understand the system and do not appreciate that the certificate which is issued by the Electro Technical Council of Ireland is worthless because it is a self-made declaration and that no policing takes place either by the ESB, the council, the local authority or the Department in regard to standards of installation. I have given many examples this morning of this and I could outline dozens of others.
Secondly, the Minister took me up wrongly on what I said about the local authorities. I did not ask for a responsibility to be placed on the local authorities. All I asked was why did the local authorities not comply with the Minister's request? Why did they not write back? Is the Minister not going to do anything about it? Obviously, those who wrote back are those who are most efficient and most competent and likely to have something to say. The local authorities did not answer and I want to know why. Those are my two questions. Can I be given a guarantee that action will be taken and a timescale for this? Can the Minister also deal with the question on his power to ensure that they do respond satisfactorily when he writes to them to seek important information which will be of assistance in the formulation of a Bill of this nature?
As far as I am concerned, the Deputy is out of order in the first question which he asked. He has accepted at least that the vast majority of electrical contractors are competent, praiseworthy and do the job right.
The vast majority of buildings do not explode.
I cannot concede the point because I do not know. The Deputy is talking about a certain number of what he refers to as "rogue" contractors. I think that is the word he used——
There are other words.
—— who are operating at present in the city. I do not know that. How can the Deputy expect me to give guarantees ——
There are piles of files in the Minister's Department about it.
—— about the competency of any electrical contractor in town? It is not a matter for the Minister for the Environment to make any comment about electrical installations or who is competent to do the work. There are other agencies looking after that. I cannot understand why the Deputy is pursuing this matter in this way. If local authorities are written to for certain information and they come forward with it, good enough; if they do not, I can mandate or demand it from them. On occasions I do that.
The Minister did not do that in this case.
I got all the information I required.
How does the Minister know that?
I got all the information necessary to proceed with this matter in this way.
I hesitated to come in on this Committee Stage debate because I am concerned at the progress we are making but I am concerned also at what the Minister finally said in relation to this matter. As the Minister for the Environment, he is responsible for housing. Every house in this country gets an electrical supply into it and, in fact, the number of ESB connections is the measure we use for housing statistics. Today The Minister is asking this House to give him and his Department professional, legislative and statutory responsibility in relation to the competence of engineers whose unique qualification is in the area of the conveyancing of gas supplies, for which the Department of the Environment have absolutely no responsibility. It is illogical and disingenuous of the Minister to argue that since the Department of the Environment have no responsibility for electricity he cannot in any way have responsibility for the monitoring of the competence of electrical contractors on the one hand and to ask us to agree on Committee Stage to the definition of a "competent person" as being a chartered engineer who would have responsibility in relation to gas.
I am not going to press this point but I want the record not to so stand unchallenged. There is perhaps another time and occasion on which to debate this and perhaps the Department of the Environment should speak with another Department with a better degree of co-operation than that which currently prevails between Dublin Corporation and the gas company, as evidenced by Deputy Keating. There is genuine concern in relation to the supply of electricity by some contractors and the fact that there is no apparent system for monitoring the competence of those contractors. We are taking upon ourselves a system for the monitoring of the competence of chartered engineers and so on but in response to a question posed by Deputy Bruton the Minister was somewhat vague as to how this would be policed.
In so far as it could, at some future date, form part of an internal brief and argument within the Department of the Environment, in response to a parliamentary question or in response to some legislation, that the Department of the Environment had no responsibility for the safety of houses which have an electricity supply because of the inadequacies of a particular contractor, I do not think the Minister should allow that to stand on the record of this House on Committee Stage. I know the Minister is not directly responsible for electricity or gas installations and the supply of services but in so far as they interconnect into a building, the Minister and his Department are choosing to take upon themselves in this legislation some form of responsibility, although not total responsibility, in relation to the monitoring of professional competence. If the Minister accepts that that is what he is doing in this instance, by implication he is opening the door at some future date — and I accept he is not going to do it today — to extend some similar form of monitoring in relation to the competence, professional or otherwise, of contractors who instal equipment which we know to be far more lethal, in terms of the deaths caused, than an explosion in a multi-storey building.
I have no conflict with what Deputy Quinn said. The matter has been discussed for some time and all sides of the House recognise that this is not the appropriate legislation to deal with this matter. I have expressed my concern in so far as the installations and services are concerned and I have told the Deputy that I will speak with the relevant Minister.
The Minister will get no satisfaction from him.
How does the Deputy know that? He is a colleague of mine.
He has already had an opportunity to discuss this in the House.
I am quite sure I have a better chance of getting——
He is bigger than him.
——a response from him than the Deputy had. I want to say to Deputy Keating that I recognise the depth of his feeling in this matter but I am very happy to note that he recognises it is only a very limited number of people who are breaking the rules.
To be honest, I do not know how many.
With regard to the response from the local authorities, I got the information. I required from the important authorities in this matter so that I could go ahead. Some planning authorities did not have any buildings at all.
It did not stop them travelling internationally——
Perhaps, but a large number did not have any multi-storey buildings of the type we are talking about and some county councils had none at all so they were not involved. I got a response from the ones which mattered and that is why I was able to proceed in this matter. I hope the Deputy accepts that.
I accept that. Can I ask the Minister if he is the Minister responsible for the standards of electrical supply in local authority houses?
Ultimately he is.
Ultimately I suppose I would be responsible for the total building. Other codes would attach to other Departments as part of the scheme.
As the Minister knows, the buck stops pretty much about there.
When my engineers go out obviously they rely on the certificate of completion that has been agreed between the electrical contractor and the ESB. They do not go out to check that——
I am not saying that. I am only saying that the Minister does not have to talk to his colleague, the Minister for Energy. It may be that not alone does the Minister have an opportunity to do something about this serious problem but, with respect, that he has an obligation to do so. Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister, expressly in relation to that area of responsibility which falls within his jurisdiction, what exactly he is going to do about it, and when?
If it fell within my responsibility I would be more than happy to concede the point to the Deputy. I am sure the Deputy will understand that in the provision of services many codes with different ministerial responsibility are involved. If I have a superimposed responsibility on everything, which I do not think I have, of course, I would have to carry the can for it.
If there is a dodgy fuse box in a local authority house or in any house, is that the responsibility of the Minister?
No, if there is a dodgy fuse box in a local authority house it is not the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment.
What about the standards of construction in a local authority house?
The standards would have to be up to the mark in relation to the standards laid down by the Minister for Energy in the supply of services to a particular house.
Is Deputy Keating happy with that response?
I am not happy.
The amendment has had a full and exhaustive debate——
It has been aired but I am dissatisfied with the response. I am not dissatisfied with the goodwill of the Minister, which I accept, but I am unhappy he is not willing to say "I intend to do X on the basis of what you told me, or if what you have told me stands up I will do X, and I will do it within Y time". There is no such thing as having another opportunity. I do not know when that will be or if the Minister will be there. There is a growing view on this side of the House that he will be in the Department of Finance by then. All I can say is that I cannot rely on the Minister's very pleasurable soft talk. His appeal to my good faith is unfortunately on this occasion falling on — and I hope he will forgive this reference — barren ground.
Deputy Quinn's chart about my future in politics has obviously crossed from the Labour Party to other parties.
It is infectious.
I am terribly taken by it all but I am afraid it has no substance.
We recognise a worthy successor when we see one.
Like many things in the Labour Party it has no substance.
It is only slightly relevant to the amendment before us.
He is a bit of a live wire.
I did not think the amendment would spark off that kind of speculation. Is Deputy Keating happy to contain his disappointment?
My disappointment will have to spread wide and far on this occasion. I want to press my amendment.
Even though I will give the Deputy a commitment to talk to my colleague in the matter?
I am not that grateful because of this talk. I want to know what the Minister is going to do about it. There is talk all the time but nothing happens.
It is not up to me to do anything but I will talk to the Minister for Energy and bring to his attention the points which were raised here, which are not proper to this legislation.
They are quite proper in relation to multi-storey buildings.
If there is something to be addressed, then I take it that there is total confidence in the Minister for Energy when dealing with any matter of public concern.
He is aware of it, by the way.
It seems that Deputy Keating has answered the question that he has put.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl 51.
Tá
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- McCoy, John S.
- Molloy, Robert.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keefee, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh Joe.
- Walsh Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kennedy and Quill; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 21, to delete "five" and substitute "four".
The purpose of this amendment is to have a brief discussion on the reason for the definition of "multi-storey" being five-storey as opposed to four-storey. The word "multi" implies a number of buildings but, in practice, there is no emphasis on multi-storey buildings here, although obviously there are some.
If the Bill is to be effective its ambit should extend to most buildings, or at least to as many buildings as the Minister or the Government would wish. By defining "multi-storey" as restricting it to five storeys and upwards, in effect the vast majority of buildings will not be covered by the proposal. That would include buildings which would in many cases house offices or dwellings. It may also be a factor in terms of planning applications in future when people design such buildings because there are costs and controls involved in the measure for any building with five or more storeys.
I tried to trace the origin of the definition as being a five-storey building and I got back to the reports about which we spoke earlier on. For some reason a five-storey building is accepted as being the appropriate definition. Perhaps that arose from thinking in Great Britain or the Continent and, if that is the case, we could be making a mistake because obviously, in those countries there is a much greater emphasis on high-rise buildings. It is not, however, a feature of the Irish landscape. If we eventually have the Bill on the Statue Book, we all want it to work as well as possible and there is no point therefore in unnecessarily disbarring the vast majority of buildings, many of which both now and in the future will house offices and residential areas or both. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that?
I should like to remind the Minister of my clarification on Second Stage in relation to definition. I suggested that "multi-storey" would consist of four floors and a penthouse, that a penthouse would be considered a floor for the purposes of specified buildings. Perhaps the Minister will comment on this?
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 the recommendations they considered the proposed building regulations (1) and (2) and the British and Irish codes of practice and standards, including the Irish Standard 325, Part I, which clearly distinguishes between buildings of up to four storeys and of five or more storeys. I refer to paragraph 5/5/3 of the task force report. Cremer and Warner also considered the amendment, in the aftermath of the Ronan Point explosion in the UK, of the building regulations relating to the design of buildings of five or more storeys referred to in paragraph 5/3 of the task force report. In 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 the findings and recommendations. That was supported by the different treatment relating to the structure of buildings or less than five storeys and of five or more storeys in Part E of the proposed building regulations which were published last Monday. Part E is the part dealing with structural strength and stability. Consequently, it would be highly inconsistent from a technical point of view to include four storey buildings under the Bill. For that reason we see no need for the amendment.
For the purpose of the Bill a storey includes any area on or over the top floor and used for any purpose including a dwelling, offices or storage other than for enclosing services such as the lift mechanisms, heating and ventilation plant, and the full building does not have to be five stories. That is the point with which Deputy Quinn was most concerned. The definition provides for a building comprising or including five or more storeys and that is the way we want it written. A penthouse would be covered by the wording.
Thank you.
For those technical reasons and to cover what Deputy Quinn said we should all be happy to let this amendment drop.
The Minister is satisfied that he has adequate scope with a cut off of five storeys? I noticed the Minister's reference to the Ronan Point incident and to the standards in Britain. I wondered to what extent they might have influenced the five-storey ruling in the Bill? In Britain there is a significant emphasis in high rise buildings and here we do not have that. I wondered if the proportionate storey line here should be somewhat lower, but if the Minister is satisfied I will not push it.
That did influence some of the thinking as did other aspects such as the task force and the Cremer and Warner report and the building control regulations. Everything came together to suggest five storeys and technically the advice is that that is the right way to do it. But the Deputy is right that we were influenced by the Ronan Point incident as well.
Was that included in the terms of reference of the task force? Did they get guidance from anyone in that respect?
I do not know if they were guided on it, but they were given quite a wide brief. They felt at liberty to consider all the technical advice, the recommendations and the building regulations both here and abroad. As long as they have included what Deputy Quinn was anxious about, that covers it nicely.
Did the Minister not say that initially the task force recommended that they would look to five storey and then proceed to four storey buildings? Is the Minister not excluding that possibility of looking at four-storey buildings by this? Has the Minister had some sort of preliminary investigation of four-storey buildings that suggests that they are not vulnerable to progressive collapse?
The task force found no reason to look at four-storey buildings.
I thought the Minister said that initially they did?
They found no reason to look at them at all. The Cremer and Warner report is what relates to what the Deputy is suggesting.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, subsection (1), lines 22 to 24, to delete ", not being a building the construction of which was completed on or before the 1st day of January, 1950".
The purpose of this amendment is to assist the Minister. The general spirit in which this side of the House operates is to be of assistance to the Minister. The Minister will appreciate that we are trying to be helpful all the time.
I recognise that in this type of legislation; otherwise there would be no point debating amendments at all.
The purpose of this amendment is to see if the Minister would be interested in having in the Bill a power to deal with all buildings. The cut-off point of 1950 is a fair proposal, but I wonder if we might regret that cut-off point? Was it necessary to incorporate that limit in the Bill at all? Perhaps the surveys should be carried out progressively on all multi-storey buildings of five storeys. I am sure there cannot be too many of them. If someone came into this House and suggested that a house built in 1948 was a death trap, it might be better if the Minister could under the Act have the local authority ensure that the building is checked out and so on. If the Minister wishes to take that power he will have our support and I propose that we delete the words which limit the Minister's authority in that respect.
I like a good amendment stage; and, no matter how hare-brained an amendment might seem, it is up to the Minister to justify not accepting it. I see this in a total sense of co-operation with the legislation, particularly in non-political legislation.
The fear expressed by Deputy Keating was something that occurred to me, too, and I wanted to be absolutely satisfied that we were doing the right thing by putting a date into the legislation. In pursuing that matter I discovered that the joint engineering committee which advise the task force on design and construction practice in relation to multi-storey buildings consider that there is no evidence that post-1960 buildings generally are less robust than pre-1960 buildings. The task force shared that view but were concerned with a limited range of buildings of particular construction forms. That is why the Bill deals with those types of building. The pre-1950 buildings would not be constructed using any of the three construction forms which are of concern. That is why 1950 was taken as the cut-off date. These are the only forms of construction which the task force considered it prudent to appraise in the first place — the three types referred to in my Second Stage contribution.
The task force considered that there is no evidence or cause for general concern for earlier multi-storey buildings; but the risk of accidental overloading should, as with all buildings, be kept as low as possible. The construction form referred to in the definition of a specific building in the Bill did not come into general use until after 1960. However, there is evidence in a report of proceedings covered in the 1965 symposium on concrete practice in Ireland, that it was applied in a very isolated case or two pre-1960 and may be as early as 1955. There is also an engineering consensus on the improbability of such construction material and methods having been applied earlier than that. However, to cover the possibility that there might have been anything pre-1960, I decided to go back to 1950. The advice given to me did not necessarily ask me to go back that far but to cover everything that might have occurred with that type of construction I decided on the extra ten years. Basically, that is the reason for the cut-off point.
I am happy with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 3, subsection (1); line 39, to delete "either" and substitute "supported on".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
Some concern was expressed by the engineers about the wording of the definition of robustness and the wording of the specified buildings. They are concerned that the building would still have to be certified no matter how small a part of the building might be in this pre-cast mode of construction and even though it might not render it vulnerable to progressive collapse. That is as I understand it. There was some concern about the definition, that when "wholly or in part" was inserted it meant that even if a tiny part of the building was in the certain specified form it would have to be certified even though it might be unnecessary. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that point. They were also concerned about the definition of "robustness" in which it is stated that robustness concerned ensuring that there would be no multiple collapse. They felt that "ensuring" was putting too strong a word on it and that it should be "characteristics that tend to prevent or militate against". Has the Minister considered those two points? If so, I would like to hear his views on them?
We must try to get away from referring to the progressive collapse concept. I gave progressive collapse much consideration as distinct from disproportionate collapse. We do not have to go into the difference between them now but they are very substantial. Deputy Quinn referred to that matter and it is critical to the whole Bill. I think the wording is right. So far as disproportionate collapse is concerned, "robustness" as a definition is readily understandable. We took a lot of advice of a technical nature on this. Regarding its use in the Bill, it is an indicator of a building's ability to resist disproportionate collapse. A robust building is one constructed in such a way that its walls and floors are well connected with proper ties. One would expect internal load bearing walls rather than stud partitioning to be in a good robust building. That was the element I wanted to get into the definition and I think that the technical, engineering and architectural people understand that.
As far as I am concerned, I understood that "ensure" was too strong a word. I do not see it as a major problem but I would like to hear the Minister's response on it.
The definition, as I understand it, came from the task force. When you consider that the task force had available to them the most extensive technical expertise I would not challenge it on that ground.
In relation to the words "wholly or in part", does the Minister feel that some buildings might be drawn into this procedure that otherwise would not?
It would be a very rare case where there would be a dual construction. Buildings are usually constructed to a plan and if the plan is of a certain concrete structure and if it includes any of the three which we have, I would not like to go on record as saying that I guarantee that it would be all the same type of structure but I am not aware of any building where there are multiple types of construction within the one building. For that reason, I think the Deputy's fears are not well grounded.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 5a:
In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.— The Minister shall designate Eolas as responsible for conducting an audit from time to time of the safety of the gas supply network and working practice of gas companies and of the certification system of multi-storey buildings; and Eolas shall have all necessary powers to execute this function.".
I know the Minister will warm to this amendment, having seen his performance on the electricity amendment. This is perhaps widening the debate again but it is a very important matter and dealing with the whole question of gas safety in general. The Minister for Energy has decided that the way in which to handle gas safety is to tell Bord Gáis they should be concerned about gas safety. It is commendable to tell them so. There is absolutely no provision for independent oversight of Bord Gáis. The only difference from what happened heretofore is that Bord Gáis is now in State ownership whereas the other company was not. This does not in any way affect the very limited number of gas companies that are no longer in State ownership. The Minister will be aware that the task force adverted to an earlier report in which concern was expressed that should the number of accidents in the Dublin system diminish the dedication of staff to safety would equally diminish. The evidence of what led up to Raglan was that when a business was under pressure the day-to-day management task of keeping a company on the road, in a tough competitive environment, caused safety to become a second priority. Consequently one of the recommendations of the task force was that the frequency, the number and the classification of leaks should be independently monitored on an annual basis by a formal reporting system.
The task force recognised the need for someone independent of either the gas supply company or, in this case, the building owners to have a role in overseeing safety procedures. Accordingly, I have tabled this amendment in which I am suggesting that the Minister might designate Eolas as a possible body with the required skills who would have the possibility of conducting an audit from time to time both of the certification system, envisaged in this Bill, and of the general safety of the gas supply network and the working practice of gas companies. The purpose essentially is to keep the two systems of guaranteeing public safety up to scratch. The Minister will point to the various recommendations having been acted upon by Bord Gáis. He is perfectly right in that, as they have acted upon the recommendations. What we are talking about is the longer run situation where concern about safety may diminish in time to come.
The Minister will be aware that the results of the leak surveys are not made public. The results of their accident reports are not made public. Their performance relative to targets on gas losses in the system are not made public. These are all areas over which the public will have no input in years to come. No one has been appointed to ensure that these things will be honoured in years to come when the same pressure and public interest in safety will not be there, because we hope there will not be another accident.
To ensure that the whole certification procedure is operating to good effect it requires someone who has the power to go in and spot check the procedures being used. That is probably true in the case of section 6, where the local authorities, apparently, will oversee their own certification of multi-storey buildings so that they will be handing a certificate to themselves. That, to my mind, is a very strange system of certification, where you both write and oversee the same certificate. That is the reason I see merit in having someone who has the power not to do a continuous bureaucratic oversight on a day-to-day basis but to do occasional, unannounced audits and spot checks on what is going on.
I can see what the Deputy is getting at. He was correct in saying that the responsibility for gas is a matter for the Minister for Energy and in recognising that this legislation concerns structures. The Minister for Energy has appointed a technical officer solely for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the recommendations on gas in the various reports I referred to. In the monitoring the officer will be guided by the 34 standards on gas published by Eolas last October at the request of the Minister for Energy. I gave details about them earlier. What the Deputy is seeking is being attended to in a different way. Local authorities are the appropriate bodies for seeing that the certificates are lodged and for prosecutions. If an owner defaults on his responsibilities it will be a matter for the local authority to pursue the matter. They have their responsibility and the prosecuting powers under the legislation. I do not think we should take that from them. It would minimise the whole structure of control. In view of the fact that we have the new monitoring arrangements I do not think it is necessary to pursue this point, but I accept the essence of what the Deputy would like to see happen as far as safety is concerned.
On a point of order, I should like the permission of the Chair to raise on the Adjournment the bizarre response received to Question No. 10 on yesterday's Order Paper and, in particular, the cruelty of otter hunting.
The Chair's office will communicate with the Deputy.
On the amendment, the Minister has missed my point. The existence of an officer interested in this matter is commendable, but there is a need to have somebody who does not have any other responsibility but to report publicly on the safety of the system. The officer the Minister has referred to will not have any public function. There is a natural symbiotic relationship between officers and companies if there is not public reporting. Eventually, they see their role as similar to the company they are supposed to be overseeing. There is a need to have somebody whose job it is to report on an intermittent basis on the successful operation of the systems that are supposed to be there. That is the distinction I am anxious to make. Bord Gáis are not answerable to anybody; they are not answerable to the House for what is going on in this area. We cannot get information on that, but I do not think Deputies have the competence to appraise the results of leak surveys and so on. However, there is a need to have somebody who would not be involved with the company, which is trying to make a commercial profit out of the system, to oversee the success of the safety measures. Similarly, under section 6 the local authority will be providing certificates, looking at those certificates and taking prosecutions. That seems extraordinary.
I explained that in the course of my Second Stage contribution.
I did not hear the Minister's Second Stage speech and I should like to ask him to give the House a brief explanation now.
Briefly, it depends on the competency of the relevant engineer. If he is a suitable person, a chartered engineer with the right type of experience and so on, it will be his signature that we will be standing on and not on a signature from the local authority. He will certify that he is a person so qualified, as is indicated in the Bill.
A moment ago the Minister was assuring me that the local authority would be the body who would be taking legal action arising out of false declarations and so on.
No, the owners.
They will be taking action against themselves, as owners, or against the person who certified on their behalf? They will employ somebody to certify for them and then they will be asked to take action against themselves?
No, the owner will employ a competent chartered engineer.
The owner in the case of Ballymun Flats is Dublin Corporation and under section 6 the Minister will be expecting that authority to take action against themselves.
If a local authority has such a building within their own area of responsibility they will have to have a certificate of appraisal submitted for that building by a competent person, as indicated in the legislation. They are just as liable as other owners.
The Minister is not getting my point. Supposing a certificate is delivered and the owner, in the case of a corporation or council owned premises, has not done all the works listed or certified the building properly, is the Minister suggesting that the same corporation or council should take the action against the person they employed? I cannot see that happening.
They will have to do it.
That is one of the reasons I see the need for the occasional outside spot checks to see if the council or corporation are properly executing their functions under the Bill. In my view that would be an admirable adjunct to the Bill.
The Deputy must recognise that at the end of the day the buck stops with me. In the case of any monitoring agencies, or those appointed by the Minister for Energy in his field, we can be challenged on the results of their work in the Dáil or in a committee of the House. As far as I am concerned, if I have to step in to do something or to be the final responsible person, I will do so.
With respect, we will be told that to question what is going on in a semi-State body is outside the competence of Deputies. We will be told that such a question is out of order.
I do not know about that as far as Energy matters are concerned.
We have had some experience of this.
Has Deputy Bruton conditioned himself to accept that the Minister is not accepting his amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, line 14, to delete ",as far as practicable,".
The purpose of this section is to promote the idea that these certificates should be completed. The words midway in line ten of the section are a slight rollback from that. The section states:
...unless an owner of the specified building submits to the local authority in whose functional area the building is situate a further certificate, signed by a competent person, certifying that all reasonable actions as set out in that certificate have been taken to minimise, as far as practicable, the risk of accidental damage ...
I am a little unhappy about the qualification, but I can understand the need for it. However, when there is a further qualification within the qualification I wonder if we are leaving a way out. The words "as far as practicable", seem to be a bit milk and water. I am not going to go to war over this, but I must make a point that I cannot understand why those words are in the section. It would be perfectly reasonable to say "in whose functional area the building is situate a further certificate, signed by a competent person, certifying that all reasonable actions as set out in that certificate have been taken to minimise the risk of accidental damage" and so on. If we leave in the words mentioned there will be a further argument about what is practicable, not to mind about what is minimal.
It is a legislative recognition of the state of original sin.
I would like to ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment for a number of reasons. The certificate under section 5, and also under section 3 (2) (c), requires the taking of "all reasonable action to minimise as far as practicable the risk of accidental damage". It is not possible to eliminate risk completely in normal circumstances and this practicality has to be recognised. To exclude the words, as proposed in the amendment, would impose an impossible burden on an engineer in deciding how far he has to go in the actions to minimise risk.
Is that not implicit?
I do not think we should ask for impracticable action to be undertaken.
The converse does not necessarily apply.
I should like to give the Deputy an example. If there was a void under a building and if it was in a honeycomb format in the construction it would be impracticable to ventilate the inner walls of the honeycomb. In such a case the answer might be to do something else, as laid down in the Schedule. If the amendment was accepted the engineer might consider that he had to ventilate all the voids as listed in the Third Schedule and that would make it impossible. This is a way of understanding and accepting that sometimes it is impracticable to do certain things and that other things have to be done as a consequence. It is a safeguard for the engineers, as distinct from anything else.
I accept that the Minister is not going to agree to the amendment and I will not press it. That matter would have been covered in line 13 which states "certifying that all reasonable actions". It would have been unreasonable to seek the venting of all the internal matters the Minister spoke about.
It is an accepted formula of words to deal with these matters.
I see it as just another opportunity for people who want to evade to have another unnecessary legal argument.
It may very well give them the opportunity not to have to do something that is impracticable for them.
In regard to this certificate and the other certificate, the regulations will specify the formula of the certificate?
Yes.
I understand that there will be discussions with the relevant engineering institutions as to the precise formula of words in that certificate.
I was very happy to hear Deputy Quinn speaking on this matter on the last occasion. He indicated that he might talk to some people whom he knows in the profession about that matter, but that has not happened yet. I wish it would.
Message received.
My question refers generally to this section and the previous sections. Does the Minister see any danger in certifying buildings as complying with codes of practice that were not in existence at the time they were being certified? Does he see any danger there that buildings that are otherwise quite sound might not be granted a certificate simply because of the time at which they were built relative to the institution of practices? Practices change from time to time. A new set of practices might be announced in a year's time. Will a whole new round of certification have to be undertaken when those new practices come in, or will it be the case that buildings now complying under a set of certificates might on another day no longer meet some new requirement that is brought in? The Minister has probably covered this matter in section 3 (2) (c). There is always the option that other actions can be taken. What is the Minister's view on a person asking that a building be retrospectively certified to meet standards that were not there when it was built? Is there a danger of this?
No. I can reassure the Deputy on that. We are only talking about certain types of construction. There are three different separate types of certificate that cover that. They give total cover of all aspects such as the ones to which the Deputy referred.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, subsection (2), line 36, to delete "any" and substitute "all reasonable".
As a former English teacher, words seem to cause me a certain degree of undue excitement and importance on occasions. Section 7(2) states: "The owner or his agent shall make good any disturbance of the building caused by any works or actions pursuant to this section". I would like that to be amended to read that the owner, or his agent, shall make good all reasonable disturbance of the building. In the discussion which we had a few moments ago we agreed that there is a practicability or a reasonable dimension to this kind of statement. I could see a situation arising where by accident there could be a disturbance caused to a building by works or actions pursuant to the section. It could be a very serious accident. A wall could be cracked or major renovations could be needed by virtue of bad workmanship and so on. It is unnecessary and unfair to impose such a cost on the owner or his agent. He or she should carry out and pay for any works that are necessary to put right what is wrong. The use of the words "any" makes it an open cheque. If the words "all reasonable" were inserted it would seem to be quite fair —"reasonable" being defined with reference to what is reasonable to achieve in order to comply with the Bill. Otherwise a person could end up having to foot an enormous bill through negligence, accident, omission, oversight or whatever and that would not be in the spirit of justice. The use of the word "any" makes the provision virtually open-ended and it could cause unnecessary problems for a person.
The opposite point is what we are trying to get at. We want to ensure that it will be to the tenant or owner's benefit, for the following reason. Section 7 gives the powers of entry to carry out inspections and any works or actions necessary to enable a certificate to be obtained and submitted to the local authority. There can be physical disturbance of the building. For example, in relation to the opening of a wall, a floor or a ceiling, certain details of the construction would have to be checked. Occupiers of the building, such as long-term tenants who are not owners, should not suffer. It is reasonable that any disturbance should be made good.
By whom?
By whoever carries out the work. We found it difficult to understand the amendment for that reason. If it was passed it would require that only reasonable disturbance be made good and, by implication, unreasonable disturbances of the building would be left without repair. If that happened, the opposite to what the Deputy wishes to achieve would be the result. For that reason we have drafted the words in this way, so that the disturbance will be repaired properly and to everyone's satisfaction as against giving people an option to do something that is unreasonably expensive and thereby not having the job done properly for the tenant. It is purely to ensure that the job will be done properly.
The purpose of this section is to facilitate entry by the owner or agent. The work will sometimes be done in defiance of the wishes of a tenant or there may be need for a forcible entry of some kind.
There are two purposes: to get entry to carry out an inspection and works may need to be done. I want to ensure that the work is done perfectly and properly.
Who is going to pay for that?
The owner. If works have to be done, remedial works or whatever, to satisfy the appraisal certificate, we want it to be done properly also. I am concerned that unreasonable disturbance would not be remedied to the level that would leave it proper. It might seem like semantics but at the same time the point is that we want the job done either for inspection or for remedial work.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 6, subsection (4), line 31, after "one" to insert "daily or provincial".
I have reason to think that this amendment is worthy of sympathetic consideration. As we know, the Planning Acts require notification in a newspaper and in this Bill the same broad formula is being applied. "Where a notice is served on, or given to, a person ... a copy of the notice shall, within two weeks thereafter, be published in at least one newspaper circulating in an area in which the person is known to have resided." That is fair. When the Planning Acts were drafted I suspect that the newspaper had mass circulation and was probably a well known, easily identified, popular organ of dissemination. In recent years there has been a growth in the number of other printed matter, which are newspapers in the literal sense of the word but which, on occasion, are called free sheets, giveaway papers, or are of indeterminate print run or distribution.
I have had experience in recent times of people who, in the planning context, were conned by the insertion of the requisite planning notice in what, in my view, could not be called newspapers, because basically they are entertainment sheets and their main purpose is attracting advertisements. Fair play to the publishers, I am not denying them the right to do that but I am concerned about the definition of "newspaper".
If the purpose of the notice is to alert those who are interested, or if it is to afford them the opportunity of being aware, then some qualification of "newspaper" is appropriate. We could define it as a national paper, a provincial paper or a major countywide paper. I do not know the correct word which will best meet that need and I am open to any suggestion the Minister may make. This is a problem, and I know from professionals in the planning field that it is a major problem. That requirement — which is the only way a community has of being alerted — can be met by putting a notice in an obscure newspaper, in an obscure language, or in the Irish language or in any other form. That is not the spirit of the proposal. Having learned the lesson in the planning area, I am trying to apply it to this area as well. I am not pushed about the wording and I know it is a problem but perhaps the Minister would suggest a suitable wording.
I concede it is a problem. I do not know what I am going to do with this——
Accept the amendment.
That will not do it either. The wording is standard use in other instances——
Before the free sheets.
——including the planning regulations and the Housing Act, 1966. I am a bit concerned about the term "provincial newspaper". There is no clearly defined definition. I have asked but I cannot get it. If I could, I might be able to do something to meet the Deputy.
Could I help the Minister? I am pleased the Minister has accepted this point. The problem is that we have Report Stage immediately following the Committee Stage today and the Dáil will not have time to consider this Bill further. It would probably be a little restrictive if we were to say daily national papers because it might mean that five pages of every daily paper was taken up with little notices. If the Minister is willing to tackle the problem and tell me he will deal with it between now and when the Bill is discussed in the Seanad, I would be happy enough.
I am aware of the problems attaching to this. In my practical experience I have seen all kinds of things tried——
Sleight-of-hand.
If only I could get the right definition to satisfy all of us. However, this is a grey area and I do not know if I can do anything. Between now and presenting this Bill to the Seanad, I will consider it further and if I can come up with the right definition, I will amend it but there is a difficulty in definition, circulation, country editions of city newspapers and so on.
There are a number of criteria which could be applied. They could be registered with the GPO——
They are on the register with the GPO. That is the first thing I tried.
There could be an emphasis on circulation. The purpose of this measure is to give people an opportunity to exercise their rights and if they are going to have their eye wiped by some smart person who goes in the back door, we have a duty to protect them.
The Deputy will appreciate that there is one newspaper that shall be unnamed that is generally regarded as a provincial but is a daily.
Yes.
It is a national, too.
It might not necessarily be on sale in the locality in any volume. That is my big problem. Then there are the free sheets which cause another problem.
I hasten to add that we are not against any form of publication. I think the free sheets are providing a service. What I am saying is that if they are used in this way something is wrong. If the Minister is willing to give his word that he will——
I will not give my word to do this, but if it is possible to get the formula to accommodate the Deputy's suggestion, I will be happy to do so. I know a slight problem exists and things have been circumvented before by the clever usage of a publication——
That is the point.
I do not know if I can get around it without——
If the Minister could look at it——
I will look at it.
Can I take it that Deputy Keating is happy with that qualified assurance?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section agreed to.
Sections 12 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 11. Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are related and will be taken together for discussion. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, paragraph 1. (a), line 31, to delete "CP" and substitute "BSCP".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 9, paragraph 1. (h), line 2, to delete "1986." and substitute "1986;".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 9, paragraph 1, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"(i) The Structural Use of Reinforced Concrete in Buildings: BSCP 114: 1969 incorporating amendment issued August, 1973 (AMD 1241).".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 9, paragraph 2, to delete the Table to that paragraph and substitute the following:
"TABLE
|
Abbreviation or symbol (1) |
Reference (2) |
|
(1) |
(2) |
|
BS |
British Standard Specification |
|
BSCP |
British Standard Code of Practice |
|
I.S. |
Irish Standard Specification |
Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 15. Amendment No. 16 is related. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 to be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 10, paragraph 1, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the folowing:
"(v) Indirect gas-fired forced convection air-heaters (60KW to 2 MW input) for 2nd family gases; I.S. 802: 1987;
(w) Regulator installations with inlet pressure up to 7 Bar for natural gas and manufactured gas; I.S. 809: 1987;
(x) Code of Practice for piped installation of fixed gas-fired space heaters in non-domestic premises, including places of public assembly; I.S. 3212: 1987;
(y) Storage of L.P.G. cylinders and cartridges; I.S. 3213: 1987;
(z) Recommendations for minimum safety standards for existing domestic gas installations; S.R. 8: 1982.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 10, paragraph 2, to delete the Table to that paragraph and substitute the following:
"TABLE
|
Abbreviation or symbol |
Reference |
|
(1) |
(2) |
|
EN |
European Norm |
|
I.C.P. |
Irish Code of Practice |
|
I.S. |
Irish Standard Specification |
|
S.R. |
Standard Recommendation |
"
If we are moving to the Third Schedule——
No, we are still on amendments to the Second Schedule.
My comments might be related to the Second Schedule. Would either of these Schedules prohibit the use of what is known as a Super Ser heater in a multi-storey building? Items 9 and 10 on page 11 mention 500 millilitres. The normal liquid gas container is approximately five litres — perhaps even five to ten litres. Are we excluding the possibility that somebody could have two or three of these cylinders in their house? If elderly people were using this form of heating, it would be practical if they were to have a replacement cylinder so that if one ran out of gas they would be able to replace it. I am sure somebody has thought about this and it may be unnecessary but perhaps the Minister would clarify that point.
I do not know if it is much comfort to the Deputy, but it is recommended that people do not keep replacement cylinders in their apartments or in their homes because they are dangerous. It is highly desirable that if people are using these heaters they do not keep the spare cylinder at home. It is possible for the owner to prohibit the storage of such cylinders in particular blocks.
This will mean that the owner of a block of flats will be able to say to a tenant that he is prohibited in law from having a Super Ser heater.
The owner could prohibit the keeping of these kinds of cylinders in an apartment block if the building was structurally unsafe.
Some people have a horror of electricity because the bill is not contained and they prefer to control the amount of money they spend on heating by using gas cylinders. Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that the owner of a flat or the landlord of a flat who has a tenant would be prohibited from having a gas container in the building?
That could be the case.
It is possible that local authority flats would be in the same position.
Yes. All types of buildings will be covered.
The Minister said that this applies only if there are some structural defects. Many people living in flats which have been certified as safe and sound want to use the cheapest form of heating. Coal is difficult to manage in multi-storey flats.
And it causes other problems.
The type of heating which Deputy Quinn mentioned is very popular in local authority flats because it is relatively cheap and people know where they stand regarding their financial outlay on heating. If gas cylinders are banned in a particular flat complex the tenants will be paying for this by having to use more expensive heating. That would not be acceptable unless some compensation was paid to them to adapt to a different type of heating which might be more expensive. Could the Minister explain the exact circumstances in which gas cylinder heating could be banned?
If a certificate is given under section 3 (2) (a) or (b) there is no question of banning the kind of heaters the Deputy is referring to. It does not arise.
It would have to be a very exceptional case.
In so far as local authority flats are concerned, it would be very exceptional. The construction methods used in local authority apartments in this city leave no cause for general concern.
I would ask the Minister to consider this matter before taking the Bill to the Seanad. St. Michael's estate has precast elements and these would qualify as specified buildings. The estate is in Deputy Mac Giolla's constituency. Paragraph 10 of the Third Schedule refers to the cessation of, and the restriction on, the use or storage in the building of gas in containers exceeding 500 millilitres in capacity. My reading of this provision is that a local authority tenant would not be allowed to have a Super Ser on the fourth or fifth floor of a dwelling in St. Michael's estate. It would not affect the more traditional type of local authority flats. I am putting down a question mark and I would ask the Minister to clarify the matter in the Seanad. We will not have time to deal with it here, but clarification is necessary.
There is a positive response to that question. It is dealt with in section 3 (2). Deputies are concerned that people might be prohibited from using a certain mode of heating in a certain type of local authority building.
Or private.
One could be prohibited from using that kind of heating arrangement in certain circumstances if the certificate under section 3 (2) (a) or (b) were not forthcoming. These certificates concern the robustness of the building or a building being constructed in accordance with certain codes and standards. The certificates would not prohibit the use of such appliances in that situation. If the alternative applied, then the owner could be prohibited.
I was surprised to see omitted from the Third Schedule the installation of atmosphere sensing devices. I understood the task force recommended that for certain types of instantaneous water heaters there should be a requirement for atmosphere sensing devices. Perhaps this would be a way of dealing with the Super Ser problem.
The task force did consider the making available of these sensitivity devices but they did not regard them as being totally effective. They were not recommended for general use.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and passed.