Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 1989

Vol. 394 No. 5

Building Control Bill, 1984: Report and Final Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Amendment No. 1 is in the names of the Minister and Deputies Quinn and Shatter. The Minister to move amendment No. 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, to delete lines 26 to 30, and substitute the following:

"`construction' includes the execution of works in connection with buildings and any act or operation necessary for or related to the construction, extension, alteration, repair or renewal of a building and `constructed' shall be construed accordingly;

`design' includes the preparation of plans, particulars, drawings, specifications, calculations and other expressions of purpose according to which the construction, extension, alteration, repair or renewal concerned is to be executed and `designed' shall be construed accordingly;".

I do not know whether this is a first but I note my amendment is supported by Deputies Quinn and Shatter. If it is a first, I welcome the precedent being established and thank the Deputies for their support.

The effect of this amendment is to provide for separate definitions of the words "design" and "construction". Deputies will note that the Bill, as initiated, provides for a composite definition of these terms. When the Bill was debated on Committee Stage in the last Dáil, Opposition speakers sought a commitment that I introduce an amendment of the kind now tabled. After consideration of the points made I agreed to do so and I am now honouring that commitment.

I am satisfied that in meeting the points made previously in relation to the distinction between the definitions of the words "design" on the one hand and "construction" on the other, the amendment does not materially affect the sense of subsequent sections where one or both of those words is used. I happily recommend the amendment to the House and thank the Deputies for their co-operation in the matter.

The fact that names of Members from different sides of the House are tabled to this amendment demonstrates that we have reached consensus. I should like to put on the record again the reason the amendment has been put forward by all sides. I thank the Minister for recognising the force of the argument presented on Committee Stage and on having brought forward this amendment which separates very distinctly the definitions of the words "design" and "construction". The intent of making that distinction explicit in the interpretations section will be of little or no benefit unless it is carried right through to the drafting of the regulations that will give effect to the type of building control exercised by those people who design and construct buildings. While frequently there is interconnection between both sides, quite frequently there is no connection whatsoever. It is for that reason that the split in the definition was sought. I hope that in recognising the validity of the argument, which the Minister has done by coming forward with this amendment, there will be a similar recognition of the total division between design and construction to give effect under section 6 and under the regulations that will be brought forward.

I also welcome the fact that we are making this important amendment to the Bill. I do not want to delay the House by repeating what Deputy Quinn has said, other than to say that what we are doing must be reflected in the regulations that are made. These amendments improve the Bill. What we attempted to do on Committee Stage and hopefully what we may do during the course of the morning is designed to improve the effectiveness of a measure that we all wish to see put in place. In the light of last night's somewhat extraordinary presentation by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, it is no harm to note that whatever Bill comes before this House always ends up having some amendments made to it. Not only do the Opposition side seek them but the Government side acknowledge that they are necessary. I hope we will have a constructive process this morning and that not only this amendment but some of the other amendments tabled will be looked on favourably by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, line 23, to delete "safety, welfare" and substitute "safety and welfare".

This is drafting amendment. It simply proposes to insert the conjuction "and" between the words "safety" and "welfare". The amendment arises from a Committee Stage discussion which took place on amendments put down by Deputy Quinn and the former Deputy Keating. The Deputies were quite right in their contributions at that stage and I am happy to bring in this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, line 38, to delete "Without prejudice to the generality of" and substitute "In addition to the provisions of any regulations made for the purpose of"

I am advised by the draftsman that this amendment is a more correct from of words than that used in the Bill. Deputies will be aware that the circumstances where the change of use concept applies are set out in section 3 (3) but other such circumstances can be prescribed under subsection (1) (d). This amendment seeks to clarify that point and I recommend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 4 are related. I suggest that we discuss amendment No. 4 and amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 4 together, by agreement. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, to delete lines 22 to 25 and substitute the following:

"(5) Subject to subsection (11) and to——

(a) any dispensation or relaxation granted under section 4 or 5, or

(b) any appeal under section 7 which has been allowed,

every building to which building regulations apply shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of such regulations."

This is a technical amendment which simply brings this subsection into line in a drafting context with similar references to relaxations and dispensations in subsequent sections, notably section 6 and section 8. The point at issue is that it is not an actual dispensation or relaxation that is granted under section 7 but rather an appeal against the decision by a building control authority which is allowed and my amendment provides accordingly.

Deputy Shatter's amendment was debated in Committee almost a year ago to the day. Deputy Quinn's amendment seeks to achieve the same objective, that is to qualify the degree to which compliance with building regulations is to be achieved. I cannot accept the introduction of an element of uncertainty or indeed a dilution of the concept of compliance with the building regulations but I can well appreciate the reasons the amendments are being put down.

We all know that the science of construction is inexact by its very nature and that in many instances there is a range of tolerance inside which a building is considered to be adequately built. It would be appropriate to take account of these concerns in the certificates to be prescribed under section 6 of the Bill, using some formula of words as, "subject to the procedures and tolerances of the building practices." My assurance on this point was accepted during the Committee Stage debate and I would ask Deputies to similarly accept what I am saying here now. Lest there be any apprehension on this point, I ought to make it clear that I am not restricted in the type of certificate that I can prescribe. Section (6) (2) (b) simply refers to the form and content of the various certificates but it does not specify what the certificates should contain. I hope that, as a result of the earlier discussion and my explanation now, particularly in so far as the certificate and their content are concerned, Deputies will see that it is reasonable to accept the amendment of the Minister.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 4 reads:

In the second last line, after "contructed" to insert "materially".

I do not want to be pernickety or nit picking about this but there is a particular concern in the context, for example, of the purchase of a premises. If lawyers say they want a certificate to confirm that a building is designed in accordance with the provisions of the regulations and they get one which says it is constructed materially in accordance with the provisions or within a limited degree of allowances, as the Minister put it, it could be arguable that the criteria applying under regulations as required by the legislation have not been complied with. I have no axe to grind as regards whether it is the amendment tabled by himself or the one tabled by Deputy Quinn which is accepted — I do not think that matters greatly — but we are all concerned that these regulations are fully complied with.

We will be talking later about control and the problems in that area. It is important that it is recognised that we are talking about what, on the fringes, can be an inexact procedure of assessment. It seems that the Minister's explanation for not accepting the amendments is more an argument in favour of accepting them because he is saying that, in the context of the regulations and the wordings of certificates, the possibility that led to the tabling of these amendments will become a reality. If that is the case I would invite the Minister to again consider taking on board either Deputy Quinn's amendment or my amendment. There is little point in saying one thing in the legislation but in practice applying it a little differently, with a little more flexibility. That is what has become known as Irish solutions to Irish problems. If we mean something let us say it in the legislation the way we mean it to apply and not say one thing in the legislation and introduce something a little differently in regulations or certificates and as a result leave an area of doubt as to what the actual position is.

I would invite the Minister to take on board either my amendment or Deputy Quinn's amendment or, if the Minister feels he needs further time to look at this matter, it is obviously open to him to table an amendment to deal with it in the Seanad. That of course would mean that the legislation would have to come back here but I suspect that if one or two of today's amendments that are tabled from the Opposition side are not accepted, the Minister may have to reconsider them before the matter goes to the Seanad and it may be inevitable that the Bill will come back here. Everything the Minister has said has confirmed that the amendments that have been tabled are right in the context of what is going to happen in practice. I find it very difficult to understand why, if that is the case, the legislation should not reflect what is going to be the reality ultimately.

I am conscious that this is Report Stage and that we have debated this Bill rather exhaustively. I do not want to engage in repetition but let me make one or two material points — no pun intended. First, the experience of the Department of the Environment in relation to arriving at a satisfactory form of certificate in respect of the administration of the building controls or the Local Government (Multi-Storey Buildings) Act is something we should all have regard to and should all learn from.

All of us need to continuously learn. Both amendments are essentially the same. Whether one accepts Deputy Shatter's neater and tidier amendment or the rephrasing of the clause in perhaps a more harmonious way, as in my amendment, does not matter. The effect is essentially the same. It will provide within the framework of the legislation enacted in this House and signed by An tUachtarán that material compliance is what the House meant when we debated and enacted this legislation and it would be improper and perhaps not legally acceptable to introduce a subsidiary form of legislation, that is, regulations which did not have the benefit of debate in the House. This could introduce a degree of doubt or, as I think the Minister said, vagueness when the primary legislation under which the regulations are drafted clearly said that material compliance and ambiguity are not acceptable. My real worry — I say this in as constructive a manner as possible — is that when the regulations are being drafted and the Minister's officials are being as co-operative as they possibly can, legal advisers on behalf of the certifiers who will have to carry the can, not necessarily in statute law but perhaps in common law — I accept the Minister is not attempting to confer a statutory liability on certifiers — will have a different interpretation. There is a case to be made — and the lawyers in this House would be better able to argue it than me — that notwithstanding anything in statute law in relation to the liability of a certifier common law may very well say that you have signed a certificate stating that there is compliance with the regulations and the inspection clearly shows that the building is not in compliance with the regulations because, as the Minister pointed out, its construction cannot be an exact science. That is the essence of my point and I am not going to labour it.

The Minister is either in a position to accept the amendment or he is not. If he cannot see his way to accept it now, perhaps he should have second thoughts about it when the Bill is introduced in the Seanad. I do not want to be a Cassandra but I see great difficulties down the road in the administration of this legislation and in drafting the regulations. That is the advice I have received. I know the Minister gets his own professional and legal advice. The net point of what I am saying is that if, having debated this issue on the floor of this House and perhaps on the floor of the Seanad, the words "material compliance" or any alternative variations are debated and rejected, we could create difficulties down the road in the drafting of the regulations.

We considered this aspect of the legislation very carefully. We are all agreed that we want compliance with the regulations and a means which will be secure. The insertion of the word "material" in secondary legislation, that is, the regulations, is different and more appropriate than putting it into the primary legislation. In fact, we came to that conclusion because of the difficulties Deputy Quinn referred to with the Local Government (Multi-Storey Buildings) Act. That Act specified that the whole thing had to be included in a certificate and this has given rise to some difficulties which have not yet been resolved. I hope we are on the brink of a resolution to the problem now. I am sure Deputy Quinn is aware that there have been some further meetings and we hope to reach a final solution.

This Bill simply says that the Minister shall prescribe the form and content of the certificate. That is a significant difference to the provision in the Local Government (Multi-Storey Buildings) Act which caused the difficulty. We are trying to learn from the inconvenience which has arisen between the professions and the Department and this is the way to get around it. If it is, it will be an improvement and will lead to resolution of the very problem the Deputy wants to avoid. This should be sufficient reassurance to the House.

We must first dispose of Deputy Shatter's amendment No. 1 to the Minister's amendment No. 4. How stands the amendment now?

I am not pressing it.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 4, not moved.

How stands Deputy Quinn's amendment No. 2?

I will not move it on the basis of what the Minister has said.

Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 4 not moved.
Amendment No. 4 agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, to delete lines 31 to 36, and substitute the following:

"(4) Where, within a period of two months beginning on the date of an application, or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed in writing between the applicant and the building control authority, the building control authority does not notify the applicant of the decision on the application, a decision by the building control authority to grant the dispensation or relaxation, as the case may be, shall be regarded as having been made on the last day of the period or such extended period, as the case may be.".

During the debate in the last Dáil I undertook to bring forward Report Stage amendments to limit to a period of two months the time within which a building control authority must give a decision on an application for a dispensation or relaxation. If the authority fails to do so the relaxation or dispensation will be granted by default. The amendment provides accordingly and I hope it is agreed by the House as being in accordance with the commitment sought and give at the time.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 9, to delete lines 38 to 42.

I put down this amendment on Committee Stage but withdrew it in order to give the Minister time to consider the matter. The amendment provides that certain classes of buildings can in effect be excluded from the fire safety regulations. I ask the Minister to respond to this amendment and to indicate whether he has had a change of view on this matter.

I outlined my reason for opposing the amendment on Committee Stage. I have considered the matter further and my previous objections still stand. The Minister of the day will use the power very sparingly. Taking account of the flexible nature of the Bill this provision to exclude certain buildings, persons or bodies from the provisions of building control regulations ought to be retained.

As Deputies have pointed out, this provision could be used to exclude housing from the control system, but equally it could be used to exclude small extensions or out-buildings if it were considered appropriate. I want to remind the House of my previous assurance that any building regulations — these regulations should not be confused with the building control regulations — which are made under my hand will set out a range of requirements in relation to domestic buildings as well as other buildings. I want to reiterate that assurance here this morning.

Is the Minister saying that the building regulations will apply to domestic houses in the context of fire regulations, but no controls will? If so, it seems that in the absence of controls the regulations will be meaningless because there will be no means of ensuring they are being complied with. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this matter. I might be misrepresenting him and I do not want to do that.

That is not what is intended and what the Deputy has suggested might be the case will not be the practice.

Perhaps the Minister might clarify the position in the context of domestic dwellings. I raised a number of concerns in the context of materials being used in domestic dwellings which can result in a fire catching hold far quicker than it should which may result in deaths. I also raised the recent very tragic case of a person who died in a fire in a three storey local authority house in Summerhill. If a fire starts on the second floor and a person is trapped on the third floor there is no means of escape. I urged the Minister at that time to ask local authorities to look at their three storey dwellings to ensure that if there was a fire people caught on a third floor would have a means of exit. Is the Minister saying there will be no controls in place in this area and that this matter will not be followed up either in the context of the existing buildings or ensuring that new buildings do not create these problems? If the Minister is saying there will be controls, will he outline to the House what those controls will be?

I want to assist Members in obtaining information but I must point out that we have passed from Committee Stage and are on Report Stage. Members will be aware that Standing Orders ordain that Members should speak once only except, of course, the mover of the amendment — in this case Deputy Shatter — and I should like to dissuade Members from thinking that they can slip back into a Committee Stage deliberation of the Bill.

I appreciate what the Chair has said and, therefore, I will make my sole contribution at this stage. I support the thrust of Deputy Shatter's amendment not because I want to deny any future Minister for the Environment the flexibility which from time to time may be needed but because I fear this flexibility at this time would be abused. If the Minister can give an assurance to the House that this provision will be availed of very sparingly — perhaps he could give an indication of the circumstances in which it might be availed of — then the real concerns that the Labour Party and other Members have in respect of it will be allayed. Will the Minister give examples of what would qualify for such exemptions? If he can we will have an idea of the thinking behind the provision. We do not wish to deny flexibility but, at the same time, we are fearful of the consequences of such a provision.

I concur with the views of Deputies Shatter and Quinn on the amendment. I listened to the Committee Stage debate very carefully, and to the Minister's contribution this morning, but I have not heard a satisfactory explanation why there should be exclusions from the provisions. The Minister mentioned the possibility of excluding extensions, outbuildings and so on, but I thought the whole purpose of the Bill was to provide regulations and a control system which would ensure that buildings were properly erected. I do not see how a case can be made for the exclusion, for example, of extensions to domestic dwellings or outbuildings. Such extensions and out-buildings will have to stand the test of time. I do not think a case can be made for excluding certain types of buildings. If the subsection is allowed to remain in the Bill pressures will be brought on Ministers to exclude buildings of a particular type at certain times.

I should like to relieve the Deputies' anxiety. It is important that the legislation should be flexible. I am not saying that anything or everything will be excluded but I am saying that it is an option. It occurs to me that very small buildings may be excluded.

Like a dog house?

Like a small extension to the rear of a house in urban or rural Ireland. It may be appropriate to exclude such an extension. At face value that appears to be reasonable but no hard and fast decision has been made in regard to this. In response to Deputy Shatter I should like to point out that section 11 (3) should relieve some of his anxiety in so far as the inspection of buildings at any stage of the construction is concerned. That, coupled with the flexibility in the Bill, should relieve his anxiety. I only see the exemption being applied in exceptional circumstances, if at all.

In the circumstances I will not press my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We now move to amendment No. 7 in the name of Deputy Shatter. Amendment No. 8 in the names of Deputies Shatter and Gilmore is an alternative and I am suggesting, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 9, to delete lines 47 and 48, and in page 10, to delete lines 1 and 2.

The amendment deals with subsection (3) of section 6 which states:

(3) Building control regulations may make different provisions in relation to different buildings, or classes of buildings, in relation to buildings or classes of buildings situated in different areas, or in relation to different provisions of building regulations.

I am seeking to delete that subsection. If that is not acceptable to the Minister I have, with Deputy Gilmore, tabled amendment No. 8 which states:

In page 10, line 2, after "regulations." to insert "Notwithstanding the generality of this subsection, the building control regulations shall provide for domestic dwellings."

There is a major concern as to the extent to which building control regulations will apply to domestic dwellings, an issue I will deal with when we are debating other amendments. There is a great worry that it is the Minister's intention to, in effect, exclude all domestic dwellings that are built in the future from application of the control regulations. That has given rise to a great deal of public concern. There is little point in having building regulations if they are not to be effectively enforced. There is little point in having regulations that do not apply to domestic dwellings. I do not wish to labour the point but I want the Minister to respond to the two amendments, having considered the points made on Committee Stage when they were withdrawn to give him an opportunity to consider the position.

In the last two weeks the Minister may have become aware of the great public concern about the implications of this. The legislation is complex and the implications that arise from the manner in which it may impact on domestic houses were not fully understood. It is because many of these issues have been debated that public attention is focusing on this area. Will the Minister indicate his thinking on our amendments?

I support what Deputy Shatter said on amendment No. 8. A lot of the concern expressed about the Bill has to do with the controls proposed. There is general agreement that the provisions for the making of building regulations are welcome but there is considerable concern inside and outside the House that while the regulations may be made the control system provided for will be inadequate. There is concern about the distinct possibility that domestic dwellings may be excluded from the control system. If that is the case the protection that the vast majority of purchasers of houses have will be removed. To exclude domestic dwellings from the control system would be a grave omission. There is little point in having good building regulations if we do not have a good control system to enforce them and to ensure that the buildings and houses being erected for the general public comply with the regulations. This matter was debated on Committee Stage and there is little point repeating the views expressed then. There is no good reason domestic dwellings should not be included in the Bill so as to ensure that the control regulations apply to them.

Without being repetitive, I rise to reinforce the points which have been made already and to indicate that I am concerned, as are the many people who have taken an extraordinarily deep interest in this debate, that following the enactment of this legislation people living in the seven local authority areas where building by-laws for all buildings are operated, including extensions of any size — the exemption only relates to planning permission, not to building construction standards and they represent we are told approximately 40 per cent of all building activity — will find because of the difficulties and constraints being imposed on local authorities that an exemption will be made in respect of domestic buildings with regard to ensuring that the building regulations are complied with. We will await the Minister's response to amendment No. 13 but it is clear to me that there is a distinct possibility, once the law has been enacted and passed, that the building regulations will become statutory, that they will be the regulations which will have to be administered by the seven local authorities who currently operate seven different types of building by-laws, even though in some cases they are virtually the same. If the Minister was to leave the legislation stand or allow the negotiations on the form of the certificate to proceed at a slow pace the building regulations would be applied in all those areas where the local authorities operate building by-laws.

What we are worried about is that the possibility to take the burden off the other local authorities will be availed of because of the exigencies of the various pressures. While we are in favour of giving the Minister much flexibility — heaven knows this Bill is about as flexible an instrument as one could give to any Minister for the Environment — we are very fearful of the implications if flexibility is availed of in this instance. The Minister would show goodwill if he accepted either of the amendments which have been proposed. The wording of amendment No. 8 in the names of Deputy Shatter and Deputy Gilmore is better than the wording of the straightforward proposal to delete, as it provides a degree of flexibility while clearly stating the category of building we do not wish to have excluded. It is for that reason that I urge the Minister to take on board what has been proposed. It is not an unreasonable request.

If the Minister announces in the House that he is not going to avail of this flexibility and that domestic buildings will be covered by some form of control mechanism, which has yet to be decided, he will reassure the entire country but if, however, he is not in a position to say that, alarm bells will ring right across the country and every householder contemplating making a purchase will know that there is no mechanism of control other than the very limited national house guarantee scheme which only applies to structures and lasts for ten years. The lending agencies who govern at least one third of mortgages will not be happy if this provision is availed of. While most of the lending from building societies and banks takes place in urban areas the vast number of self-financed or other financed housing is outside of the urban areas where building by-law mechanisms are operated at present.

There could be fearful implications if the Minister were to signal that the construction of domestic buildings, that is homes, would be exempt from any kind of control mechanisms as all sorts of alternative certification would be required by the holders of mortgages. The average mortgage is now running between £30,000 and £40,000 while the average price of a house is of the order of £35,000 to £40,000. This represents the biggest life investment which any of us, any individual or family makes. Notwithstanding anything which this House might do, the lending institutions are going to have to safeguard their depositors' resources and funds. The Minister should say quite categorically here now that domestic buildings will be included and on that basis ask the House to give him flexibility. I would be inclined, reluctantly, to accede to that request if that clarification was forthcoming. If on the other hand the Minister is unable to give that clarification or assurance to the House I would have no alternative but reluctantly to ensure that this amendment is pressed.

Amendment No. 7 seeks to delete subsection (3) of section 6 from the Bill. I am a little surprised that Deputy Shatter has persisted with this amendment because it seems obvious to me that while one type of control system would be appropriate in the case of a complex building to which, for example, members of the public would have access, a less onerous type of control might well be appropriate in the case of a simpler, less sensitive building. To put it another way, there is little similarity between a place of entertainment and an outhouse in terms of potential risk to those who have access to them. This subsection is necessary to ensure that building control regulations can deal with each type of building in a manner appropriate to the particular construction criteria arising. I am convinced, therefore, that the subsection must stand. The same issue arises in amendment No. 8. There is not much more I can add except to say that there is no valid reason why domestic dwellings should be singled out for special treatment in the Bill which, after all, is enabling legislation of a much more flexible nature.

If I were to accept Deputy Shatter's amendment, building extensions, no matter how small or insignificant they may be and at whatever location, would have to be subject to the full rigours of control. This may not be necessary. As Deputy Quinn will appreciate, as it is he who mentioned the seven authorities who have this mechanism in place, it does not exist outside of those areas and no one is suggesting that a lesser standard applies anywhere else. I hope not, anyway.

A higher standard is applied in the urban areas.

That may not necessarily be so. Such has never been indicated or substantiated. In fact I would say to Deputy Quinn that as high, if not higher, a standard exists outside the seven areas controlled by the local authorities who operate building controls at this time. That said, the regulations will be applied evenly and they will apply to houses. We are all agreed on that. Section 11, if I may refer to it again, allows building control authorities to enter into buildings and inspect the plans for buildings. Section 8 empowers a building authority to serve an enforcement notice in certain cases where a building does not comply with the regulations. All those matters are catered for in the legislation.

If we were to go further and ask how we put this into effect, I would point out that sections 16 and 17 deal with the offences and penalties. All of those provisions in sections 8 and 11 and everything else in the legislation would be independent of any control system contemplated under section 6. That being the case, this is very efficient legislation. Granted it gives flexibility and I concur with everything Deputy Quinn has said on that matter. It was intended to be so and I ask that the principle of flexibility enshrined in the legislation be conceded by all concerned. That being the case, along with all the other things contained in the various sections, we have an efficient way of dealing with the matters raised by the Deputies. I have to be cross with Deputy Gilmore for seeking to introduce this element of confusion over the weekend, through the media. I understand why the Deputy did it.

I now call on Deputy Shatter to reply on his amendment, No. 7.

I am not pressing amendment No. 7 but I am pressing amendment No. 8.

It is with wry amusement that I hear the Minister scolding Deputy Gilmore, and as he cannot respond I will come to his defence in relation to causing confusion in the media. The Minister, his Department and his junior Minister have been trying to cause confusion in the media to an extraordinary degree——

——by misrepresentation in dealing with the Environment Protection Agency Bill.

There is enough smog about at the moment.

There is enough confusion in tackling environmental matters, and this is another environmental area.

I have never sought to confuse the House on any matter.

You encourage your junior Minister to do so. I presume you are now abandoning her comments of last night.

Minister Harney is well able to look after herself.

The Minister was notable by his absence last night.

Let us get down to dealing with the amendment and not deviate from it.

With regard to the Minister's response to the amendment to include expressly, provisions stating that domestic dwellings will be included in the regulations in the context of control, the Minister was careful to keep talking about the building regulations as opposed to the building control regulations. The semantical exactitude of the Minister's references was not lost on Members on this side of the House. The key here is control. The key is the building control regulations, making different provisions to the building regulations, for different classes of houses. The Minister kept saying that the building regulations will deal with domestic houses, but it is the control regulations that are the problem. Without labouring the point, all of us on this side of the House have already said this morning that regulations are meaningless without controls being in place. That was made very clear in the recent reports that were published in relation to the Raglan House explosion. The report of the Government task force on multi-storey buildings dealt with the concept of building control. It recognised that the implementation of building regulations is of little value unless they can be effectively enforced. It did not even consider a situation where some buildings would be exempt. The report made the point that the effectiveness of the system is dependent on a high level of technical competence and professional responsibility among those certifying and that there would need to be a high degree of policing to support certifiers in carrying out their duties diligently. The recommendation of the task force was that the Building Control Bill should be enacted as soon as possible so that building regulations and an effective building control system can be put on a statutory basis.

Our concern is that an effective building control system will not exist with regard to domestic dwellings and that is what this amendment is about. If the Minister tells us that he might exempt the odd shed that may be built in someone's garden, from building control regulations, we would not argue with that, because the control regulations would effectively lay down specific provisions for a domestic dwelling and they could then go on and say that the garden shed or the green house of a particular dimension is excluded. What we want to do is to ensure that the domestic dwelling falls within the control regulations. The Minister accuses Deputies of confusing the issue with the media but none of the Deputies have done that.

The stories that have emerged in the papers in the last few days derive from members of the public and the professional bodies involved who know what they are talking about, homing in on this concern with regard to the legislation and with regard to what we believe can be a very dangerous gap in the controls that may or may not be put in place. If the Minister wonders about what would fuel people's worries and suspicions, he does not have to go any further than the latest edition of Housing News, The official newsletter of the Irish Homebuilders Association, December, 1989, Volume 4, No. 5 which has a very pleasant picture of the Minister, the Secretary of the Irish Homebuilders Association and the Chairman and the Director with whom we are all familiar. There we have a very interesting headline. “By-law exemptions before Christmas” thunders this very important publication, with a question mark.

Housing should be exempted from by-law approval in the New Year which would alleviate the costs and delays suffered by members at the moment.

Of course the members we are talking about here are not the ordinary general public who might buy a house but the members of the Irish Homebuilders Association who no doubt regard it as a welcome innovation that we might have building regulations in place but that nobody will be inspecting what is going on to find out if anyone is complying with them. That obviously is a cause of pre-Christmas celebration on the part of this body, fuelled no less by a meeting they had with the Minister. The newsletter went on to say:

At a recent meeting with the Minister for the Environment, Pádraig Flynn, the IHBA expressed the annoyance of members with the delays in the whole planning process.

Of course we have had the Minister telling us on another occasion that there were no delays in the planning process. The article continued:

In response, the Minister promised to have the new Building Control Bill passed by the Oireachtas by Christmas.

Hopefully.

We may pass it here today. I do not know what the Minister's plans are for getting it through the Seanad before Christmas. As reported further, the Minister said:

This would exempt members from inspections and by-law charges.

Instead homebuilders will be allowed self-certification in conformity with new regulations.

I will not cry crocodile tears over replacing by-laws with provisions arising effectively from the building control legislation, but apparently the great cause for celebration is that this will exempt members from inspections.

The only thing missing from this piece of lyrical and literary celebration is the couple of laughs and guffaws that must have followed when the Minister said, "by the way, lads, self-certification will be sufficient." All of a sudden the delays would be removed. Of course, the delays are not delays in the planning process but they are delays that might occur on site when the local authority want to inspect what is happening or when they ask that a foundation be examined and something may have to be dug up, or where some work that has been undertaken has to be examined in some detail that may delay progress by half a day in relation to a particular domestic dwelling.

The Irish Homebuilders Association are celebrating because their members will not be subject to inspections to ensure that they comply with the basic requirements so that the house that the ordinary house purchaser buys is built in conformity with the fundamental specifications that are required as necessary in the interests of the public generally and of the house purchaser in particular. That is not a cause for celebration for the overwhelming majority of people who are relying on this House to pass legislation that does not just put in place a set of tidy principles by way of legislation or regulations that we desire builders to comply with. What they want to see is regulations that have teeth, that can be enforced, where there are real checks, where there are obligations on the local authority to make sure that those basic standards are being complied with. If anybody has fuelled public alarm that the position after the message of this legislation may be less secure than it was prior to its passage, with regard to domestic dwellings, it was the Minister in his meeting with the Irish Home Builders Association. The association perhaps are a little too previous in celebrating what they think is something of a building coup in convincing the Department to put in place an approach that is not adopted in any other member state of the EC and which was even rejected by the British Government where apparently the involvement of the state in checking everything has now become something of a reserved sin. In the building control area in the context of domestic dwellings even the British Prime Minister did not run with the type of approach the Irish Home Builders Association want to see put in place.

I regret that the Minister, having had time to consider the worries expressed by Deputies on this side of the House following Committee Stage, does not see fit to accept amendment No. 8. I have no doubt that this amendment will come back to the Minister in the Seanad. I would not wish to be the Minister in maybe two or three years' time having to come into the Dáil and defend his position on this amendment in the event of domestic dwellings truly being excluded from inspection as the Irish Home Builders Association envisage.

Remember the Pollution Act.

There is a descretionary element in section 11 that the Minister is referring to——

There is. They are not excluded from inspection.

——a totally discretionary element and it does not mean that the regulations that are going to be provided for the area of control will cover domestic dwellings. We all know that in the absence of this amendment in this section and in the absence of the Minister accepting the later amendment No. 10 which we will debate, the Irish Home Builders' Association's members will be issuing certificates. It will be a self-certification mechanism and no inspections will take place and building control on domestic dwellings will cease to operate.

I believe that is what the Minister has in mind. If it is not, I wonder why he has not to date or in the House this morning published any denial of what the Irish Home Builders Association say in their newsletter. I am sure the Minister received a copy of this newsletter about ten days ago as I did, and that he has seen the contents of it. From his happy smile on page 2 which contains this headline it seems that the Ministerial imprimatur has been given to this cause célébre of the building industry. It is not a cause célébre in the context of a real celebration for the general public. We are pushing amendment No. 8 to a vote.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 10, line 2, after "regulations." to insert "Notwithstanding the generality of this subsection, the building control regulations shall provide for domestic dwellings.".

I am putting the question now. Deputy Shatter's reply concludes the debate on amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

Can I reply on amendment No. 8?

The amendment is in my name.

That is so, Deputy. It has been replied to.

Is it not the normal practice——

I have replied to the Deputy. He will now resume his seat. I am on my feet putting the question.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 72.

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John(Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finnucane, Michael.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Bruke, Raphael P.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and McCartan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.

We will now deal with amendment No. 9 in the name of Deputy Ruairí Quinn. Amendment No. 10 in the names of Deputies Gilmore, Quinn and Shatter is related so I am suggesting that we discuss amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No.9:

In page 10, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

"(d) ensure that such inspections of certificates of compliance, inspection of plans or documents relating to buildings or works, inspections of buildings or works, either during the course of the works or when completed, which the building control authority may be required to carry out pursuant to subsection (2) (g) shall ensure compliance with this Act or of regulations or orders made under this Act, or with the requirements of the building regulations or buildings or works which are designed and constructed in the area of control of the said authority but not inspected as part of the said requirements."

This amendment was drafted to try to provide for a number of situations, and I hope the wording is acceptable to the Minister, notwithstanding anything in section 11, to which the Minister has had frequent recourse, where an "authorised person" can in effect exercise some degree of scrutiny during the construction of a building or following its completion. I am interpreting the provisions in section 11 as an emergency rather than a standard mechanism. I do not think anybody is suggesting seriously that the provisions of section 11 are the main mechanisms of control. We are all agreed that the powers given to the Minister in section 6 are the main mechanism for the exercise of control by whatever form, be it through a certification process, self-certification or by building approvals. Perhaps I am anticipating that the Minister, in reply to my amendment, will refer me to section 11 but I wish to say in advance that I do not accept that argument, because I do not think we are talking about the same thing.

In the amendments we are trying to ensure that the Minister may require local authorities to inspect periodically the various certificates of compliance in relation to documents, including drawings, plans, etc., and that the fact that they would carry out such an exercise would not in any way make them responsible for the accuracy of the documentation. I am trying to get over the problem which the Minister and the Department may have envisaged with section 6 (4) where, in line 5 on page 10 I think the operative clause is "shall not be under a duty". The word "duty" in this instance has been interpreted by the Department as making it possible that a local authority in some way would be liable under civil law for ensuring that the contents of a package of documents were correct and that in the event of such documentation emerging in a civil court case as being incorrect, an aggrieved property owner could take an action in civil law against the local authority. I understand that the inclusion of this clause in section 6 (4) is to avoid the possibility of local authorities being cojoined in a civil action for negligence or for damage to property.

Having regard to the Minister's concern that a local authority may be co-joined in a civil action, and ignoring whether that is valid, the amendment in my name, which has been drafted in part by professional practitioners, is an attempt to recognise that concern, while at the same time ensuring that periodic inspections of some certificates and the documents of complicance could be undertaken by a local authority. In essence it is a random inspection of a small number of documents and will ensure that all the certifiers will be aware that their documents could in fact be subject to scrutiny and as a consequence they could be prosecuted for offences under the Act.

Similarly, amendment No. 10, since we are discussing both amendments together, in the names of myself, Deputies Gilmore and Shatter is suggesting a slightly different approach to the same problem. What we are saying in both cases, and I will be as brief as I possibly can due to the constraints of time, is that we are not trying to make the local authority responsible for the accuracy of what is set out in a set of certified documents and that therefore they cannot be liable in civil or common law. We are not asking that every package of documentation, as is apparently the case under the approval system, be scrutinised and tested as to whether it complies with the building regulations. That would not be a form of self-certification. In both amendments we are trying to ensure that some certificates and packages of documentation are subject to detailed scrutiny by a competent authority nominated by the building authority or the Minister for the Environment. If it were known that packages of documents were subject to detailed scrutiny and, if found to be fraudulently completed that the person who submitted them would be subject to prosecution, all documents lodged with the local authorities would be likely to be carefully completed by the practitioners and by the certifiers.

That is the essence of our amendment. We are not trying to introduce a new philosophy or a new concept to Irish law, as it exists at present under the Revenue Commissioners' system of self assessment of tax liability. We are not trying to introduce a procedure which is alien to current practice in our administration but we are simply recognising the human condition. While the vast majority of people operating in any sphere will comply with the legislation, human nature prevails and a minority will cut corners and perhaps will certify fraudulently that certain documents comply with the building regulations when perhaps they do not. They will be tempted to do this for commercial reasons if they feel there is nobody to check the records. To give an example, it is a bit like taking a back road to cross the Border when you know there is never a Customs and Excise check. If you think you are likely to be subject to a customs check at some stage, you are more careful. In essence we are looking for policing within the control system. It is my view and the view of other Deputies in this House, and certainly of a large number in the profession, that the existence of the building control regulations will be meaningless if there are not some forms of checks within the control system.

We are not trying to impose a duty in common law or in civil law on the local authority to verify the accuracy of the documents lodged so that they could be liable if it emerged that the documents were not properly completed. However, we are trying to ensure that the local authorities, or a body acting on their behalf, such as the building advisory council or somebody contracted from it, or the environmental protection agency or some other such contracted body, carry out random checks.

It does not necessarily have to be the hard pressed local authority. The scheme could be self-financing if it was done on a fee basis. The concerns, many of them legitimate, that a bureaucratic central administration might have about imposing additional duties on a local authority can be taken on board, recognised as valid and accommodated. Our point is if there is not some form of effective policing which will result in penalties being imposed on people who fraudulently, negligently or criminally sign certificates that a design was completed in accordance with the building regulations, when it manifestly was not, or that a building was constructed in accordance with designs and specifications which comply with the building regulations, but manifestly was not those people may be tempted, by the belief that there are no control systems, to cut corners and make more money for themselves and as a consequence put the ordinary citizen at risk.

When we were speaking earlier the Minister seemed somewhat concerned about reports in the media which appeared recently in connection with the debate on this Bill. I am glad those reports have given him some cause for concern because it appears that the Minister has been addressing himself to two agendas; the introduction of regulations, with which we are all in agreement, but side by side with that he is also dismantling the system of control that already exists and he is making no provision for any effective control in the Bill we are now debating.

Following a long Committee Stage debate about self-certification it was eventually agreed that that was essentially the system that will be used, that is, that professionals working for a particular builder would themselves certify that they are complying with the regulations that will be made following the passage of this Bill. Amendment No. 10 seeks to put in place a system of spot checks of the certificates talked about that are submitted by the professionals in much the same way as the case highlighted by people crossing the Border. That is why we have customs posts; that is why customs officials carry out spot checks. We do not allow people to travel in and out of the country certifying that they are complying with the customs and excise regulations.

The Department of Agriculture have a system of checking to ensure that their regulations are complied with and that infection control mechanisms are being carried out. On Committee Stage it was mentioned that in the US where people certify themselves for income tax there is a system of spot checks. That is what this amendment is seeking to achieve.

In an earlier part of the debate the Minister seemed to suggest that we did not need to have a local authority or similar body carrying out such checks and — if I heard him correctly — he effectively said that there is no evidence to show that building is any worse in areas which are not currently covered by building by-law approval than in areas which are covered. That is not the case. I have in front of me the statistics from the national house building guarantee scheme which give details of the claims made between 1978 and 1987.

Let us take the Dublin area where there were 37,158 houses built between 1978 and 1987, and the total number of claims on the building guarantee scheme for that period was 45. Approximately the same number of houses were built in the rest of the country, but the number of claims was 147, more than three times the number of claims in the Dublin area where there is building by-law approval. That does not suggest to me that the same standards are being applied in areas where there are inspections as opposed to areas where there are no inspections. The Government's own reports — the Cramer and Warner report and the task force on multi-storey buildings — said that the introduction of building regulations are of little value unless they can be effectively enforced.

In this House last night the Minister of State speaking on the Environment Protection Agency Bill spoke in exactly the same terms. She said very clearly that there is little point in having environmental legislation — she instanced the Air Pollution Act and the Water Pollution Act — unless there is a system of enforcement. What we are getting in this Bill are the regulations but we are not getting the system of enforcement. As Deputy Shatter stated earlier, the Minister has already conceded to the house building industry that the system of enforcement and inspection that is in existence is to be dismantled and that he is going to take the inspectors out of the area of inspecting buildings.

What will happen if he does that? Let us look at what is happening at present. The Minister made a remark earlier about how well informed I was about what happens with regard to the present building control system. I am reasonably well informed and I am told that where there is already a building control system in force and people have to apply for building by-law approval, the building by-law officers find when they go out to inspect buildings that in roughly one out of every three there are problems with the foundations. A typical example would be where a foundation is supposed to be two feet deep and it is found to be only one foot deep, or a foundation that is supposed to be built on solid ground is not built on solid ground. This is the type of problem that arises where we have inspections at present. Can you imagine what would happen if there were no inspections at all and the only system of control was that the professionals representing the particular builder would come in and certify that everything was all right?

I am informed that in three out of every four cases there are problems with the drainage in dwellings, that the fall is not adequate on the pipes, that the manholes are not properly constructed etc. I am informed that serious problems arise in the area of ventilation, for example, there are missing room vents and damp proof courses are not correctly applied. A typical example is that the damp proof course is not provided over windows. This is happening where there are inspections. Where there are no inspections, and under this Bill there is no provision for even a system of spot checking, the situation would be much worse and builders who wanted to but corners would do so. They would cut on the materials they are using and the standard of building would suffer as a result.

When I drew attention to problems like this on Committee Stage the Minister took me to task. He said I was overly preoccupied with rogue builders. I was hardly out of this House that day when I found a telephone message at home that a building was already under construction in my own area without planning permission. Within two days we had the example of a fine building in Blackrock, in my own constituency, Talbot Lodge, the home of former President de Valera, demolished by a developer in advance of a preservation order being put on that building. I am not saying, and I would not suggest, that every builder falls into that category, but I state very clearly that some builders fall into that category, that some builders do cut corners and that some builders will run amok with these regulations. I am informed that the regulations the Minister proposes to introduce are of a very general nature and are a copy of the current regulations in the United Kingdom. It is stated, for example, that the structure shall be of an adequate standard. The regulations are in very general terms of that nature.

Where we have very general regulations and the system of control is to be by self-certification, the very least we need is a system of spot checking by the local authorities. If we do not have that system of spot checking by the local authorities then, I believe, the regulations for which the Bill is providing will not be worth the paper they are written on. As the task force report stated, the introduction of building regulations is of little value unless they can be effectively enforced. The very least we need for effective enforcement is a system of spot checking.

I can well understand that Deputy Quinn has some difficulty with the wording in the amendment he put down, that is the kindest thing I can say. I was a little surprised that he pursued it. He readily admits that it was produced some place else and that it does not stand up to very close drafting scrutiny. Be that as it may, I am sympathetic to the motivation underlying amendment No. 10 but I have serious difficulties with the effects to which it could give rise. I know from previous debates that some of us share different views on some aspects of this legislation, but I know also that we share a common conviction that the Bill should, as far as possible, provide a sound legislative base to enhance the safety and quality of the built environment. The realisation of this common objective will, in the final analysis, owe more to those involved in the construction industry than any regulatory mechanism, legal or otherwise, which may be put in place. This is common to all industries and areas of human endeavour and is not just confined to the construction industry.

Let us ask ourselves, in the light of what I have just said, what powers the public regulatory authority should have. In section 6, many options are available to the Minister and I will not go into them in detail yet again. It is not right for some Members to be pursuing a line as if it was already predetermined what I would do in these matters. Suffice to say that, in many respects, the meat of the Bill is found outside section 6 in the powers of inspection, enforcement and prosecution which it confers on building control authorities.

There is no doubt that all sides of the House are firmly convinced that these powers should be conferred on building control authorities so that building regulations are observed. What is at issue in a nutshell is whether these powers should be discretionary, as in the case of the Bill before us, or if there should be some statutory obligation on the authority exercising them. It is not normal in the legislative code for which the Minister for the Environment is responsible to oblige local authorities to exercise powers of inspection or enforcement; this is something left to those authorities, as responsible public bodies, to exercise as circumstances require. This is true of the functions of a fire authority under the Fire Services Act, 1981, and of a sanitary authority in exercising their functions under the Water Pollution Act. There are many more examples, the list is not confined to local authorities. The Garda enforce the Road Traffic Act on a similar basis and no one has suggested that the exercise of those powers should be mandatory rather than discretionary. There is no reason for building control law being any different.

Deputy Gilmore mentioned another list of checks of a similar nature but every one of them is discretionary and the same discretion exists in this legislation as in the type of legislation to which Deputy Gilmore referred. What is the difference?

There is also the question of liability. I am not hypersensitive to the exposure of local authorities to liability but I cannot see that this amendment would do other than contribute to just that outcome. If a building is faulty it can be argued that an effective building control system was lacking and that not enough checks or inspections were carried out by the authority to ensure the effectiveness of the system. In those circumstances, there must be every possibility that the aggrieved person would, with a realistic expectation of success, sue the building control authority in any action for damages. That is basically one of the reasons for not accepting the amendment.

That is the dead hand of Sir Humphrey.

Deputy Quinn said he did not intend or want that to be the case, that he did not want liability transferred to local authorities. He made that quite clear in his contribution.

The reference to paragraph 6 (2) (g) in amendment No. 9 tabled by Deputy Quinn is inappropriate. I take it that the paragraph is inserted to require building control authorities to provide certain statistical data to the Minister and is wholly unrelated to the whole question of inspections. If my understanding of the purpose of the amendment is correct— I will preface my remarks by saying that I am reluctant to go too far down the road in anticipating what the courts would do in any particular circumstances — I very much doubt if the insertion of an immunity provision would ultimately succeed in denying any legal right of redress which the courts may feel exist in accordance with natural justice. If my argument is correct, any immunity provision, the objective of the amendment, would fail or would be liberal in its effect irrespective of the care with which it was drafted.

Deputy Gilmore argued that the experience derived from the operation of a new house building guarantee scheme suggests that there are fewer incidents of blame in the existing areas where building by-laws are operated. He went further by implying that a local authority approval type system based on building by-laws or building regulations is preferable to the self-certification system. Of course, that was Deputy Gilmore's point from his very first contribution on this legislation. I have not seen the figures produced by the advocates of that proposition — there was some reference to them this morning — but I have asked the guarantee company for data in relation to their experience with the claims in different counties. The results are inconclusive, certain by-law areas have a relatively low incidence of claims when weighted against the number of houses registered under the scheme while other by-law areas seem higher. I am not putting this forward on my own initiative as it was suggested to me by sources outside the Department that the incidence of claims may well owe more to the nature of soil conditions in a particular area than to any other factor. I do not know if that is the case but I am offering it for consideration and it may very well be the cause for the variations in certain areas.

I do not know why Deputy Gilmore persists in his criticism of the construction industry. I do not accept his criticisms regarding foundations. He has also been critical of the workmen who build these houses but I do not share his attitude or his over-critical view of the workmen on the building sites with which — I presume — he is most familiar in Dublin. I cannot understand why he persists in his criticisms because he promotes himself in other cases as being a defender of these people. Building construction workers in this city and throughout the country do a very conscientious job and produce good buildings for the public. He talked about control of certain matters that might have been applicable under the by-laws of various authorities but those authorities did most of their examinations over the desk. I am not aware of any major contribution of by-law inspectors on sites so far as these matters are concerned. Deputy Gilmore's arguments are not consistent with the facts.

I reject out of hand the idea that certain regulations are being framed by the Minister or the Department in a certain way. Deputy Gilmore has no information as to what is intended in regard to these matters. I regard his remarks as chit-chat. It is unhelpful because it seeks, in a mild way, to undermine what is genuinely regarded as a decent effort by the Department and the Minister to put in place an effective mechanism to deal with these matters. I will not go as far as saying that the Deputy was seeking to be mischievous — that is not the kind of language I use — but he should not allow chit-chat like that to colour his contribution in the House because the Bill is perceived by all sides of the House as a real effort — after five years — to finally do something in the area of regulations and control. I never suggested that this legislation would not have warts, indeed I made it quite clear that there might very well be deficiencies, but I asked the House to tackle the Bill. If it needs to be refined or amended following experience of practice, then so be it. In the meantime I have gone quite as far as I can, perhaps somewhat further than had been suggested to me, to accommodate many of the items referred to on the other Stages.

Does the Minister accept the principle of spot checks?

I have to say to the Deputy that I believe we have enshrined in the Bill the fact that these inspections can take place. I really believe that the discretion there, the same as applies within other legislative frameworks within other Ministers' Departments, will be applied here also. I regard this House and indeed Deputy Gilmore respectively as watchdogs of that. Therefore, I see no reason to be over-anxious in that regard. For that reason I might point out that section 6 (4) is not to be compared with the amendment now before us. The subsection to which I have referred says simply:

Where a certificate of compliance, ...is submitted to a building control authority

— under a self-certification system —

...the building control authority shall not be under a duty

to establish that the certificate is correct or that the building to which it relates complies with building regulations. Deputy Quinn supports that point of view. This is inherently reasonable and is a far more limited provision than the one Deputy Quinn is now attempting to insert. I think he recognises himself that, whatever he might have intended in so doing, it is not well framed and would not achieve what he had intended. That is my attitude to it at this stage.

I listened with some interest to what the Minister had to say. I deliberately refrained from making a contribution on the amendment tabled in the names of myself, Deputies Gilmore and Quinn until we had heard the Minister's response. The Minister's response, at best — to use a good old academic term — can be described as tautological. The Minister seems to be going round in circles. I am not sure what is the reason for that.

The Minister has just told us that he has enshrined in legislation that inspections can take place although he did not respond to the direct question posed by Deputy Quinn. All this amendment provides in the context of buildings and building control, and I will quote it, is that:

Building control authorities shall carry out such checks of certificates and documents lodged and work in progress and completed buildings as they consider necessary to satisfactorily monitor the effectiveness of the control system in the area.

That is what the amendment is about. If the Minister is happy that inspections take place, by virtue of that local authorities will have to carry out spot-checks. If we are all in agreement on this I fail to understand why the Minister cannot accept the amendment. There has to be some unspoken reason — I will deal in a moment with subsection (4) and local authority liability because that is a red herring — and it is very difficult to figure what is the reason. Perhaps the Minister wants to be in favour of spot-checks. I was talking yesterday evening of environmental rhetoric; perhaps we could talk about this as the built environment rhetoric. Perhaps he wants to be in favour of it without anything actually happening. Experience with the Multi-Storey Buildings Act has shown that, unless there is an obligation or a duty imposed on local authorities, there is no guarantee that hard-pressed local authorities will carry out any adequate or effective monitoring.

What we on this side of the House want to see is that we have what the Minister referred to earlier — a sound legislative base to ensure the quality of the built environment. What we are about at this moment is refining this Bill. The Minister suggests that the refining should take place in perhaps four or five years' time after we have had experience of the operation of its provisions and have discovered or identified problems. We are endeavouring to remove the warts before they grow. We do not want to have to come in here to conduct a medical operation on the Act in some years' time when the ordinary consumer or house purchaser has discovered a major problem. Deputy Gilmore gave examples of the problems of house foundations not being laid at a correct level. How many houses will have to fall down before we recognise that this Bill is full of warts and is in need of amendment? Do we not have a duty to the house purchaser, to someone who acquires any building, or even a duty to the pedestrian who innocently walks past a building, to ensure it does not collapse about them, or does not fall on their head; is that not what we have a duty to do? Is this not the fine-tuning mechanism? Is this not the reason we have a Committee or Report Stage on legislation? If this Stage does not result in the fine tuning we might as well forget it and just endorse whatever Bill a Government Department produce, have a bit of a flowery debate on it and that is the end of it? This is what we are at.

Sewage and drainage problems were referred to. When inspections are not carried out and it is certified by a builder or surveyor that a house has been built in accordance with regulations, the controls are not in place and spot-checks have not been operational, will the Minister explain to some new house purchaser why strange and unedifying objects float up in their back garden delivered through the drainage system from half the estate in which they live? Will the Minister wade through the front garden when sewage seeps out into the street and explain to a house purchaser: I am sorry, I thought the local authority would carry out checks to ensure the specifications were complied with; we are now going to go back and change the legislation? It is as simple and basic as that. We do not have to get involved in lengthy, academic treatises or analyses of the legislation. What we want are building regulations, with proper controls, with local authorities being under a statutory duty to carry out spot-checks.

The general public's understanding of the need for such legislation was one that would result in that type of legislative structure. But apparently what is envisaged is a system under which we have building regulations, in some instances with some controls in place and, in others, no controls in place, and house builders, surveyors or architects engaging in a system of self-certification which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, would be the end of the matter; there would be no independent inspection carried out by a local authority to cover the wide areas to which the regulations will relate to ensure that basic requirements are being complied with. The purchase of a house is the single greatest investment most ordinary people make during their lifetime. They are entitled to know that local authorities are carrying out spot-checks to ensure that what they require meets specifications laid down by Government and this House to ensure their safety and that buildings are built to meet proper criteria. I do not find anything the Minister has said to be in any way convincing. He has raised the issue of liability. I expressed the view the last day that if we have a meaningful certification system, if we want to provide a public guarantee as to the correctness of the construction of a building, the certication system will be meaningless unless a local authority both inspect and have a legal liability to ensure that that what they do is correct.

The amendment I proposed to allow the general public recover damages from a local authority who in effect fall down on their public obligations was defeated, was opposed by the Minister and the House and is not incorporated in the Bill. Section 6 (4) stands. That subsection contains complete exemption from any liability to civil action against local authorities who do not do their job properly on behalf of the consumer. If a local authority is exempt from any liability, if they are short of staff, have no duty to inspect, are hard-pressed to have other local authority works carried out, what local authority in the country will arrange for spot-checks to be carried out unless there is a statutory duty imposed on them? The answer is that none of them will. The answer is that those people employed in the seven local authorities that currently have a by-law system in place will be given other duties. They will not be involved in this area. They will not carry out spot-checks. The protections that we want to see in place will not be there. The issue of liability is a red herring. I greatly regret that the Minister will not accept this amendment.

Deputy Gilmore and I referred earlier to the report on multi-storey buildings, the Raglan House disaster and the report that was produced subsequent to that. All those reports conveyed one message: if you have regulations you must have proper controls and to have proper controls you must carry out inspections. If the Minister truly wants inspections to be carried out, as opposed to presenting the facade that they may be carried out when in reality they will not be, he should accept this amendment. There is something happening here that we in this House should be aware of. Let us assume that we do not put in that statutory duty and that in three years' time some disaster takes place with regard to the building environment, a building does not comply with the regulations, no inspections have been carried out or certificates lodged and people are killed as a result of that disaster, I wonder what would happen. If this Government are still in office — and I hope they are not — this Minister or whoever succeeds him will come into this House and wash their hands of the affair. They will say that in this legislation we gave local authorities powers to inspect and it is their fault that they did not carry out the inspection. They will wash their hands of any responsibility for any disaster that might result.

It is my view that local authorities will not carry out spot-checks and will not monitor in the way that is necessary if this amendment is not accepted. If, after the building control regulations are eventually made and this legislation comes into force, in some years time that type of disaster occurs, I want to put on the record of this House that this Government will be responsible due to their not being willing to accept this amendment. It is as serious as that.

I will come back to the celebration of the Irish Home Builders Association about the fact that they will no longer be subject to inspections. That was inspired from somewhere.

Who are you attributing that to now? You are making innuendos again as you always do.

I have not talked to that association about this legislation but the Minister clearly has. He is reported, in their December newsletter, as advising the Irish Home Builders Association that delays in the planning processes would come to an end and that soon their members would be exempt from inspections. The Minister did not advert to that in his response. It is quite clear that, following the coming into force of this Bill, without this amendment being made local authorities will not carry out spot checks.

I am not saying that all the home builders or building companies who are currently involved in construction are doing a bad job. That is not true. There are many fine building companies who comply with statutory requirements and regulations, who get on with the job and build very fine buildings. They are not the people who are the problem. If all the building companies in this country——

Make sure you get that on record.

——performed in that way we would not need this legislation. The legislation is not a problem to any of those people but it is a problem to the people who do not perform properly, to those who are willing to cut corners to make an extra few bob on the sale of a property. It is a problem to the architect or surveyor who may not be as publicly minded, who may take the view that the approach to be taken is to advise the building company to get around regulations and to provide inferior materials without the local authority being made aware of what is happening. There are a few of those people around but they are not in the majority.

This legislation is not about the building companies or the architects or surveyors who do their job properly; it is about providing a protection to the general public against those who do not do their job properly. I am sorry that the fact that inspections are no longer going to be part of the home building control mechanism appears to be a cause of celebration to the Home Builders Association. I would have hoped and expected that that association would welcome the fact that inspections continued to take place. When builders do a good, job inspections are no great problem. They are only a problem to those who do not do the job properly. I think we all have an interest in ensuring that those types of builders are not allowed a free rein. My concern, if the Minister does not accept this amendment, is that they will have open season after the passage of this Bill.

Deputy Quinn rose.

You have spoken previously, Deputy.

I moved the amendment and therefore I am entitled to reply to it.

Acting Chairman

I understand and accept that. I presume the Minister will be speaking again.

At this stage the Minister hopes to reply to a few misdirected missiles of Deputy Shatter.

Acting Chairman

I take it then that the Minister will be replying. I will allow the Deputy to conclude.

I will be very brief. What the House would like to hear is not an extension of the discussion and the argument. I must correct the Minister in relation to one matter about which he seems to be very ill informed and that is the work carried out by building control officers in some of the larger local authorities in respect of on-site inspections. If the Minister has been informed that they carry out their work from secure and well-heated offices then he has been misinformed. Frequent and regular inspections take place and indeed in many cases it is a condition of the by-laws that inspections take place at certain stages.

I accept the Deputy's point on that.

The Minister could remove a lot of uncertainty in relation to this amendment and the operation of section 6 of this legislation if he could indicate to the House that he is in favour of spot checks being carried out by a body, whatever body, to ensure that the control mechanism is operating effectively. Section 6 (1) would enable him to require such spot checks to take place and I hope he will be prepared to do that in the regulations. Alternatively he could accept the amendment in the names of the three Opposition Deputies—amendment 10—which basically says that that can be done. That is the core of this debate. If the Minister is not in a position to say that he is in favour of spot checks then alarm bells will start to ring very loudly and rapidly and without cessation.

The second point I would like to put to the Minister is the fear that has been expressed cogently on this side of the House that in the absence of such spot checks the coming into operation of this legislation in advance of any form of self-certification being agreed by the industry and the Government authorities, the existing building approval system that covered the seven local authorities will be stood down in favour of some kind of vague form of self-certification or no certification whatsoever. I know they are two separate questions but they are related.

I would invite the Minister to try to respond to whether or not he is in favour of the principle of spot checks and secondly to indicate to the House that prior to the arrival at an agreement about the form of self-certification, which we all agree will take some time, the existing building control authorities, instead of administering by certificates of approval the current building by-laws, will administer the building regulations that will simply replace the old by-laws. The status quo in respect of the 40 per cent of the country where an approval system is in operation should remain in place until such time as a new system of certification is introduced and agreed upon. There is a real fear in the minds of many people that there will be a hiatus in which no effective system of administration of any kind will exist in areas where there was previously a system of control. They are the legitimate fears of this side of the House.

I wish to reply briefly on amendment No. 10 which I moved. The Minister seems to think that I dreamt up some of the criticisms that I made about the building industry. The day after we debated this Bill on Committee Stage the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Science and Technology, launched a quality material service for home builders in Galway. It is quite clear that he was of the view that the prospective house buyer would have to have a broader assurance through quality checking of the major materials going into the House in addition to the structure itself. If the materials have to be checked surely it follows that the construction should be checked.

The Minister seems to have two objections to this amendment. The first is that there is nothing to stop local authorities carrying out checks. But who will do it? Most local authorities do not have building control sections and it has been made quite clear to the officers in the local authorities who have control sections that following the passage of this Bill they will be given other duties. It has been made clear to them that the existing control sections of local authorities are going to be wound up. This will mean there will be an even worse situation in those local authorities.

The other element to this is that generally local authorities have loads of duties which they can carry out under a whole range of legislation. However, given the way in which local authorities are structured and financed, if they do not have a statutory duty to perform a function it is most unlikely that it will be carried out.

The Minister also seems to be worried about the liability on local authorities if this amendment is adopted. It seems to me that subsection (4) absolves the local authority of liability for any claims being made against them on foot of their role under this Bill. In any event because of the way in which this amendment is set out — it talks about such checks being carried out as the local authorities consider necessary — it does not place a burden on the local authority to examine every single certificate which is being submitted; it is clear that it is a system of spot-checking. I cannot understand how that would impose any liability on local authorities in individual cases. As long as it can be shown that local authorities are carrying out a system of spot-checking it does not necessarily follow that if a problem arises in regard to a file which has not been checked there is a liability on the local authority. By not agreeing to this amendment the Minister is agreeing that there will be no policing. He is taking the enforcement of the policing mechanism out of the control system. Is it any wonder that many people in the building industry are so excited about the prospect that there will be no further inspections, that there will not be anyone from the local authorities coming to look at what is being done on the sites?

Acting Chairman

The circumstances in which a person can speak twice on this Stage is that the person who has moved the amendment can close the debate. I have allowed the Deputy to do that. As some specific questions were put to the Minister I am prepared to allow him latitude to reply, if he so desires.

I hope we are not going to get into a discussion about rhetoric on this matter. I am not at all concerned with rhetoric in so far as this important issue is concerned. I am concerned with the reality and I had hoped the Deputy would be likewise.

There is no guarantee that local authorities will not act responsibly. There seems to be some kind of implied suggestion that local authorities or building control authorities will somehow wash their hands politely and go away. I do not accept that. I have a much higher regard for local authorities and control authorities as they exist. I believe they will be very conscious——

Does the Minister know what their intentions are?

I am saying I have a high regard for the responsible way in which they treat legislation like this. It is incorrect to say that I implied in something I said on a number of occasions that there are warts in the legislation. I do not think there are but should there be this matter will have to be considered at a later date. It is not proper to seek to twist the position to convey an alternative view.

In so far as the officers in the building by-law sections of the local authorities are concerned I have to say to Deputy Quinn that nothing I have said since the start of this discussion in any way implies that they were negligent or did not do a good job. This is not in question at all. They did their duty as they saw it and as it was indicated to them and they performed well and admirably. We should at least be at one on this. What we need is a new system which is more appropriate to the modern situation and I believe that is agreed by us all. To suggest that it is an implied reflection on those in the building by-law sections is misdirecting the attention from where it should be applied.

I do not know where the unconnected pipes Deputy Shatter referred to are or whether his experience referred to an area under the control of officers where by-law systems are in place. Nobody in this House or in the by-law sections of any of the seven authorities who have them support rogue builders or anybody who undertakes that kind of activity.

Reference to the Raglan House task force report has been trotted out too often and it is as well for me to clear the line on this. The only thing one can deduce from paragraph 8 of the task force report is that they want us to enact this legislation now. They asked for this to be done some time ago and it has taken a fair bit of effort to get the legislation this far in spite of a few obstacles in the course. I am directing this in a certain area as well——

Will there be spot checks, yes or no?

Acting Chairman

The Minister will have to reply to the questions asked.

I want to say to the Deputy that nobody supports the rogue builder. The implication that the Irish House Building Association in any way support that kind of activity is unfair, unjustified, misdirected and blatantly incorrect. They welcome both the concept of the legislation and the attitude I took in so far as delays in the appeals process were concerned. I am working overtime on this issue at present to see if we can get back to the situation we thought existed at the end of 1988 so that there will be very few outstanding appeals after six months, or perhaps less. Steps are being taken to provide extra finance and additional inspectors to deal with this problem. The Irish House Building Association welcomed this step. When I met that association they were celebrating the upsurge in the construction industry where output will be in the region of 10 per cent this year. There has been an increase in this output because of good Government activity in dealing with the economy.

Will there be spot checks, yes or no?

Acting Chairman

Please reply to the questions that were asked, Minister.

Perhaps Deputy Shatter will reflect on that cause for celebration as well as the number of jobs which will be created as a result.

Acting Chairman

I have allowed the Minister a lot of latitude to reply to the questions asked.

It is important to say that spot checks may be undertaken by the control authorities. I am doing nothing in this legislation to prevent such inspections taking place. In fact, even if I wanted to do that I am not permitted under this legislation to in any way deny a control authority the right to carry out those spot checks. Therefore, that principle is not involved here at all.

Then accept the amendment.

Spot checks may be undertaken by the control authorities.

Under section 11.

But they may not unless the Minister accepts the amendment.

They may not but they may and I cannot by any device under this legislation deny them the right to carry out such spot checks.

But you can ensure they will be carried out by accepting the amendment.

With regard to liability I want to say to Deputy Gilmore that this matter has been disposed of before this. Obviously the Deputies are not prepared to accept that this legislation allows for inspections and for some reason they want to have it altered to satisfy another whim. As far as I am concerned, the legislation prohibits me denying the right to anybody to carry out such spot checks. That should be an adequate safeguard for Deputies.

Is amendment No. 9 being pressed?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 10, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

"(5) Building control authorities shall carry out such checks of certificates and documents lodged and work in progress and completed buildings as they consider necessary to satisfactorily monitor the effectiveness of the control system in the area.".

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 70.

  • Ahearn, Therese.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Boylan, Andrew.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, John. (Carlow-Kilkenny).
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Finnucane, Michael.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Garland, Roger.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick J.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John. (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Quinn and J. Higgins; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 10, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

"(7) Persons or classes of persons submitting certificates of compliance shall submit to the building control authority evidence that they hold indemnity insurance appropriate to the building being certified.".

We have already heard the Minister say that he does not wish the local authorities to have any particular liability with regard to the certification process. Indeed, there is a provision in the Bill which removes any liability. If the certification process is to be in any way meaningful, it is important that the people who will have to rely on the regulations will have some form of redress against those who do not properly comply with the required specifications. In that context the provision of indemnity insurance, and the necessity for it, is designed to ensure that that redress is meaningful and that there would be funds available in the event of an individual having to pursue his rights through the courts due to a failure to comply with the regulations. I commend this amendment to the House.

In the small number of EC member states where systems of self-certification are applied, they are underwritten by a requirement that certifiers hold insurance. It is essential if the home buyer, the owners and users of buildings are to be given adequate protection that the certifiers have insurance. As things stand at present, the local authorities could not be held liable. The house building guarantee scheme is very limited in its scope and only applies for a limited number of years.

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but the conversation in the lobby is disrupting the business of the House and constitutes disorder and must cease.

The Bill as it stands does not provide for any system of insurance or adequate protection for the home buyer in this respect.

This particular amendment was well aired on Committee Stage. The Bill has one fundamental objective and that is to regulate buildings in the interests of the common good. It is not nor was it ever intended to be a vehicle for the establishment of new consumer protection type rights in relation to post-construction liability. It is carefully drafted to be neutral on this issue of civil liability. This may be something for another day, but it certainly does not arise under this Bill.

Let me make two final points. Let me deal first with the question of liability. The common law does offer a measure of redress to an aggrieved person who has purchased a building which, for reasons of negligence, is seriously defective in some way. These rights are additional to any rights arising from contractual obligations. The other point is that I accept that Deputy Shatter and Deputy Gilmore are simply attempting to ensure that only fit and proper persons are designated as certifiers. I fully share their view and would point out that under section 6 (2) (c) it is open to the Minister to decide what criteria should govern the designation of persons as approved certifiers. These criteria could include a whole range of considerations relative to the suitability of the person concerned. That is what I intend to do.

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but as it is now 1.30 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of an Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment to the Bill on Report Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed".

Amendment put and declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share