Building Control Regulations: Motion (Resumed)
The following motion was moved by Deputy Joe Higgins on Wednesday, 6 June 2012:
That Dáil Éireann:
notes that the inordinate political influence which major developers and big builders exercised in this State over many decades resulting in a wholly inadequate regime of regulation, supervision and inspection in the construction industry, has left a disastrous legacy of defective buildings and major fire hazards, only recently coming to light;
further notes in particular:
— that the Building Control Act 1990, subsequent building regulations and building control regulations, reliant as they are on self-certification by building contractors, architects and engineers constrained only by legally ambiguous concepts such as ‘substantial compliance' with building regulations, are not and have not been fit for purpose; and
— that low inspection rates of buildings subject to commencement notices have been facilitated by successive governments since 1990, and that this has been further
compounded by the discarding of the clerk of works function under a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government;
acknowledges that the above has resulted in:
— prioritisation of the interests of land speculators, developers, the construction industry and building professionals above the interests of families and individuals who purchased homes in good faith believing that the building regulations provided protection against bad builders;
— the run-down of the already inadequate building control inspectorate by failing to recruit competent building inspectors;
— housing developments throughout the State having been built with essentially no check on compliance with building regulations;
— tens of thousands of families and individuals who purchased homes during the period since the introduction of building regulations in 1997 being left with no recourse against contractors and developers who sold houses which are now presenting with major structural damage due to pyrite induced heave, which could have been prevented by mandatory basic testing of quarry fill for heave potential and that such testing is still not mandatory in 2012;
— fire safety being seriously compromised in many housing developments by faulty installation of fire stopping materials at party walls, roofs and in cavity walls;
— the issuance of fire safety certificates prior to commencement of building without further inspection by building control being required during the construction to confirm that fire retarding materials and construction complied with the design drawings and fire safety building regulations;
— permission to build timber frame housing and apartments up to four storeys high being granted without the necessary rigorous independent inspection of construction for fire
safety compliance;
— signatures confirming ‘substantial compliance' with fire safety building regulations by contractors, timber frame subcontractors, architects and engineers employed by the developer being accepted as sufficient guarantee of fire safety compliance by the Dublin City Council fire officer in the case of the Belmayne development despite the fact that breaches of fire regulations identified were so serious that fire insurance was withdrawn;
— certificates being signed by architects who may not have visited the site confirming ‘substantial compliance' with the building regulations to enable sale of housing units, leading to such disasters as that at the Priory Hall development;
— foul sewer pipe lines having been backfilled without any check on line, level or pressure test or post-construction camera survey of the sewer lines; and
— sound insulation being so inadequate in semi-detached, terraced houses and apartments that people can hear conversations through separating walls;
condemns the proposed Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2012 for:
— failing to provide any proposal for public inspection and remedial work to put right serious estate-wide defects including compromised fire safety caused due to failure of governments since 1990 to implement public building control on all buildings at all key stages of construction;
— providing such an inadequate mandatory certification of compliance with building regulations, including lodgement of design drawings and calculations prior to commencement of construction, that it would not have prevented the pyrite disaster; and
— placing the burden of inspection and certification of compliance and legal responsibility on individual professionals who could not possibly inspect adequately without a continual presence on site of a resident engineer or clerk of works, while placing no responsibility on the developer to fund such a necessary presence on site;
concludes that:
— the chosen inspection option demonstrates that this Government, like its predecessors, favours inadequate private sector checks rather than full inspection and approval of all buildings by local authority building control; and
— the penalties for serious non-compliance, which can lead to fatalities, are proposed to remain at the level of section 17(2) of the Building Control Act 1990, again reflecting the unwillingness of the Government to implement adequate sanction for offences at the behest of the construction industry's powerful lobby; and
resolves that:
— building control shall be a wholly public function, adequately staffed by competent building inspectors, involving inspections of all buildings requiring commencement notices and approval at all key stages of construction and with costs to be incorporated in planning contributions;
— there should be a systematic and thorough inspection regime across the State to detect fire hazards as a result of inadequate regulation or non-compliance with such regulation as exists; and
— Government, having failed to implement building control and thereby allowing sub-standard and defective building practices throughout the State, must accept responsibility for necessary remedial works to make buildings safe and fit for purpose as part of an emergency programme of necessary public works and where possible to subsequently pursue the responsible developers and builders to recoup the cost for the State.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes that:
— the Building Control Acts 1990 to 2007 provide a clear statutory framework for construction activity based on legal standards set out in the building regulations and associated detailed technical guidance documents which set out how to achieve the standards in practice;
— building regulations set out the legally enforceable minimum requirements that a building must achieve;
— the Acts place responsibility for compliance with the building regulations first and foremost on the builder-developer;
— professionals who are engaged by builders-developers have also a statutory responsibility to ensure that construction meets the standard;
— certificates of "substantial compliance" are not part of building regulations but were developed by the legal profession and the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland to facilitate conveyancing;
— responsibility for enforcement rests with the 37 building control authorities which have extensive powers under the Building Control Acts 1990 to 2007 to enforce
compliance with the regulations, including the scrutiny of plans and to carry out inspections; serve enforcement notices for non-compliance; initiate enforcement proceedings for breaches of regulatory requirements; and seek High Court injunctions if non-compliance poses considerable and serious danger to the public;
— the Building Control Acts 1990 to 2007 provide for considerable penalties for failure to comply with the requirements of the building regulations;
— the agreed national inspection target is that each building control authority should inspect a minimum of 12% to 15% of buildings covered by a valid commencement notice submitted to the authority and that statistical returns for 2010 show that the average inspection rate across all building control authorities is 23%;
— responsibility for "making good" construction defects must rest with those responsible;
— the role of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government is to ensure that appropriate statutory requirements, technical standards and administrative provisions are in place to give practical effect to the Act;
— in July 2011, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government announced that he had instructed his Department to advance the following measures to strengthen the building control system:
— the commencement of section 6(2)(a)(i) of the Building Control Act 1990 requiring the submission to building control authorities of certificates of compliance with the building regulations in respect of particular buildings or works;
— the preparation of an amendment to the building control regulations that will:
— set out the form of the proposed certificates of compliance and the administrative procedures that will govern their use; and
— require the lodgement of drawings and documentation prior to the commencement of works and, again, on completion of works, demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the building regulations; and
— engagement with the City and County Managers Association to make arrangements for:
— the move to a regionalised-shared services model for the administration of building control functions;
— the agreement of standardised approaches and common protocols to ensure nationwide consistency in the administration of building control functions and the meaningful oversight of building activity; and
— agreement on common measures for the support and further development of the building control function nationwide; and
— proposed Building Control (Amendment) Regulations have recently been released for public consultation and will provide for mandatory certification and the lodgement of drawings.
- (Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan).
I thank the Technical Group and the group of Independent Members for bringing forward this important motion. It is important to highlight this significant issue. If ever there was a bad example of self-regulation and self-regulation being no regulation it was the building industry in the past ten or 15 years and there have been many victims. Many families have suffered because of the building boom. No proper legislation was put in place to protect homeowners, purchasers or tenants. Much of the legislation has been in place since the 1990s and it was put in place at the time to undermine and weaken the regulations and the position of homeowners and tenants. That legislation led to self-regulation, self-certification and the running down of the building control inspectorate. All of this has left householders living in fire traps and buildings with structural damage.
Residents seeking justice have doors slammed shut in their faces at every turn. I had the opportunity to meet some of them last night. In recent times the situation at Priory Hall has brought this issue into stark focus. I salute the resolute campaign being waged by Priory Hall residents and acknowledge their presence in the Visitors Gallery in the past two days. I have met many of them and commend them for the work they have put in. They have continued to ensure their plight and that of others is not far from our minds and the minds of those who have a responsibility to introduce change.
Despite many months of campaigning, the Minister has yet to meet the residents. Priory Hall is in the headlines, but it is only one of many such complexes in which decades of irresponsible governance have left a disastrous legacy of defective buildings, fire hazards and abandoned residences. There is a housing estate in Portarlington in my constituency of Laoighis-Offaly, built by the same developer, Na Cluainte, in which considerable problems have surfaced. I acknowledge the work of its residents. There have been many other issues in the constituency. There is a situation in Rathbrennan on the north side of Portlaoise where, I believe, one housing complex will have to be knocked down. It has been left half finished for three or four years. Offaly County Council has washed its hands of Riverside estate in Portarlington where people are living in apartments which have been left in an appalling condition and which were built using substandard materials. The people affected have been left high and dry. HomeBond, the developer, the county council and the regulatory process have all left them down. I have witnessed at first hand the appalling conditions in which they have been living, including dampness, porous walls, leaks and a range of other problems. There is a serious lack of standards. No proper fire prevention measures have been taken.
These problems are especially acute in the case of apartments where there is no proper privacy for residents. In apartment blocks there are only plaster slabs separating some apartments, which is totally unacceptable. Noise travels across two or three apartments and there are fire hazards also. Strangely, having plaster slabs separating apartments is considered acceptable by the relevant Department. I spoke to officials at senior level in the Department about this issue as a county councillor before I became a Member of this House and was informed that the use of plaster slabs was acceptable. In one case in an apartment block in Portlaoise a person did not like his neighbour. From the common area in the corridor he put his boot through the wall of the neighbour's apartment. Is this acceptable? Only two layers of plaster slabs separated them. I have heard long explanations from officials in the Department and people involved in the industry about why the use of plaster slabs is acceptable in the separation of apartments, but I simply do not buy them. We are informed that apartment complexes are common on the Continent. The difference, however, is that there is concrete underneath, above and between apartments and the common areas separating people from their neighbours. The use of plaster slabs is not acceptable. I, therefore, call on the Minister and officials to reconsider this issue. What level of privacy is possible? I recall while canvassing in an apartment block knocking on the door of apartment No. 6 and hearing the radio playing in apartment No. 12. As I got closer to apartment No. 12 it was not much louder when the occupier opened the door. That is unacceptable and I call on the Minister to take up the matter.
There must be accountability and the motion is a start. The Government should, in all honesty, support it and I hope it will. In particular, there is a role for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan. The motion sets out where responsibility lies, that is, at the door of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. The Minister should outline what he and his Department will do to reform the building regulations. The existing legislation was useless in the 1990s and it is worse than useless now, given the changes that have been made. It must be radically reformed. The maximum penalty for non-compliance with the Building Control Act 1990 remains the equivalent of £10,000.
Local authorities should be adequately funded to carry out inspections. Financial constraints should not be allowed to continue to undermine the security of homeowners. Unfortunately, in some counties only 5% of new buildings are inspected and some are drive-by inspections. Bonds for developments should be improved. Bonds have been allowed to roll over from one phase of a development to the next. A developer who pays €100,000 is allowed to roll it over to phase two of a development without phase one being properly completed. This must stop.
The Minister should examine the issue of insurance and bank bonds. Insurance companies are prepared to go to court and face down local authorities. Quinn Insurance, or whoever has taken over the company, is prepared go the whole way and push the issue with local authorities, as it has the resources to do so. The Government has an opportunity to break from the legacy of the past. It should, therefore, support the motion and take responsibility for the necessary remedial works to make buildings safe. To ignore the problem while residents are highlighting and seeking movement on it is not an option for the Minister. We do not want another Stardust tragedy to occur before serious action is taken.
I share the concerns expressed about pyrite in the motion. As a public representative, I believed in my innocence that everyone who purchased a home and had HomeBond cover was hunky-dory, so to speak. It transpired later that HomeBond cover was useless. Changes must be made to provide homeowners with some form of guarantee.
We should fear the impact of global warming on the construction industry. If temperatures ever reach the point at which silicone melts, we will experience serious problems with our housing stock as the material has been widely used to hold together fittings in housing and apartment developments. I am not being flippant in highlighting this issue. There were no clerk of works on sites, people were doing work who were not qualified tradespeople and they were using silicone where they should have been using fixings and there is a potentially serious problem.
Some of the approximately 700 houses - the figure was supposed to be higher - being leased from the National Asset Management Agency are of poor quality. I ask that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government ensure all housing leased from the agency is of good quality before allowing it to transfer to the housing stock.
I welcome this motion, which should be supported by all Deputies. An emergency programme of works should be introduced to carry out necessary remedial works and building regulations should be reformed to ensure we do not find it necessary to revisit this issue.
I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. It goes without saying that one of the major issues confronting the Government and local authorities is the poor developments left by unscrupulous developers. Decisions taken by the planning authorities were not followed up and construction was characterised by a lack of enforcement and inspection, leaving families to pick up the pieces. One of the lessons we must learn from the Celtic tiger period is that we cannot return to those times. This is of little comfort to many people who are in a difficult position. It is these individuals and families with whom the Government must work.
The Government and local authorities, working together on a regional basis, must address this issue to ensure we do not have a repeat of the past. They must introduce plans that can be rolled out locally to remediate the problems arising in construction. In two consecutive winters, during which air temperatures fell to 0° or -1° Celsius, half the pipes supplying water into new housing estates in my area froze. The problem was not that temperatures fell lower than expected but that water pipes were located practically above ground. The only protection against freezing temperatures was a thin layer of concrete. This practice took place because enforcement and monitoring were not anticipated. We must reintroduce the clerk of works model under which developments are regularly visited while under construction. Notwithstanding the financial constraints they face, local authorities have an opportunity on a regional basis - in my area, Limerick city and county councils, north and south Tipperary county councils and Clare County Council could work together - to establish an inspection and building control regime within which they would share resources and expertise as they could not operate such a scheme on their own.
The Government has inherited a number of serious problems caused by construction in the Celtic tiger era, including partial bonds and developers leaving the Revenue Commissioners high and dry by failing to pay taxes and VAT. Those who engaged in unscrupulous activity in the building industry, for example, by making fraudulent statements, failing to complete estates or knowingly selling houses which did not meet building standards, should be behind bars. The Government must ensure this is the case.
As my speaking time is limited, I will be unable to go into the level of detail this matter requires at this stage. While the motion has merit and raises very serious issues for debate, it is slightly premature because it cuts across two processes which are already under way, including consultation on the Draft Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2012 and the work of the pyrite panel, which is specifically addressing the pyrite issue. Established last autumn to explore options for an agreed resolution to the issue of pyrite contamination in private housing stock, the panel was initially expected to report earlier this year. Its failure thus far to do so is a cause of much frustration to the affected homeowners and Members of the Oireachtas, including me.
I met members of the pyrite panel on three occasions, most recently less than two weeks ago. Each time, I impressed upon them the concerns of people from my constituency and elsewhere who are suffering daily as a result of the effects of pyritic heave in their homes. The panel's report is complete and I await its content with much anticipation. I hope for speedy Government action on foot of its recommendations. It is essential that the developers responsible for building pyrite affected homes take responsibility for the problems they have caused. Some of them, including a number who remain active, will not engage with homeowners until the pyrite panel publishes its report. This approach is unacceptable and especially frustrating for homeowners. Others are responding to homeowners by having remedial works done where a problem exists. Unfortunately for the homeowners in question, many developers have gone bust, which creates a special problem and challenge.
The affected homeowners are concerned about the Statute of Limitations. In such cases, it is incumbent on the Government to work out a formula or establish a mechanism which resolves the problem. The individuals concerned do not have anywhere else to go. HomeBond has been a disaster and for this reason a levy on the construction industry to raise a fund for remediation works would be a progressive and fair approach. I note such a proposal would be supported by the Pyrite Action Group.
The Draft Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2012 are in public consultation and many people, some of whom were in the Gallery last night and are present again today, have made submissions on them. Last night, the Minister indicated that 500 such submissions had been received. Given the importance of this issue and the merits of the case put forward today and last night, I call on the Minister to have a full debate on the draft regulations once the consultation process has been completed and before he signs the statutory instrument into law. In January last, my party colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, took statements in the House on a statutory instrument which amended section 40 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, thus setting a precedent for debating statutory instruments in the House. With due respect to the issue discussed by the Minister of State, it pales in comparison with the seriousness of the issue before us. For this reason, I call on the Minister to agree today to hold such a debate. Given the number of problems in construction in the past, we must get building regulations right this time around.
I concur with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Brendan Ryan. I am appalled by the problems facing a large number of people as a result of faulty construction. Regrettably, the Priory Hall and Belmayne developments are not the only estates affected by these problems. We must do everything in our power to ensure faulty and inadequate housing is not built in the future. I refer specifically to apartments because where multiple dwellings are stacked together, as it were, a problem affecting one apartment will inevitably affect a series of other homes.
Having listened carefully to the Minister's contribution to last night's debate, I was heartened by his stated determination to ensure the practice of shoddy building will end. Whether it is caused by inadequate materials, shoddy workmanship, unsafe electrics or other factors, I will not rest easy until such practices cease. When all the consultations are carried out, it is really important that we come up with a system of rigorous building controls. For example, a clerk of works type system, operated by local authorities, ought to be established to ensure that each building is inspected at various stages of construction. If inadequacies are found, building construction must stop until the problems are rectified and only then should it be permitted to continue. Rogue builders should be blacklisted, struck off and unable to operate. I realise that not all builders behave like this. In my constituency, the developers of Adamstown have done an excellent job to put up decent housing and to provide services including schools and a railway station.
Some of the aspects of unsatisfactory construction relate to fire hazards, and therefore the Dublin city fire safety inspection service has been brought in. In one particular development, I am aware that the management committee was advised to be very careful with the questions they asked of the fire inspectors. That raises serious questions for me, and I ask the Minister to check out the operation of the Dublin city fire safety inspection service. It is really important that every building is safe from fire.
The issue of substandard buildings, the lack of enforcement of standards by local authorities and the resulting tragedies like Priory Hall are now being blamed on poor regulation or poor enforcement, but I believe the real blame for this issue lies with the endemic and rampant corruption which infested the politics of the past among certain political parties. That corruption was not simply the corruption involving brown envelopes, but a more subtle corruption where wealth could influence access to politics, following significant donations to political parties. This could be justified in some form of obscene thatcherite fairytale where some people believed that wealth would trickle down to the community. Therefore, they believed in their folly that the interests of the wealthy few had to be served at the expense of ordinary people, who now suffer the consequences of that philosophy.
Why are we 22 years late with the enactment of this legislation? It would have made mandatory submissions to the building control authority for certificates of compliance with building regulations. It is important for us to believe that developers who were involved in this in the past had done a very good job in preventing the enactment of this Bill. I recently said that we have to impose a philosophy in this House of justice and fairness in the context of the rules of engagement of government. It should be intolerable for any Minister to have any dealings with those named in tribunal reports or involved in corrupt practices.
Any developer or builder who has been found to have failed to meet standards laid out in the Building Control Act 2007, or those who fail to meet the welcome amendments proposed by the Minister, should be blacklisted. No company associated with them should ever be awarded a public contract. Our citizens need to see justice in this respect. They need to be reassured that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated, and they need to see that there is a layer within society that will no longer live with the consequences of the lack of accountability, and that nothing less than best practice should apply to enforcement in this area.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. I have sympathy with those who have suffered as a result of poor and shoddy construction, the existence of pyrite in their houses, poor developments and unfinished estates. Such people bought their houses in good faith and believed that what they were buying from a developer or auctioneer was what was on the brochure. They believed they were buying into their future, and not the problems they are experiencing now.
Deputy Wallace spoke last night about a lack of inspections that led to a deterioration in work standards. A recommendation was made that 10% of building sites be inspected, but in fact 23% of sites were inspected. When it comes to the deterioration in work standards, one has to look at the quality in craftsmanship involved in the construction of these houses. One day a fella can hammer a nail in straight, the second day he is a carpenter, the third day he is a builder and the fourth day he is a developer. Anyone in the business at all would know that is not the way to create good workmanship. In the past, people had to spend a number of years in apprenticeships learning the trade and how to deal with plumbing, electrics and carpentry. That skill was lost because developers and builders wanted to get something up as quickly as possible so they could maximise their profit. That is what it was all about. Unfortunately, those who suffered as a result were the ordinary people who came along and bought their house in good faith. We ended up making Mr. O'Reilly from "Faulty Towers" look like a genuine builder.
Who is responsible for this? The problem is that we have lost trust in developers and builders. Members criticise developers and builders every day in the House, yet there are genuine guys out there who are still building houses and developing land. These guys have been around for many years. We should praise them and put them up as examples of how to develop estates and build houses.
This Bill does not penalise poor and shoddy development enough. There are only small fines involved when compared to the price of housing. People will have problems in their own houses and estates, whether due to pyrite, faulty fire certificates, poor plumbing or poor electrics. However, the penalties to be inflicted on these fellas who can just about hammer a nail in straight will be minimal. We have to look at that to make sure the penalties deter this kind of shoddy work in future.
At the outset I would like to show some empathy to the people who have not only found themselves in the negative equity generation, but who are also part of a generation which bought property that in some cases was built in a negligent manner. I am a firm believer in the idea that there should be consequences to negligence. I agree with the points made by Deputies Lawlor and Keaveney in that respect. The man with a hammer, a map and a chequebook became a developer without any track record or history. He focused on the bottom dollar and that approach has left people in substandard housing needing a great deal of work to remediate what has gone wrong.
Who is culpable for this? The first line of the Private Members' motion stated that all builders were responsible for this mess. I would like to say they are not all responsible. There are men of character and good will who knew what was right and wrong, and who understood that there was a standard of living to be achieved through living in a house, which is the essence of social democracy. The 1990 regulations set out in the Act are objective but are also aspirational. I disagree with the lack of consequences. Deputy Keaveney is correct to say that anybody who is found to have acted in a negligent manner should be blacklisted and prevented from tendering for State projects thereafter.
I would also like to mention the HomeBond experience for those who built houses where pyrite has become a problem. I worked in finance, and I am aware that a generation of people, who were neither engineers, architects or economists, took security from the fact that if they bought a house that was covered by HomeBond and something went wrong, the professions and the State would do right by them and the HomeBond experience would safeguard them. In conversation with fellow Deputies in Fine Gael and the Labour Party, we have come to the conclusion that the HomeBond experience has let people down. It would be unacceptable for the company to be allowed to continue to trade in a rogue fashion. It should do the moral thing rather than simply fulfil its legal obligation.
When a builder builds a house, he cannot claim the stone used was the cause of any fault in the construction. If one buys a bar of chocolate, a car or anything else, the rule ofcaveat emptor, buyer beware, applies. In this case, the builder is the purchaser of the material and the culpability must lie there. To ring-fence a small amount of money per house, and to cap the amount for each development, is inexcusable. I am led to believe the HomeBond company has a substantial amount of money on deposit. This money was gathered through the goodwill of people. The company should give this goodwill back to the people and try to develop things from there.
I welcome what the Minister is trying to achieve. I acknowledge what the Opposition are saying about this matter. However, we must have standards in professions and culpability for negligence thereafter.
I fully support the Government amendment as well as sections of the Independent Deputies' motion. My own constituency has been badly affected by poor construction by builders and developers in the past ten years, as have other constituencies. Poor regulation and builders' greed have caused many of these problems, while home owners, through no fault of their own, have been left to pick up the pieces. There have been a number of high profile cases, one of which involved the use of pyrite. The owners of Menolly Homes, which is a reputable building company, put their hands up and admitted that they had a difficulty and a problem. They set up a timetable of works to remedy the faults in the homes that were affected. Menolly Homes then, of course, took a court case against the quarry that provided the building material. That action is to be commended, particularly as we know of other cases where home owners are not so fortunate, where builders have disappeared, developers have gone to ground and do not want to know anything about faulty materials, and home owners are left carrying the can.
Previous speakers referred to HomeBond and its functions. HomeBond was established as a warranty scheme rather than an insurance scheme and there was inadequate back-up to provide help and insurance for home owners when pyrite was found in their homes. Premier Guarantee has been honouring many claims, but HomeBond has not co-operated and has refused to attend the Joint Committee on the Environment, Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht. I hope the pyrite panel, established by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, will produce a list of solutions.
Home owners in Priory Hall, which has been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons, find themselves homeless and in temporary accommodation, through no fault of their own. The development was constructed by a rogue builder who did not want to know about the fire safety issues when they came to light. I hope something good will come from the temporary resolution process that has been established and that all interested parties will resolve the issue together.
Lack of fire safety is also an issue in the Belmayne development. In that case the developer is dealing with the problem, although some outstanding cases need further attention.
The Government inherited much of the mess in the construction industry. The Minister has gone about trying to change things and ensuring mandatory certification and lodgment of drawings prior to and after construction, to ensure developments are adequately constructed in future.
I always try to scrutinise the reputations of the proposers of Private Members' motions, regardless of which side of the House they come from. I did the same in this case, notwithstanding some of the content of this motion, with which I totally agree. I take this view of all Private Members' motions, whether they refer to bankers, developers or others.
One of the worst acts ever performed in this House was done on a September night in 2008, when some people rushed in here with sweat on their necks to bail out Anglo Irish Bank, the developers' bank. It is one of the ironies of Irish politics that some of the people who have the gall and hard neck to sign a motion relating to the behaviour of developers are the same people who came here to bail out Anglo Irish Bank.
One of the signatories of today's motion is a tax evader. I am referring to Deputy Mick Wallace. Whatever about going on morning radio programmes, to which I make it a discipline of not listening, tax compliant members of the State require some explanation of this. I have always been a PAYE taxpayer. Everyone in the State should pay tax according to their income and wealth. This is one of the reasons I support a wealth tax. When I see motions such as the one being discussed, where there is no explanation from someone who engages in tax evasion, I am appalled.
There are things in the Private Members' motion with which I agree. However, a number of speakers, yesterday and today, mentioned the need for the State to step in. The State is, of course, you and me, the taxpayers and the hard-pressed PAYE sector outside these Houses. In every situation we hear a call for them to bail out these characters who engaged in all sorts of corruption. I do not mean every developer and builder. There are good builders and developers just as there are bad politicians and decent ones. That is the way of the world.
I will be voting against the motion and with the Government amendment. We must stop the practice of expecting the PAYE sector to rush in and compensate people who did bad work and defrauded people. These people should not be bailed out by the PAYE sector. The State should take action and put them in jail rather than helping them out.
Like tens of thousands of other young couples, I bought a home in Drynam Hall, between Swords and Kinsealy in Dublin, in October 2005. I paid just under €400,000 for it, I planned a family, I had a reasonable job as a self-employed person and was also a public representative. My wife was studying for a third level qualification and the future was bright. In July 2007, I was informed that my home, with 700 other homes, had pyrite. We later learned that far more than 700 homes were affected. The figure was somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000, not to mention the tens of thousands of other families who are in homes that are sub-standard as a result of shoddy developments, shoddy developers, shoddy work practices and a complete failure on the part of the building control function of the State to ensure those properties were of a reasonable quality standard.
As Deputy O'Donovan indicated, we are now left with the legacy of the Celtic tiger. Knowing that the supposed insurance policy they took out when they bought their property does not cover them because it relates to the builder who built the house does not make it any easier to sleep at night, in particular for some of my constituents whose builders are gone or who are close to disappearing. Such people do not have any recourse. The agreement was not with them, it was with the developer. Families who believed they were protected have been left high and dry without any recourse because the developer has gone or refuses to deal with them, as there is no obligation to do so and because no law exists currently under which they can be prosecuted.
I shadowed the case that was mentioned by my colleague, Deputy Lawlor, concerning Menolly Homes in the Commercial Court for 150 odd days. Like thousands of other families I expended a great deal of personal finance for the purpose of ensuring that my family home – my castle – was protected. Tens of thousands of people have no recourse.
I welcome some of the points and proposals made in the debate on the motion. Some in society have failed in their obligation to sell a reasonable product. It is apparent that despite all the legislation in place and the legislative proposals set out for this Dáil that some will be left with no recourse. The State along with the industry should make a contribution to assist families who have no recourse. I do not just refer to cases such as Priory Hall or developments that are unsafe for human habitation but also estates like my own in north County Dublin and many others across Leinster.
I support the Government's amended motion. I thank the Opposition for tabling its proposal. Opposition Members are safe in the knowledge that several of the proposals they suggested are already coming through. I expect the counter-motion to be passed this afternoon but that does not mean the aspirations of the many families who have gone to the trouble of coming to Leinster House both yesterday and today are thwarted. It means that we will redouble our efforts in order to deliver what we promised last February.
I wish to share time with Deputies Finian McGrath, Mattie McGrath, Tom Fleming, Maureen O'Sullivan and Joan Collins.
Is that agreed? Agreed. Each speaker will have five minutes.
I fully support the Private Members' motion tabled by the United Left Alliance, ULA, and supported by the Independent Members of the Technical Group.
Last night in the House the Minister outlined what is already contained in the Building Control Act 1990 and listed how he has no responsibility for the enforcement of the Act. Unsurprisingly, he outlined that the responsibility falls to local authorities, which have not been fulfilling their obligations in terms of enforcement. We have good regulation and legislation in this country but we have a complete lack of enforcement. The Government's role should be to ensure that local authorities are held accountable for enforcement and also to ensure that the resources are available to those who must enforce regulation so that they can do their job and ensure compliance. The Government cannot abdicate its responsibility in that regard.
The Government must introduce legislation to ensure that HomeBond and other insurance policies can live up to the obligations of developers and builders, that developers and builders themselves can live up to those obligations and the local authorities that are responsible for enforcing the legislation are able to do that and that they do so. That is where the Government's responsibility lies. It is wrong for the Minister to outline that he does not have such responsibility.
The Minister indicated he is to bring forward proposals to change the situation. He referred to shared services within local authorities and how local authorities will come together on a regional basis. In my local authority in Donegal one person has been working in building control. Donegal is the fourth largest county in the country and a significant amount of development has taken place there. If the person responsible for building control in Donegal is shared between Sligo and Leitrim, where one person in each of those counties is also responsible, there will still not be any enforcement or control. As the Minister outlined in his contribution last night we need enforcement and control to ensure the quality of the built environment. People engaged architects and others to design houses, and builders to build them, and relied on insurance such as HomeBond to ensure that if problems arose in the future they would have some come-back. They need all of that and they need to be able to fall back on the State to ensure that regulations and compliance is enforced and that the standards are enforced across the board. It is not right to expect home owners who have no expertise or ability to ensure that is done, and to expect them to deal with the situation and say they must paddle their own canoe and deal with whatever problems arise with their house by means of civil remedies. The system of self-certification is not working. There was intense lobbying prior to the introduction of the Building Control Act to ensure that self-certification would be introduced and that local authorities were removed from the process of overseeing construction projects. That has led to the current situation. The Minister must ensure the situation is not allowed to continue.
In all cases the last input local authorities have is when a planning application is granted because they do not have the resources or ability to enforce proper building control. We must ensure such a system is in place, that inspection rates are increased and that continuous inspections are made throughout the construction phase to ensure that standards are maintained. Only by doing that can we ensure that people are required to live up to the building standards required by the self-certification system to which they have signed up. I call on the Minister to ensure that the system in future guarantees that people can have confidence that they will get a product that stands up to wear and tear.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak to this important and comprehensive motion on building control and regulations. I thank and commend my colleagues in the ULA and my other Independent colleagues for supporting this Private Members' motion, but importantly also for putting forward proposals and solutions that are sensible for householders and families. The manner in which many families have been treated is an absolute disgrace, in particular those in Priory Hall and also those families affected by pyrite problems in their homes. We all know people directly affected. After today I hope we will see action from the Government on the issue but we must also see action on the part of relevant stakeholders such as banks, developers and builders.
The motion deals comprehensively with the problems that have occurred in the construction industry as a result of the lack of adequate regulation and inspection and calls for a proper system of inspection in the future with the independent clerk of works function restored on building sites and improved regulation.
The motion also calls on the State to take responsibility for a programme of remedial works in all areas where homes have been damaged such as Priory Hall, pyrite-ridden dwellings and developments with fire safety issues as a result of lack of inspection and regulation. This is the core of the debate and these are the principles involved.
The motion is an important one for home owners, including some of our constituents, who are experiencing the nightmare of living in structurally defective and potentially dangerous homes. Most are paying large mortgages for the privilege of living in such conditions. While I welcome the proposed new regulations in this regard, there is no proposal on dealing with existing damage, which would be essential.
Home owners have waited a long time for these serious issues to be addressed and time is running out, as a number of Ministers mentioned last night. The Government has been in office for nearly a year and a half. It should get on with the job and look after the people in question. The longer the issues are left unchecked, the worse the deterioration becomes and the greater the likelihood of an accident occurring. I urge all representatives in the House to support this motion.
A block of flats in Coolock in my constituency is experiencing significant fire safety issues. We all know of the Priory Hall case - every Deputy supports its residents - as well as pyrite cases, but other areas deserve our total support.
The motion contains three key demands. First, building control should be a wholly public function. It should be adequately staffed by competent building inspectors and involve inspections of all buildings that require commencement notices. Approval should be required at all key stages of construction and costs should be incorporated into planning contributions. The Government should not claim that it is not receiving ideas from the Opposition.
Second, there should be a systematic and thorough inspection regime across the State to detect fire hazards as a result of inadequate regulation or non-compliance with such regulations as exist. Third, the Government, having failed to implement building controls and allowed substandard and defective building practices throughout the State, must accept responsibility for remedial works to make buildings safe and fit for purpose as part of an emergency programme of necessary public works and, where possible, pursue the responsible developers and builders to recoup the cost to the State. These are sensible proposals.
We must face the reality that much of this is down to people not doing their jobs adequately. Where pyrite is concerned, people were misled and some of those working on sites could not have known. However, the question of human error must be addressed. Certain standards must be maintained. I have friends who are electricians, builders and plumbers. When they heard these stories, they were flabbergasted that anyone would let through work of that standard regardless of inspections. Even where a person is getting a small job done in his or her house, for example, in a utility room, certain standards must be met. The majority of plumbers, electricians and bricklayers agree that poor work is unacceptable.
Cowboy operators must be challenged. I urge every Deputy to read this motion, which sets out a number of ideas. For God's sake, the Government should do something for the families of Priory Hall and for those affected by pyrite problems.
I am delighted to contribute on this motion. I thank the United Left Alliance, ULA, and the Technical Group for tabling this motion and for giving such serious consideration to the many flagrant violations as well as for making positive suggestions.
There are many good plasterers, plumbers and ground work contractors, sole traders and decent people who do and have always done their jobs right. That was theirraison d’être. If a family member of any Deputy does a job, he or she depends on his or her good name and reputation, which usually sees that person through. However, the situation was hijacked. That the Government, having been in office for 16 months, is blaming the last one without even considering this matter is a cop out, just as we saw with the legislation on lobbyists, which has been long-fingered. I see no sign of it. We are promised everything, but the problem lies with the lobbying system. It got us into the madness of the Celtic tiger. Ordinary decent families set up their homes. Many took out huge mortgages, employed architects and engineers to design their houses, submitted the work for planning permission, received the permission, paid planning fees and development charges and wound up with a bad product because of cowboy builders and a lack of regulations, standards and inspections. People were bullied off sites. The situation was outrageous. There was legislation to stop it, but we still face a mess. Priory Hall and the pyrite cases have been mentioned, but there are Priory Halls up and down the country on a smaller scale. People have been abandoned. They are trying to repay mortgages. As we saw this morning, not one of the 100 independent assessors for people in mortgage distress had been appointed. We are bailing out the banks and the big developers, many of whom are working for NAMA. The entire situation is a disgrace. The banks are not giving a shilling to anyone and nothing is being done about this. People are just rubbing their hands. What did the Taoiseach do? As with the Jim Reeves song, it is a case of “Put your sweet lips a little closer to the phone” when the Taoiseach dials A for Angela. She dials NB - Nice Boy - for him and gives him a pat on the back for passing the referendum and doing what he is told. The situation is a mess and people are aghast that the House is letting it continue.
I compliment two planning officers in south County Tipperary, Mr. Simon Howe and Mr. Alan Walsh. They are doing their best and are often nearly threatened with being kicked and thrown into the river when they visit some sites. Cowboys besmirched the good name of decent trades people and left us in an undignified mess. The big builders got greedy and went to the tents. They are still going to Punchestown and Leopardstown. There might not be any tent, but the Fine Gael Party is happy to sup with them. Lobbying is still happening there and I see no sign of it changing. This is not a personal attack on the Ministers of State, but it is happening and members of that party know it.
Be careful. The Deputy is overstepping the mark.
I am being careful. The war chest is being assembled. Fine Gael mentions legislation but is paying no heed to it. While on the Opposition benches, the party also promised to reintroduce stag hunting. Where is it?
The Deputy has one minute remaining.
I could give plenty more if the Ministers of State wanted me to, but Members opposite know what is happening. If the cap fits, wear it.
What is happening is a scandal. Fine Gael is friendly with and close to the builders as well. The Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, and his people were involved with big business.
Deputy Mattie McGrath was Fianna Fáil for all of his life.
They all got into a merry bed together, but the ordinary people are suffering. Cowboys in south County Tipperary have built massive buildings and got away from Teagasc by claiming their buildings were for farming purposes when they were actually for storing ordinary people's misery and repossessed machinery. The cowboys are looking for retention now. I have made an objection. The planner claims that hearsay and innuendo cannot be accepted. I have been in the building and I have seen what goes on inside it. I have a small bit of experience. One could see an industrial printer the size of this floor in a building that is meant for cows. The Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, knows it. Rubbing his hands, shaking his head and telling me to be careful is not an answer.
The people are aghast. They were promised much by Messrs Gilmore and Kenny. The Taoiseach has given up. He keeps singing his songs. Once he sings to Angela's tune, it will be "All right Jack, I will call you back."
Deputy Mattie McGrath wants us to bail them out again. He cannot have it both ways.
The hardships experienced by the residents of Priory Hall and following the litany of flooded estates, collapsed foundations, polluted drinking water supplies and defective septic tank systems are clear evidence of the failure to have consumer protection issues addressed in the building regulations. The regulations' primary purpose is to protect the health, safety and welfare of people in and around buildings. An objective reading of the regulations leads to the conclusion that they are anti-consumer and written by or for the benefit of the construction industry, not for the protection of the consumer.
The drafting of the regulations has been farmed out to a quango. The Building Regulations Advisory Board, BRAB, comprises members of the construction industry and is not for the protection of consumers. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government's policy facilitates a system in which building products are officially certified as being fit for purpose based purely on manufacturers' claims, not independent testing. This official certification, whether intended or not, deceives consumers into believing that it provides a guarantee of performance and some level of protection if a product subsequently fails. The policy of directing local authorities to impose seriously flawed codes of practice, for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 code on specifiers and installers of wastewater treatment systems, not only exposes the consumer to defective systems but also places the local authority in the chain of liability when failed systems cause pollution or a risk to public health. Unfortunately, homeowners are at the receiving end of this policy. The Department's policy of facilitating what are essentially meaningless certifications is a fraud on consumers. It has allowed those in the construction chain of responsibility to walk away when a problem arises, thereby making homeowners liable for non-compliance issues or costs associated with remediation.
Any policy that places unnecessary hardship on homeowners and exposes the State to claims for damages must be corrected as a matter of the utmost urgency. For consumer protection, it is necessary to take urgent action. All building materials and products should be covered by supplier product liability insurance cover. The building professionals engaged in design and certification of development have the appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover for the work they undertake. This should also apply to all construction contractors and subcontractors whose work must be insured and certified as fit for its intended purpose. Such insurance cover must continue to be effective, even where the insured party ceases trading. All products and services provided should comply with the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and the Consumer Protection Act. There is an urgent need for the Oireachtas and departmental officials to resist the construction industry's and other corporate influences and instead place the emphasis on the protection of the consumer.
Like other Members, I received a magazine from the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, this week. I could not but be struck by its front page headline, "Building a Better Ireland". I found this rather ironic when we consider what the CIF's members have built which is central to this debate. We have homeowners in mortgage debt arrears, negative equity and living in ghost estates with no facilities and then the appalling conditions in certain homes with fire hazards and pyrite. This is all due to a lack of regulation, inspection and the elimination of the functions of the Clerk of Works.
Flicking through the CIF's magazine, my attention was caught by another article entitled, "Safety First". I support its call for ensuring the safety of workers on building sites, as we know there have been far too many fatalities. The CIF claimed in the article that it was playing its part to maintain high standards of on-site safety, which I support. However, where is it in maintaining high standards among builders and developers?
I have been involved with constituents in Ballybough dealing with pyrite problems in their homes. They were so thrilled to move into their new homes only to discover, gradually, the structural damage caused to their homes by pyrite. It included cracks in the brickwork, fractures in houses, tiles coming up, floors moving and doors starting to move out of alignment. Some of the builders involved are still working, some are not. I cannot understand why they are not pursued. Neither can I understand why pyrite was not covered by builders' insurance. This problem is now with Dublin City Council and the residents are waiting for the promises made to be fulfilled. These include the undertaking of a comprehensive independent survey to ascertain the full extent of the problem. There is a specific role for Dublin City Council and other local authorities. However, there is also a role for the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government which must commit to funding to ensure these homes are restored to the standard the residents deserve.
It is scandalous to learn of a fire safety certificate being issued prior to building commencing with no follow-up during construction. I must acknowledge that my contact with fire officers in Dublin City Council has been positive. They acted quickly in a particular apartment block that had come to my attention. Self-regulation should not be on the agenda because inspection should be rigid, strict and independent of vested interests. The great line inHamlet about something rotten in the state of Denmark applies to the construction industry, the planning sector and the development culture, with its unhealthy relationship between certain politicians, political parties and developers. Crony capitalism is really corruption and we saw what it led to.
All planning decisions should be made in a comprehensible and transparent way. That is the start of solving the problems in this sector. Central to these problems is land speculation. In 1974 the Kenny report called for an effective end to land speculation. If only this recommendation had been implemented, proper standards would have been set, starting with planning procedures and moving to actual building. Before he left office, the then environment Minister, Mr. John Gormley, had been working on a review of planning practices in several local authorities. He had received reports from county managers to start that process. I received a reply to a parliamentary question this week which stated the Minister was proceeding on the basis of the work already done in this area and would examine cases. I wonder about it being done internally.
I support An Taisce's call for an independent planning regulator. The rottenness at the core of the sector must be rooted out because it is unfair to those builders who follow ethical standards and proper procedures.
The debate which I have listened to intently has shown the Building Control Act is robust, probably the most robust in Europe. The problem, however, lies with regulation, enforcement and the provision of resources to ensure the regulations are followed. This has been linked with the relationship between government and developers, light touch regulation and the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government taking the Clerk of Works out of the equation in the 1990s. This seeped into the merry-go-round which developed around the bubble of the building industry in the past 20 years. For Fianna Fáil to claim it is not part and parcel of it is cynical.
When I became a councillor in 2004, I recall seeing a plaque in Dublin City Hall, "Property has rights as well as responsibilities". Dublin City Council played a role in facilitating the property and building madness. A week after the 2007 general election a public meeting was called in Crumlin to highlight a new design for Crumlin village. The architect was present to show designs with six storey buildings throughout the village. This rang alarm bells in my mind. It was a green light for developers that the local authority was accepting this level of development in the area.
A campaign was subsequently instigated, the Dublin 12 Action Group, in which locals got together to protect their area. Planning applications were submitted for developments in Pearse Park, on church sites, the Davitt Road bank and on the Naas Road. These sites are now derelict and communities are left to deal with them. It was left to the campaigns of ordinary people who were trying to get to grips with the development plan and stop the madness in their communities. When I called for a moratorium on the proposed Bluebell local area plan, Fine Gael local authority members told me we could not touch these developers as they had all the rights. One had to pay €20 to submit observations on the plan. We proposed that developers send planning applications to every household in an area rather than hiding them in doorways. The whole system, from top to bottom, had been designed to facilitate the developers who subsequently brought the country to its knees. The issue of enforcement must be addressed and the Bill must bring forward a Clerk of Works process from beginning to end that is independent of developers. That is the key, as many engineers, etc. have been put under significant pressure by major developers to sign off on projects. The State must provide for such persons to be independent of developers while working in local authorities; they can take responsibility for these matters, which is an important issue in terms of insurance if there are problems subsequently.
I will discuss how this issue has affected local authority housing. As a result of the madness, a significant number of tenants in Dolphin House in the north inner city, Ballybough flats and St. Teresa's Gardens have been left in terrible conditions. Tenants from Dolphin House have gone to the European Court of Human Rights because they are living in atrocious Third World conditions. It is shameful that even now the country is not addressing the problem. We have local authorities with inspectors to check private accommodation in following health and safety regulations, but the authorities are not accepting responsibility for their own tenants and buildings which do not meet health and safety regulations. Young children in these buildings are catching diseases and local authorities must take responsibility. The State should also intervene.
Could pyrite still find its way into the system under the new regulations? We should have building regulations providing for standards in respect of in-fill stone, etc. There should also be regulation of banks and local authority actions. There is much to be done and it is not acceptable to argue that what has been done to date by the Minister is enough. A point that has struck me is that substantial compliance measures do not form part of the building regulations but were developed by the legal profession. The Minister also mentioned certificates of compliance and administration procedures governing their use. If these measures are not recognised in the building regulations, why are they still being adhered to? We should take them out and put proper regulations in place.
In the past two days we have had a full and frank exchange of views on the role and functioning of the building control system. The legitimate questions and concerns raised naturally arise in the wake of high profile failures in the housing and construction sector in recent years which have been mentioned in detail again in this debate.
Many throughout the country are faced, through no fault of their own, with the stressful and distressing consequences of living in unfinished and underpopulated estates, in a building susceptible to the effects of pyritic in-fill materials, or in homes and developments subject to serious fire and safety risks arising from the failure of particular developers and professionals to abide by the requirements of the building, fire safety and planning codes. It may be convenient and even consolatory for some commentators to paint a picture of a light touch regulatory system in which the State has abdicated all responsibility and left housing and construction to the whims of unscrupulous developers who allow no meaningful input by construction professionals or the legal profession. That is not the case, however, and this debate has at least given the Government and the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, an opportunity to set out the factual position and balance the discussion on this critical matter. Importantly, the Minister opened the debate by setting out clearly the building control arrangements in place and explaining the roles and responsibilities of various parties. The State has a clear statutory framework for building controls based on clear legal standards set out in the building regulations, with detailed technical guidance documents outlining how these standards can be achieved in practice, with the responsibility for compliance resting primarily with developers or builders who engage professionals, as required, to ensure statutory requirements are met. Responsibility for enforcement rests with local authorities.
The Minister has indicated that he is committed to strengthening the building control system and has made substantial progress in this regard. In July last year he announced a number of measures to be advanced by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the local authorities, with a view to improving compliance with and oversight of the requirements of the building regulations. In broad terms, the measures involved the introduction of mandatory certificates of compliance by builders and designers of buildings confirming that the statutory requirements of the building regulations had been met. The lodgement of drawings at both commencement and on completion of construction demonstrates how a building has been designed and built to comply with all parts of the building regulations.
We will also have more efficient pooling of building control staff and resources across the local authority sector to ensure more effective oversight of building activity. Standardised approaches and common protocols will ensure nationwide consistency in the administration of building control functions, with better support and further development of the building control function nationwide. The proposed building control amendment regulations will provide for mandatory certification and the lodgement of drawings. These have already been the subject of public consultation which closed in recent weeks and some 500 submissions have been received, which indicates the degree of interest in and depth of feeling about this matter. The submissions are being reviewed by the Department with a view to having the proposed building control amendment regulations finalised and signed into law later this year. The other measures, to which I have referred, are relevant to more meaningful oversight of building activity by building control authorities and the improved functioning of these authorities; they are being advanced separately by local authorities in consultation with the Department in the context of a wider programme in achieving greater efficiencies in the local government system.
The Minister and the Department have a responsibility to guide and regulate development. However, there is a point at which it is up to the construction industry and its professions to take over and ensure planning, design and construction of the built environment are of the very highest quality. The proposed regulatory reforms, in the form of mandatory certificates and submission of drawings, will be finalised and signed into law in the coming months. They will provide a new context for the construction sector and construction professionals.
I received an e-mail from a constituent, a young woman living in Applewood in Swords. She was told her apartment did not comply with fire safety standards. With her neighbours, she was told she would have to pay €3,200 to make the building safe unless she wanted to find herself in the same position as the Priority Hall residents. When she contacted the management company and indicated she did not have the money, her debt was passed to a debt collector. The e-mail states:
I just do not know what to do. I have no savings. I owe the bank and the credit union so much money that I would never qualify for a loan, and even if I did, I could not afford the repayments. I pay my mortgage every month, no matter how much of a struggle it is, and all the things I have to do without to pay it and my credit union loan. I do not know what to do. I thought you might be able to help.
The Visitors Gallery is full of people who find themselves in a similar position. They have been evacuated from their homes in Priory Hall and given up their holidays to come and listen to the debate. They are doing so because their homes are without value. They are not here for the good of their health but because they want help.
Labour Party Deputies have claimed the State has no responsibility and talk as if this would be some kind of bailout for the construction industry. They should be ashamed of themselves; they have long left the tradition of the likes of James Connolly. These victims bought their homes in the belief they were buying a product fit for purpose. The regulations have failed them.
Yesterday the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, indicated that there was a robust system of building controls in place and that local authorities were successfully using their powers against non-compliant operators. That is simply not true; it is utter rubbish. If it was the case, those present in the Visitors Gallery would not be here and there would not be the problems being described. Unless the Government understands the problem, it will not be able to formulate a solution. This is not a personal attack, as the problem is systemic.
The Minister of State, Deputy Shane McEntee, was being nice yesterday when he spoke about others speaking up before the last general election. He was the sole voice on these issues. The Government cannot keep blaming Fianna Fáil for these problems. Unless the Government changes its approach and deals with this, the problem will not be addressed. The approach outlined just now by the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, and by the Minister last night is predicated on the basis of avoiding responsibility for the State and minimising any expense to it at the expense of quality workmanship and fit for purpose products for householders. Unless we change that attitude, there can be no resolution.
The current regulations are not bad but they are not policed or enforced and that is where the problem arises. The Government's own policy ensures that will continue. It brags about a situation where it inspects 23% of sites when only 15% inspection is required. That is nothing about which to brag because much of that inspection is superficial. There cannot be any shortcuts here. There is a proposal for a State inspection process involving foundations, wall plates and presumably roofs upon completion but that is not enough. Self-certification is good, all of those involved in the construction should sign off on their work, but it must be checked. In buildings where fire is an issue there must be 100% checking. That is the system in other states and our citizens deserve no less.
The Government is not proposing that. Unless it deals with this and the restoration of the building inspector function, these problems will remain. That is the fundamental basis of this motion: for a publicly independent inspectorate to regulate work from now on with adequate resources. The Government has some neck to suggest local authorities have the wherewithal to do this with a recruitment embargo in place and a lack of resources. It will not happen.
The idea that the responsibility will be placed on architects is all the Government has come up with. It is ludicrous. In effect, architects are being criminalised because they must sign off on everything. They are not on-site and do not have the expertise to judge all this. It is like asking a hairdresser to fix a pair of shoes. They do not have the competence; this is simply another game of buck passing. That must be addressed or we cannot move forward.
A Labour Party Deputy said we were slagging off all builders but that is not the case; he obviously cannot read the initial part of the text. There are many good builders, architects and engineers. The motion speaks about the inordinate influence of major developers and big business and that is the case. This was not just during the property bubble, there was a Labour Party Minister for the Environment a year after the Stardust tragedy and the party remained in power for years afterwards and did nothing because the industry resisted changes. That resistance still exists.
We must acknowledge the pyrite issue. Pyrite could have been avoided. The knowledge existed that it was a problem and it should have been tested but was not. There is recognition from the State that standards were not good enough. How do we know? Because the Government has changed the standards. The problem is, however, that the changes are not good enough either. I do not say that lightly. The new standard the Government brought in was based on advice from the aggregates panel, particularly the concrete industry. Who are these people? There are seven of them on the panel and five come from the concrete industry, from Roadstone, Kilsaran, Irish Cement and the Irish Concrete Federation. Two of those organisations are known to have quarries with heave inducing pyrite and these were the people who decided what the new standard would be. On foot of their deliberations the new Irish standard is unacceptable to Premier Insurance, which would not insure property built on infill based on that standard because it is not deemed to be good enough because standards are less stringent than those in Britain for sulphur content likely to lead to pyrite-induced heave.
Despite all that has happened, the Minister is leaving it to the quarries to decide what is fit for purpose. The only recourse people have now from that is under the Sale of Goods Act after the fact. When the house has fallen down and someone's life is in tatters, he can consider litigation to go after the quarry owner to try and get the money back. It is absolute and utter nonsense. The regulations must be changed to protect homeowners. There must be mandatory testing.
There is a similar situation with fire safety which, in many ways, is of even greater concern. Deputy Higgins made the point last night about the potential serious loss of life that would have existed in the development in Holywell in Swords had the fire taken place while people were in bed. Luckily it did not. Fingal County Council has a major report that documents a litany of problems jeopardising fire safety in this area. Mr. Noel Manning, the independent fire inspector, shows in graphic detail photographs of failed cavity barriers that had been tested and certified that were lying on the ground, failed party wall at eaves' level and that had been certified as compliant when they were not in reality. It goes on and on.
We will have a scenario where fatalities will occur unless the Government does what is called for in the second part of this motion and carries out a systemic and thorough inspection regime across the State to detect fire hazards as a result of inadequate regulation and non-compliance. The Government must undertake this. Why should people like the young woman who emailed me three weeks ago bear the cost of that? Why should the victims pay the costs? Unless these works are done there will be a serious social problem and the Government must address that point and carry out those works.
The key point remaining relates to the State's responsibility. No one is saying the Government built these houses or is responsible, no more than society took an active interest in the scandalous abuse cases involving the Catholic Church, when the State stepped in and admitted partial responsibility because it stood idly by. It set up a trust fund in that case because the starting point was the victims had to be assisted. Deputy Mathews made the point last night that the safety of residents and remedial work being carried out had to be the starting point in these deliberations. Then it is time to chase the money, to go after the developers, quarry owners, banks and insurance companies.
We know from questions asked by Deputy Catherine Murphy that there is almost €1 billion in development levies in local authority bank accounts, money they are not allowed to use or invest. That money, particularly where those levies relate to estates that have heave-inducing pyrite and other problems should have that money invested in a remedial programme of public works to make good those houses. We have the €2 billion promised by NAMA to invest in capital projects. What better work to be done than to fix these houses? Unless the State takes the lead in this, it will not happen and these people will not get justice.
There is a precedent and the interests of the homeowner must come first. Some Deputies have a neck to talk about this motion being premature, when people have been grappling with this issue for years. It is an insult to talk like that. The Minister's proposals are completely inadequate to deal with this situation. The State is responsible and must take a lead and would provide a beneficial stimulus. For every €1 billion invested in construction,10,000 jobs would be generated. Many people would benefit from that and the work would be carried out.
I note the points of concern about constituents - some of them more convincing than others - expressed by Government Deputies. They are in power now, however, and it is up to them. It is the case that blame lies with Fianna Fáil and the Galway tent when demonstrating the inordinate influence of major developers and big builders on policy in this State but this Government is now holding the reins and will be judged on how it deals with this systemic crisis. That must start not with words or the waffle in the new building regulations, which will not address the issue, but with the restoration of an independent building inspectorate that carries out 100% checks on works and with the Government taking responsibility for the victims of this crisis and immediately engaging in a State-led programme of remedial works and inspection to undo the damage that has been done. Nothing else will do. These people will not go away until these issues are resolved. Sadly, this will not be the last time we will discuss this issue but I am glad it has been raised. We will return to it in the months ahead.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 43.
Tá
- Bannon, James.
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Burton, Joan.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Coonan, Noel.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lyons, John.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Mathews, Peter.
- Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- O’Donovan, Patrick.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Arthur.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
- White, Alex.
Níl
- Adams, Gerry.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Browne, John.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Niall.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Daly, Clare.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Nulty, Patrick.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Troy, Robert.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Catherine Murphy and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 45.
Tá
- Bannon, James.
- Barry, Tom.
- Breen, Pat.
- Burton, Joan.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Conlan, Seán.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Coonan, Noel.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Keaveney, Colm.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lyons, John.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McFadden, Nicky.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Maloney, Eamonn.
- Mathews, Peter.
- Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
- Mulherin, Michelle.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- O’Donovan, Patrick.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Reilly, Joe.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Phelan, Ann.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Arthur.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Wall, Jack.
- Walsh, Brian.
- White, Alex.
Níl
- Adams, Gerry.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Browne, John.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Niall.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Daly, Clare.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Nulty, Patrick.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Brien, Jonathan.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Sullivan, Maureen.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ross, Shane.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Troy, Robert.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Catherine Murphy and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.
Question declared carried.
