Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 2017

Vol. 955 No. 1

Building Standards, Regulations and Homeowner Protection: Motion [Private Members]

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes that:

- thousands of people in Ireland have been affected by poor quality housing following the building boom of the past 20 years;

- the record of the current Government and the previous Government is one of clear failure to properly regulate the building industry and of regression of building standards;

- there is a commitment in A Programme for a Partnership Government to provide quality housing;

- effective building regulation requires an independent regulator, not self-regulation by the building industry;

- claims have been made by the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, that it will draft upcoming Government legislation in this area;

- with the exception of the Pyrite Panel, there has been no public inquiry or reflection on the causes of the widespread quality problems in housing which continue to emerge and which are a heavy burden on the lives of those affected;

- there has been no law reform that addresses the lack of remedies available to homeowners affected by pyrite, building regulations breaches and other housing failures;

- the availability of effective remedies for defects when they occur is an essential part of the quality of housing;

- the defects in housing resulting from this situation include defects which cause risks to life, health and well-being, as well as creating environmental damage and economic costs;

- Irish home buyers in both the public and private sectors are poorly served by the law, as it stands:

- the builder may be insolvent;

- the building contractor may not be available to provide a remedy when the defect appears, for example, where the house or apartment has been sold;

- the Statute of Limitations may bar the action; and

- there may be no defects insurance policy available to pay for the repair works;

- these problems have not been addressed by the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014, as while the regulations provide for mandatory inspections by certifiers appointed by building owners-developers and which require a certificate of compliance with building regulations to be lodged with the local building control authority before a new building is opened, occupied or used and are changing the culture of construction regulation, they do not create new legal remedies for homeowners;

- the Law Reform Commission has proposed appropriate legislation on several occasions to deal with many of these issues and there is also a commitment in Construction 2020 ‘to consider and report on potential forms of redress for consumers and homeowners, including the potential for latent defects insurance’ and that redress must include new legal remedies; and

- many housing defects have ultimately been rectified at the expense of the State, rather than those responsible for those defects; and

calls on the Government to:

- introduce new primary legislation to include a transmissible warranty of quality and assignment of causes of action in negligence from builders and those involved in the building process in favour of the first and subsequent purchasers of houses;

- direct the carrying out of a feasibility exercise and business case for the creation of an Irish building authority, to which the functions of the existing building control authorities would be transferred, that would administer building control on a nationwide basis and that would provide a supervisory regulatory function in relation to those involved in the construction industry, including contractors, subcontractors and others involved in the construction process, as appropriate;

- consider the development and use of alternative forms of contract for delivery of housing;

- engage with the Law Society and the CIF to initiate a review of the standard form building agreement used for residential construction, to consider amendments to the agreement to facilitate consumer protection, including amendment of the dispute resolution provision, and removal of the restriction on transfer of the agreement on sale of the unit;

- establish a consumer-friendly system of dispute resolution for homeowners dealing with defective housing;

- amend the Statute of Limitations 1957 to implement the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in relation to building defects;

- review and evaluate the resourcing of building control for local authorities, recognising that their role and objectives are quite different from the role and objectives of private building control certifiers who are appointed to protect the interests of building owners rather than the interests of the general public in ensuring compliance with the Building Control Acts; and

- prepare and publish options for the financing and carrying out of remedial works to defective housing units, that will form the basis for a nationwide scheme, enshrined in legislation, for the orderly remediation of legacy defects in housing.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chathaoirleach. Is cúis áthais dom an rún seo a thabhairt os comhair na Dála anocht. Tá cúpla mí caite agam leis an Chomhaontas Glas ag plé na ceiste seo, ach caithfidh mé a rá anois, tar éis na tragóide úafásach le Grenfell Tower, gur níos práinní na cúrsaí seo ná riamh roimhe. Is údar imní cad a tharla i Londain an tseachtain seo caite. Tá dúalgas orainn cinntiú nach féidir a leithéid a tharlú in Éirinn.

I am pleased to bring the motion before the Dáil. The Green Party has been working on it in conjunction with leading experts in this field in recent months. We published it weeks before the horrendous tragedy in west London last week. I offer my deepest sympathy to the families and friends of loved ones who were caught up and engulfed in the horrific fire that occurred last week in the land of our nearest neighbours. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a n-anamacha. Cuimhnímid orthu.

The motion calls on the Government to properly tackle the sorry legacy of defects in housing construction and to strengthen building standards and regulations in order to safeguard against this building and regulatory failure ever recurring. This and the previous Government have shown no political appetite or given no priority to dealing effectively with serious problems and issues arising from appalling construction quality of so many homes built during the boom-time era. There has been a series of crises, including the well-documented Priory Hall debacle and the high profile Longboat Quay shambles, as well as many other serious and varied problems that have emerged the length and breadth of the country, including in my constituency of Dublin Rathdown.

I appreciate that the newly appointed Minister is new to his brief. However, his party and Government colleagues certainly are not. In the past four years, we have had four Ministers with responsibility for housing. This shows the level of genuine intent and respect for the role of this ministry which is at the centre of the biggest crisis of our time. That is an indicator of how this critical ministry has been treated in recent times. It has become the revolving door ministry with no continuity, no stability and no appropriate demonstration of the level of priority and real action the crisis clearly and urgently merits. It is nearly six years since the Priory Hall development was found to be gravely defective yet there are no new remedies or proper building standards. Instead, we are still operating on a trust-the-builder basis. Homeowners and prospective homeowners are expected to put their faith in builders without an independent regulator. In case the Minister is unaware, he should know that people do not trust builders to self regulate.

We are in the middle of a housing crisis and new homes are urgently needed, on which we are all in agreement. However, we cannot sacrifice the safety of people in their homes to pacify the construction industry lobby. Safety must be paramount in any and all construction. There is a duty on the Government to protect its people against greed-driven building standards and incompetent rogue cowboy builders. I emphasise that I am not saying all builders are incompetent. They are not all rogues either but a number of builders and developers have done an extraordinary disservice to the many genuine, decent, hard-working people involved in the industry. This evening, we have an opportunity to take the first concrete steps in stopping rogue builders in their tracks by introducing measures that, once and for all, would put individuals and families first and protect them against these chancers. In essence, that is the priority. We need to protect ordinary consumers who buy their dream family home in good faith.

In January I asked the former Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, how many times the issue of defective buildings had to rear its ugly head before the people affected by it had some level of certainty about the relief they could seek. Many months later, the same people are still in limbo and uncertain about what assistance, legal or financial, the State can provide for them. In his reply to me in this House in January the former Taoiseach also said he could not guarantee that there would be no more Priory Halls or Longboat Quays. Kevin Hollingsworth of the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland recently said that in the past three or four years he had remediated 29 developments for fire safety issues. Not all of these find their way into the media spotlight and many of those involved feel compelled to suffer in silence. They are suffering at the hands of a Government which they believe is not listening to their needs and does not have the hunger or appetite to make a real difference in their lives. In case the Minister is in any doubt, he should know that some individuals and families, including some of those in the Visitors Gallery, are suffering immense and ongoing stress and incredible financial pressure as a result of the State granting builders a type of carte blanche, giving them a near free-for-all to do what they want. Must these homeowners and the many others who have yet to learn how they will be affected by defective buildings forever be reliant on a Government which continues to act in an ad hoc wait-and-see manner?

Last week we heard the horrifying news of the fire at Grenfell Tower in London. Our hearts are with the families of those who lost their lives but our minds must be set on ensuring it does not happen here. In response to the tragedy Chi Onwurah, MP, wrote in The Guardian last week that for her, the souls of the dead were in every sub-clause of every tranche of health and safety legislation. Health and safety are matters of dull box checking and red tape at times but they are also absolutely vital. At issue is the homes of people. This is a matter of public health and safety but sometimes, ultimately, it can also be a matter of life or death. In order to ensure safety - the most fundamental of protections - we need radical change in how we view and value buildings. We need to act with a safety first attitude, not simply talk about it. As Members of this House, we need to stand up, once and for all, to the construction industry and put people's lives first.

It was reported recently that the Construction Industry Federation was writing the new building control Bill.

While that report has been noted by the Department as being incorrect, it still does not help dissuade us of the picture of a Government which has been for far too long too close to the influential construction industry and too passive in its willingness to enforce high standards. This is not something we would tolerate in the food industry, road safety or car safety, where people's health is at stake. There is no reason to tolerate it when it comes to the standards and safeties at which we build people's homes. Our housing is a public safety issue. We need a regulator, like our food regulator, with specialised statutory powers to name and shame dodgy builders who put people's health and safety at serious risk, which is empowered to put things right.

In order to do this, in the motion before the House today, the Green Party is calling on the Government to create a new, strong, independent building regulator. We need a properly funded national building regulation office wherein such a building regulator will oversee national building control and actively and robustly regulate those involved in construction. We need to stop systematic failures in building control happening again and again by ensuring that building standards are raised and that there is appropriate building control compliance in this country, including fully resourcing the new building regulator office with a real and effective enforcement agency. We must provide protection and support for homeowners who discover serious latent defects in their homes by improving existing legal remedies. This country has been plagued by cowboy developers and there is very little in the current building control regime safeguarding against and stopping it from happening again. There is no comfort for the consumer.

We cannot say that we have not been warned. The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 put in place an assigned certifier system but there are still huge problems with this. As Orla Hegarty of UCD has said, a self builder or developer is effectively appointing someone to police him-or herself while the appointed person does not have to be independent of the process and has no legal powers. As it stands, there is no guarantee that the assigned certifier must be independent of the developer. In fact, he or she can still be an employee of the developer and have other close links to the developer he or she is certifying. This set up fails to instill trust and confidence for ordinary consumers. It totally undermines the concept of independent regulation and is not something we would accept in any other industry, particularly one in which people’s lives could be put at risk.

We need to look at the regulation of the construction industry in terms of risk management. We need to put the resources in place for ongoing inspections from fire services and fire safety authorities, not just a fire safety certificate before one starts. I welcome the new statutory regulations which will come into effect soon, requiring houses to be built in such a way as to prevent the spread of fire internally and externally and to have an adequate means of escape. These regulations will also impose obligations on landlords to ensure that rented properties meet certain standards. However, they must be accompanied by adequate resourcing of building control authorities for ensuring compliance and dealing effectively with breaches. How can the Government promise building standards will be adhered to if it cannot promise that independent inspections will actually be carried out? All the rules in the world do not matter if there is no credible threat of enforcement. How can the Minister assure the public and promise there will be no dangerous shortcuts if he provides no enforcement? The enforcement agency must have real teeth and not be regarded as a harmless pushover by builders. How many convictions have there been under the Building Control Act since it was introduced in 1992? The former Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, could not answer that when I submitted a parliamentary question. Nobody seems to know and that is very alarming. Worse still, many innocent people who are caught up in this storm, which is not of their making, believe that this Government does not care.

Local authority reports are light on detail when it comes to enforcement by building control authorities. Again, when I put a parliamentary question to the Minister's predecessor earlier this year, I was told that his Department is not responsible for the oversight of building control authorities. How can the Minister be sure of the strength of the enforcement of building regulations if he does not have oversight over the actions of building control authorities? At this stage, people quite reasonably wish to judge the Minister on deeds and not mere words alone.

There are 31 building control authorities in this country but they are not compelled to produce an annual report. A leading academic in this field, Deirdre Ní Fhloinn, examined all 31 annual local authority reports for 2015. There was very little reference to enforcement, never mind prosecution. That is simply not good enough. Effective building regulation requires an independent regulator and that is why many experts in this field agree with the Green Party’s call for the establishment of an Irish building authority at arm’s length from the vested interest of the construction industry. There is compelling evidence in support of initiating step this evening. To do otherwise, however the Minister may dress it up, would be a cop out, an abdication of responsibility. I urge the Minister not to abandon the people of Ireland who may not have the deep, wealthy pockets of some developers and who suffered most but whose voice is least heard as they do not have easy and ready access to the powers that be in this country.

Alongside this, it is vital that we do not lose sight of the goal of a real and lasting, long-term solution for residents, some whom are listening attentively to tonight's debate, who are the innocent victims of defective buildings. What redress and tangible support do these hard-working people have when major defects are discovered in their homes? In many cases the builder has gone bust but our forgiving corporate insolvency laws allow such builders to return to the workforce. They are given a fresh start, a second chance, a bright new day. Regrettably, in the proposed general scheme of the building control (construction industry register Ireland) Bill 2017, these rogue builders will continue to get second chances as it is proposed that a builder who is struck off for a period of time may apply to be restored to the register on merely demonstrating compliance with registration criteria and payment of the standard fee. It is not good enough. In contrast, the contractor responsible for the Berkeley balcony collapse has had its licence revoked for five years. Its managing director must pay the California Registration Board investigation fees of $99,000 before the licence can be granted and may still in due course face a custodial sentence. There are no second chances for the individual citizen in Ireland, for ordinary consumers when major defects are discovered in their homes. They do not enjoy such corporate protections. They are abandoned. How many times must this issue rear its ugly head before the people who are so adversely affected by it have some level of certainty about the relief they can seek?

Simple first steps would include clarification from the Minister as to whether the Government is serious about offering tax reliefs for the undertaking of essential repair works. Giving income tax relief in respect of the repair costs incurred together with a suspension of local property tax and VAT relief along the lines of the home renovation initiative are all practical, reasonable measures which can, if the political will exists, be implemented quickly in order ease the burden on residents. Second, the Government should consider creating a loan fund for those who cannot pay. Section 71 of the 1966 Housing Act has a model for how this can work and this needs to be adapted and rolled out by local authorities to give assistance to homeowners. In conjunction with the implementation of these measures, as is stated in this evening’s Green Party motion, it is crucial that the Government introduce a transmissible warranty of quality from builders or developers in favour of all subsequent purchasers so that damages can be sought from the original developers, ensuring there can no longer be any place to run and no shelter or place to hide for rogue builders.

An inexpensive, consumer-friendly dispute resolution mechanism for homeowners should be established. Landlords and tenants who find themselves in dispute in respect of a tenancy have easy access free of charge to the RTB dispute resolution service.

However, what resolution do home owners have facing into this unprecedented storm? They have none.

In order to ensure the State will never again be taken as a soft touch, it is crucial that increased resources must be pooled into this arm of local government with responsibility for robustly monitoring new builds and in order to be taken seriously, a properly resourced enforcement agency must work in tandem with a supervisory division to ensure that inadequate building standards will not be tolerated.

Twenty five years of evidence tells us that leaving the construction industry to its own devices results in widespread dangerous breaches. Will one of the Minister's first acts as Minister with responsibility for housing be to support this motion, to stand up to the construction industry and in doing so stand up for the health and safety of the people or will it be to cave in to vested interests, given them their way and allowing them to continue to put lives at risk?

The tragic inferno in west London last week is a stark reminder that the overriding priority underpinning all construction must be the safety of residents. In the rush to build the houses so urgently needed in this country, we must ensure that this time we do it right and that all houses are built to an acceptable and safe standard. The Members of this House have a duty to create a legislative framework to support all those who are living the nightmare of having had defects discovered in their homes and to prevent this happening to another generation of home owners. I ask them to consider these home owners and what they are going through, to help them and to stop it from happening to another generation of home owners.

I move amendment No. 3:

To delete all words after “Dáil Éireann” and substitute the following:

"notes that:

— in light of the tragic events in the Grenfell Tower fire London, all local authorities have been requested, as a matter of urgency, to review their multi-storey social housing units to ensure that all early warning systems, including alarm and detection systems, and means of escape including corridors, stairways and emergency exits, are fully functional and in place; and

— immediate action has been taken to alert the building industry, landlords and homeowners to remain vigilant in relation to fire and life safety in buildings for which they are responsible;

acknowledges the many incidences of building failures and non-compliance concerns that have come to light over the past decade, and the associated significant economic and personal consequences of such situations;

further notes that building defects are matters for resolution between the contracting parties involved, including the homeowner, the builder, the developer and/or their respective insurers, structural guarantee or warranty scheme;

recognises:

— the important role of the State in maintaining an effective regulatory framework for building standards and the extensive statutory powers of enforcement that local building control authorities have, pursuant to the Building Control Act 1990, both during construction and during the five years following completion of building works, where issues of non-compliance with building regulations arise; and

— the powers that local authorities have pursuant to the Fires Services Acts 1981 and 2003, which have been effectively invoked in recent years in a number of cases where concerns have arisen regarding fire safety in a building;

welcomes the responding initiatives that have been introduced as part of a broad-ranging building control reform agenda, which have brought a new order and discipline to bear on construction projects and have created a culture of compliance with building regulations,

including:

— the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (S.I. No. 9 of 2014) and accompanying Code of Practice for Inspecting and Certifying Buildings and Works, empowering competence and professionalism in the design, construction, inspection and certification of building works through statutory certificates;

— the new Building Control Management System, which facilitates the electronic administration of building control functions and provides a common platform for clear and consistent administration of building control matters, and which is subject to ongoing improvement to achieve further efficiencies;

— the new Framework for Building Control Authorities, which standardises work practices, systems, procedures and decision-making in relation to oversight of building control activity across the sector, to enhance consistency of approach nationally, and to move towards a risk-based approach to inspections by building control authorities;

— the development of training programmes for building control officers;

— the significant changes and clarification in legislation for construction products on foot of the European Union Construction Products Regulation (No. 305/2011); and

— recent developments in the construction insurance market, including the introduction of products which offer first-party insurance cover, for damage and non-damage related claims; and

requests that continuing priority is attached to the completion of further important steps as part of the building control reform agenda, particularly:

— building on the preparatory work undertaken as part of the local government reform programme, the creation of a centralised structure for the governance and oversight of the building control functions of local authorities, through a shared service in a lead local authority;

— the completion of an evaluation of the adequacy of building control resources at local level. A 12 month study of local building control activity commenced in quarter two of 2017 and it is anticipated that a sufficient level of data will be received to commence analysis in quarter four of 2017, this will inform the evaluation of the adequacy of resources;

— the drafting and enactment of legislation in relation to the registration of building contractors, following on from the recent publication of the General Scheme of the Building Control (Construction Industry Register Ireland) Bill 2017; and

— the ongoing review and updating of the building regulations in light of technical innovation and international best practice in the construction sector, in particular, a new volume of Technical Guidance Document B (TGD B) in respect of dwelling houses will come into effect on 1st July, 2017, and work is ongoing in relation to a second volume of TGD B in respect of buildings other than dwelling houses."

I wish to thank the Deputies for the motion proposed this evening. It addresses an area of fundamental concern, one that has a direct impact on the daily life of every individual living in the State.

I would like to place on the record of the House our sympathies to all of those who have been so tragically affected by the devastating fire which took place in Grenfell Tower in London last week. The fire has brought into sharp focus the paramount importance not just of appropriate fire safety measures but also the importance of appropriate and robust building standards.

As Minister with responsibility for both, one of my first priorities upon taking up my new role was to take immediate action to ensure life safety for all citizens living in flats and apartments here in Ireland. On Friday, I met with Dublin’s chief fire officer to discuss fire safety and life safety issues in light of the London tragedy. I requested that the management board of the National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management convene and assess the readiness of the fire authorities to respond to such emergencies. They have since reported back positively that we can have confidence regarding the capability of fire services to respond to emergencies in this State. I have requested that each local authority, as a matter of urgency, review its multi-storey social housing units to ensure that all early warning systems, including alarm and detection systems, and means of escape, including corridors, stairways and emergency exits, are fully functional and in place. I have also requested that the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, issue a notification to remind all landlords of their responsibilities and obligations in this regard. Furthermore, I have been assured that the RTB is co-ordinating with local authority fire departments and the National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management to provide detailed information directly and individually to all landlords in the coming days. The RTB has also placed notices to this effect on its website and in the press. In order to remind builders, assigned certifiers, designers and owners of their obligations in relation to compliance with the building regulations, I have requested that a notification be issued to all registered building control management system users. There are approximately 57,000 registered on that system. This process commenced late last week and has now been completed. I will continue to keep all of these matters under review as we move to a follow-up phase of work in the coming weeks.

While I am sure many of the Deputies in this House can agree with the sentiments of the motion proposed, it fails completely to recognise the significant progress which has been made over recent years in reforming the building control system. For this reason I have tabled a counter motion. It is one thing to say "do more" or "do differently" – that we can debate, but it is another thing to say that we have done nothing when that is not the case. This is an important debate but I would urge Deputies contributing to it to avoid certain rhetoric that flies in the face of the facts here in Ireland and I would remind them of their duty of care in this regard - not to unnecessarily spread fear where it may not be necessary to be fearful.

Unfortunately, we are all too well aware of the many incidences of building failures or severe non-compliance concerns that have come to light over the past decade. They exist in my own constituency, as I know they do in Deputy Martin's constituency. The economic and personal consequences of these situations have been very significant and they are deeply distressing for the individuals involved.

A reform programme has been advanced by my Department to strengthen the system by improving compliance with, and oversight of, the requirements of the building regulations. It was through the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014, commonly known as BCARS, that key deficits in the regulatory regime were addressed. These regulations brought a new degree of competence and professionalism to construction projects and established a chain of responsibility that begins with the owner. Since 2014, the owner must assign competent persons to design, build, inspect and certify building works that he or she has commissioned. They, in turn, must account for their contribution through the lodgement of compliance documentation, inspection plans and statutory certificates. The statutory certificate of compliance on completion signed by both a registered construction professional and the builder must be in place prior to occupation. Given the significant financial and professional implications attaching to signature of a statutory certificate of compliance on completion, there was considerable industry resistance to these reforms when they were first proposed but they were introduced and three years on, they have brought a new order to bear on construction projects.

I have often heard the current system of building control described as self-certification and I believe that this is a misnomer. Prior to the 2014 reforms a builder was required to obtain only an opinion of compliance with building regulations. However, the new regulations since 2014 now require the owner to assign a competent person to act as an assigned certifier in relation to individual projects. This person must develop an inspection plan and ensure physical inspections of the building works are carried out at key stages to satisfy themselves that the works are in compliance with the building regulations. The assigned certifier must be a registered construction professional, that is, an architect, a chartered engineer or a building surveyor. They must demonstrate the basis for the certification of compliance with the building regulations through the lodgement of compliance documentation, inspection plans and statutory certificates with the local building control authority, and this is done through the centralised building control management system. This is far more than obtaining an opinion of compliance, which was the previous practice.

The Government largely agrees with the sentiment of the motion tabled that proposes a national office to improve the effectiveness of the oversight and governance of the building control system. The national building control management system has been put in place to facilitate the electronic administration of building control functions and provides a common platform for clear and consistent administration of building control matters across the local authority sector. A BCMS module is currently being developed to collect data at commencement about construction works. This will position building control authorities to carry out the risk-based targeted inspections that the Deputy spoke of, delivering more efficient and effective use of available resources. In regard to the building control management project, a centralised structure for the governance and oversight of building control has been developed as a shared service and will be embedded in a lead local authority. A competitive process to select the lead authority for this is about to commence. This will facilitate increased risk-based inspection activity, improving consistency and promoting a culture of compliance in the building sector with a single unified national approach. This approach effectively draws on the wealth of experience that has been accumulated by local building control authorities achieving progress more rapidly than would be the case with the establishment of a whole new separate regulatory entity. We do not need a new quango to do this work; we can use shared IT services, the new building control management system and designate a lead local authority to achieve what the Deputy wants to achieve in her motion.

The Government also very much agrees with the sentiment of the motion tabled that proposes a national building regulation office to regulate those involved in construction. However, it must be recognised that the Building Control Act 2007 established a statutory system of registration for architects and surveyors and as recently as the end of last month, the Government approved the general scheme of the building control (construction industry register) Bill to establish a mandatory statutory register for builders and specialist subcontractors. This is an essential consumer protection measure which will give consumers who engage a registered builder the assurance that they are dealing with a competent and compliant operator. It will also provide a forum for the investigation of complaints against registered members and the imposition of proportionate sanctions. Public tolerance for incompetent workmanship has been well and truly exhausted and the construction industry register will complement the reforms already in place and those that are planned.

Much improvement has taken place but there is no room for complacency. We need to ensure on an ongoing basis that the system provides the best possible protections for our people. The Japanese use a word "kaizen" which means continuous improvement. We must have this concept at the heart of what we do in terms of building standards. The performance of our buildings is contingent on a strong and evolving building code in support of quality, safe construction and sustainable development. There has been much debate in the media in regard to cladding in light of the tragic fire in London and the public have very justifiable concerns in this regard. Building regulations set out the requirements for fire safety and the use of proper products and materials, among other issues.

While it has yet to be definitively confirmed what type of cladding was used in the renovation of Grenfell Tower, the United Kingdom Department of Communities and Local Government has confirmed that cladding using a composite aluminium panel with a polyethylene core would be non-compliant with current building regulations guidance as this material should not be used as cladding on buildings over 18 m in height. I can confirm that the same restrictions apply under Irish building regulations.

In the interests of supporting owners and residents living in developments where concerns regarding non-compliance with fire safety requirements arise, a review was undertaken by an independent fire safety expert to develop a framework for general application in such situations. The report is currently under consideration – it was received by my Department in May – and subject to clarification on a number of issues, it is intended that the arrangements necessary for publication will be made at the earliest opportunity.

In general, building defects are matters for resolution between the contracting parties involved: the homeowner, the builder, the developer and-or their respective insurers, structural guarantee or warranty scheme. In this regard, it is incumbent on the parties responsible for poor workmanship and-or the supply of defective materials to accept their responsibilities and take appropriate action to provide remedies for affected homeowners. It is not possible for the State to take on responsibility or liability for all legacy issues of defective building materials or workmanship. More than that though, it would not send the right message to the industry regarding their responsibility for compliance and it might lead to unnecessary risk taking given the financial liability for any failures would be borne by the taxpayer. Why remove this responsibility from builders and put it on taxpayers when builders have a responsibility and a liability which can be effectively policed and controlled?

The failures in construction of the past have arisen largely due to inadequate design, poor workmanship or the use of improper products or a combination of these factors. The significant reforms that I have described this evening are aimed squarely at addressing all three of these issues. While, as I indicated earlier, I can subscribe to the sentiments underlying the motion that has been tabled this evening by the Green Party, I believe that the Government’s counter-motion provides a fuller reflection of the reforms that have taken place, those that are in train, and the programme of actions initiated specifically in response to last weeks’ most tragic events in London.

I therefore commend the Government’s amending motion to the House.

Can Deputies be given a copy of the Minister's speech?

I am sure that can be arranged.

It should be on its way.

I take the opportunity of congratulating the Minister on his appointment and also the Ministers of State, Deputies Phelan and English. I wish them well in their Department.

I call on the Fianna Fáil Deputies who are sharing their speaking time, Deputies Pat Casey, Fiona O'Loughlin and Barry Cowan.

I thank the Chair. Should I move our amendment now?

No, the Deputy may talk around it.

I also send my congratulations to the Minister and the Minister of State across the Chamber.

I welcome this motion tonight as it is an area of housing policy on which I have been working on the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government, and with my colleagues in Fianna Fáil over the last number of months. Before I came into the Chamber, I went on the websites for Cork City Council and Dublin City Council to see how much independent oversight is taking place on fire certification. One of the frequently asked questions on the Cork City Council website is, "Will Cork City Council inspect the development when it is completed?". The answer states: "The building control authority has the power to inspect and your building may be inspected for compliance with building regulation". On the Dublin City Council website, to the question, "Will Dublin City Council inspect and certify my building when it is finished?", the answer is "No. You should employ your fire safety consultant to oversee the fire-related issues of the works. When the works are finished, you should request the certificate of compliance from your consultant".

This is why we are here tonight. We have to move from the current system of what is still self-certification and move to a robust, independent and rigorous inspection system that is controlled by the State. That is why Fianna Fáil is in agreement with much of the reasoning behind this motion but we are placing an amendment which in my view places additional concrete measures - no pun intended - to ensuring an independent, robust and manageable building regulations system that homeowners and the State can have confidence in. If our motion is unsuccessful, I am pleased that we can support the original motion by the Green Party.

In the midst of the greatest housing and homelessness crisis in the history of the State we, as legislators, may be forgiven for concentrating solely on urgent measures to rapidly increase supply at all levels from social housing, affordable housing to private rental homes. However, it is essential that we learn the lessons from the previous housing bubble and the resulting financial crash. It is essential that we ensure that the increased supply of housing that is so badly needed and indeed the existing housing stock is of the highest possible standard. A house, at the end of the day, is a home for people that should be built to last. At the very least, every home in this Republic should be certified as safe for habitation. The tragedy in London just one week ago today is a too horrific reminder of the consequences of poor materials and insufficient fire safety controls in buildings. I offer my deepest condolences to the families involved in the Grenfell Tower disaster. Our thoughts and prayers are with those in London still coming to terms with the enormous loss of life.

We also need to be clear about what exactly we are talking about so as not to be in anyway cynical about raising people’s fears about building standards in Ireland for political motives. Everyone here tonight wants the best standards and is working towards that end. The standards that we in Ireland currently have in place for the construction of homes are high. Fire safety standards and building regulations are of a high quality and are on a par with best practice internationally and this has been confirmed by many experts in this area both at committee evidence and in external expertise that I have sought for policy development in this area. However, there is little point in having very high standards and comprehensive building regulations that can be pulled off a shelf every time there is an issue.

What is needed is a robust, independent and rigorous inspection system that is controlled by the State and that enforces the regulations with serious penalties for breaches. We all know about infamous developments such as Priory Hall where the standards and regulations did not matter because they were not enforced during construction. There was no independent oversight. That, combined with research that has identified that the fire inspection regime in place for the rental sector in Dublin City has an inspection rate of less than 10%, then one can clearly see the serious failings in the current inspection regime for that sector. I and my colleagues in Fianna Fáil will insist that we work purposefully towards an independent inspection regime of 100%. This will take a sea change in current thinking by this Fine Gael Government when it comes to the State's role in the housing sector and one that I genuinely hope will happen. I have been working with my Deputy Barry Cowen and my colleagues in Fianna Fáil in drafting legislation that will ensure an independent inspection regime that is fit for purpose and can be trusted. That is what is needed here.

We are also concerned about the lack of inspections in the private and public rental sector and through our vacant housing bill we will clamp down on abuses that are occurring. The current building control model, commonly known as the BCAR system, has fatal flaws. The current inspection model during construction involves an inspector known as an assigned certifier. This assigned certifier is a person that is employed by the builder or developer of the housing development. It does not take a brain surgeon or public policy expert to see the potential conflict of interest that exists between the assigned certifier and the fact that the person who is paying the assigned certifier is the developer of the development in question.

Another flaw is the prosecution of serious breaches in the inspection of building regulations. There must be severe and appropriate penalties on failures of inspectors. Currently under section 1.9, each professional body investigates complaints against their own members for example architects investigate architects, chartered surveyors investigate surveyors. This is self regulation and not appropriate in our view. The fact that no sanction has been brought against an architect or surveyor for the last six years is evidence of the failures inherent in the current BCAR regime. What is required here is obvious. Independent and professional distance between the inspection regime and the developer and builders who construct our homes. There are plenty of international examples of such systems and the model that we in Fianna Fáil will be proposing ticks all of those boxes. In our view, the most appropriate platform for delivering this independent building inspection regime is an approved certifier list which can be managed by the local authority that will provide the independent framework with Departmental guidance. It will be the local authority and the State who will provide the steel that is needed for a robust inspection regime and it will be the State that will sanction and penalise any failings on behalf of the developer or the inspection system. A centralised national building authority, as proposed by the Green Party motion, while not intentional, will further contribute to the over-centralisation of public services and a further reduction in the role of local government in our view.

Irish local authorities are the appropriate platform to deliver these services considering the role they already play in planning and housing, their management of the current BCAR process, their direct connection to the Department and their expertise. They also serve to deepen the institutional knowledge local government in Ireland needs to regain when it comes to delivery and management of quality housing for all our people.

Over time, as this new system beds in and develops, there is massive potential for the local authority, qualified inspectors, builders and developers to learn from one another and work in partnership to ensure that the homes built in Ireland are safe, built to an exceptionally high standard and can be trusted as having been independently verified as such. This new model of building regulations and controls will also serve to restore trust in the State's ability to oversee important areas of social policy on an ongoing basis. As legislators, that is what we are here for.

I take this opportunity to congratulate both Ministers on their appointments and wish them well. They have a huge task of work ahead of them and we look forward both to working with them and to holding them to account regarding the many challenges on the way.

The Minister said he wanted to avoid rhetoric and spreading fear in this debate. I accept the point he made. Priory Hall, Longboat Quay and Beacon Court are three schemes that have captured national attention over the past number of years. Thankfully, there has never been a fire in any of them. I wish to talk to the Ministers about a place where there was a fire. I refer to Newbridge, where six houses were absolutely gutted within 35 minutes. On 31 March 2015, just over two years ago, the six houses in Millfield Manor estate in Newbridge - six of a complex of 90 houses - burned to the ground after flames spread rapidly from a fire started in one of the houses. It transpired that there were no proper fire barriers between the houses. There were improper and badly constructed internal walls, and this terrace of two-storey - not multistorey - homes was ablaze within 20 minutes. The houses were gutted to the ground in 35 minutes. I have a photograph of the aftermath of the fire here. Thankfully, this happened during the day and there was only one resident present in the six houses. If it had occurred during the night, I think it would have been a very different state of affairs. Between 20 and 35 residents live in each of these blocks of six houses and it is almost certain that if this had occurred during the night, very sadly, people would have died. The present home owners live with that fear every single day. Six households fled for their lives with only the clothes on their backs. Not any other scrap of clothing, not a stick of furniture, not a family photograph, not a children's toy survived this inferno. All of the families' hopes and dreams went up in the flames, which I witnessed myself. Their lives - not only the lives of the six families, but also those of all the residents living in Millfield - changed forever. Every property owner in Millfield is an innocent party, having bought a property in good faith, relying on the provided certification and the processes they believed existed in the associated areas of planning and inspection.

Newbridge, in a sign of the wonderful community it is, responded in a hugely compassionate way that night and in the days and weeks that followed. Our local hotel, the Keadeen Hotel, immediately provided emergency accommodation for the families and the community immediately got together and responded by offering clothes, toiletries, finance and indeed comfort. Since then, on many occasions and at many meetings, I have sat with grown men who have cried and women who held their children close and were afraid to bring them to their homes. These people are trapped in negative equity, do not feel safe or secure and are not able to sleep at night. This fire continues to cause grave concern and huge stress, and there are significant legacy issues for the remaining inhabitants, whose houses and apartments are now under serious question as to their safety compliance standards.

The various statutory bodies have offered no comfort or guidance to the remaining house owners, and they have many questions. Some of these questions are as follows. Is it safe to continue living in these houses or apartments? It is not. How is their insurance impacted by the perception that the structures were non-compliant with fire regulations? Many can no longer get insurance cover. What recourse do they have to the planning authorities? Of course, there is none. What responsibility does national government have? To date, no responsibility has been shown. What sanctions are open against the developer, who is now involved in NAMA and who just took shortcuts to make a quick buck, and the management company? There have been none. What can be done to restore equity to these houses that have become virtually unsellable since the fire? Of course, nothing has happened in that regard.

I do not think I have ever felt as frustrated or helpless as when I have had to tell my constituents living there that no financial or practical assistance is available for the installation of life-saving fire barriers. They have been told this work could cost approximately €35,000, which is simply unaffordable for them. They are struggling to meet their mortgages as it is. Those living there have been told no funding is available to bring their properties up to fire safety standards. They are unable to sell the properties or get home insurance as these are fire-risk houses. I appreciate that the Minister has only been in his position for a few days but the previous Minister, Deputy Coveney, has had a report about Millfield Manor sitting on his desk for 15 months. This report needs to be released and a surveyor appointed to quantify the works required on a sample block of six homes in Millfield Manor and the best way to proceed.

The residents of Millfield Manor have contacted me again in the past few days after the recent horrific and tragic fire in Grenfell Tower - in respect of which I offer my deepest sympathies to all involved - highlighting how unsafe they feel in their homes and their frustration with our failed building inspection systems. Building standards must be reformed. I commend Deputy Martin for tabling this motion as building control regulations are inadequate and protect neither home owners nor subsequent home purchasers against negligent developers. It is incredible that despite numerous high-profile building failures, there have been no sanctions against architects or surveyors for complaints in the past six years. It is clear that self-regulation of design and construction standards simply does not work and it is necessary for independent State authorities to check every new development to ensure it is compliant with building control regulations. Our party's amendment includes provision for this. We are all aware of the current housing shortage but in our rush to build new homes, safety must be paramount and grossly defective building standards must be a thing of the past. The fire in Millfield, Newbridge, has shown the consequences of failure to meet minimum compliance standards. The fear experienced by Millfield residents and homeowners daily is a legacy that cannot be ignored. We talk about safe and secure houses. We must make that happen. My party will table a different Bill to deal with the issue of non-compliance with fire safety and other building regulations.

I will leave my last words to the committee that has been formed regarding Millfield Manor: "This is a life-and-death issue within our community, and we have encountered serious obstacles in the last two years in remedying construction failures due to lack of clarity on standards and the cost associated with such works." I appeal to the Ministers to do something radical about Millfield and to support the motion with our amendment.

I join other speakers in congratulating the Minister, Deputy Murphy, and the Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, on their appointments and wish them every success with those appointments. It is in the interest of all of us that they are successful and adhere to and listen to the suggestions from this side of the House and others about measures which can address the unfortunate crises and emergencies in the housing sector. I also commend Deputy Catherine Martin and her party for tabling this motion, which is very opportune, considering what has happened in London in recent weeks. The motion focuses our minds on how we adhere to our responsibilities to provide the best possible security and safety to those who reside in properties that obtain planning permission from local authorities and officers of the State.

Our duty as a State must be to assume responsibility for ensuring planning authorities properly police and protect people's interests. Improvements were made in this regard by the previous Administration in respect of how that is done but they still contradict, for example, the manner in which the initial application is granted by virtue of the fact that the fire officer can grant permission based on the submission of the drawings and them being in compliance of the regulations. As previous speakers said, the responsibility then transfers to certifiers employed by the building trade when it comes to implementation of what the fire officer wants.

We heard from departmental officials at our earlier committee meeting about last year's decision of An Bord Pleanála regarding Airbnb and the obligation on the State to ensure that those who offer their properties for short-term lettings must seek a retention of planning permission to do so. When we asked how many instances have been acknowledged by the agents of the State, in this case local authorities, they replied, "None", despite the fact that circulars had issued to them to be vigilant about the manner in which they applied the law in respect of future permissions. However, there was nothing about responsibility in respect of existing permissions. There is a realisation on the part of departmental officials that they did not see fit to seek from the Minister and the Government adequate resources and personnel to ensure they could carry out the duties they must perform by virtue of another arm of the State having made this decision.

It is the same in this regard. If we want to be appropriate in the manner in which we adhere to this and our obligations, an independent authority such as assigned certifiers within local authorities should be adequately trained and resourced in order that they can carry out that duty. This could be done perhaps at a lower cost than by those employed by others. That is the road we should travel in this regard. I hope the Minister and the Government will acknowledge that. In the interests of safety, irrespective of the cost, they must adequately train and resource personnel to carry out this duty in the same professional manner as fire officers when they inspect the plans that are brought forward in the first instance. We have tabled an amendment to that effect in respect of how that should be done. We support the thrust of the Green Party's proposal in the absence of our amendment not being accepted by the House.

I thank Deputy Catherine Martin and the Green Party, and the people who have been working with her behind the scenes, for giving us the opportunity to discuss an important policy issue. While much of our discussion is about the failures of the past, the context for these legislative proposals is the future. We are about to, hopefully, see the largest build and refurbishment programme in the public and private sectors in recent history. What better time to ensure the regulations put in place now in respect of building control, fire safety standards, etc., are of world-class standing as the building programme commences.

I would like to reflect on a number of local experiences because they will add to fully understanding the nature of the problems with the current system, including the post-2014 regime. These difficulties do not only relate to private builds; they relate to affordable housing schemes involving local authorities and private developers and local authority-owned social housing development and it is important not to lose sight of that. In my constituency, for example, one large local authority housing development built at the height of the boom was the subject of so many breaches of building regulations that one of the blocks that had been handed over to an approved housing body, AHB, had to be transferred back to the local authority within a short number of years because the cost of tackling the breaches was so great that the AHB could not cope with it. The residents in that large development, which was tenanted in 2007, still live with many of those regulatory failures. Even though it was built under the pre-2014 regulatory system, no remedy is available to those tenants who are today living with damp and other difficulties with their properties.

There was another good-quality affordable housing scheme in my constituency until one of the residents discovered that there were no fire stopping and fire safety measures in place. It took two years of hard campaigning to get the local authority and the builder, who was still trading, around a table to eventually come up with a remedy but that should never have taken so long. What if the developer had gone bust and there was no money or potential reputational damage to his or her business to resolve the problems?

As others have mentioned, management companies in large private sector developments are dealing with significant legacy issues and costs whether the units are owned or rented. Significant safety issues - although, thankfully, they are not fire safety issues - have yet to be resolved and it is unlikely they will be for some time to come. Even though the system of certification has changed, the remedies available to social and affordable or private housing tenants who find themselves living with construction defects have not been adequately addressed by the Government, which is all the more reason to support the motion.

I accept the fact that the Minister has outlined changes and that BCAR was introduced but his assertion that this is not self-regulation is unacceptable. It is simply a better form of self-regulation but there is potential for conflicts of interest because while the assigned certifiers have to protect their professional reputation, they are employed by the developer and, unfortunately, as we experienced at the height of the boom, that can lead to problems.

There are also issues relating to an inability to control costs whether it is a race to the bottom or significant additions to the cost of producing units, which would be better controlled in the system outlined by Deputies Cowen and Casey, which we are examining in the housing committee.

I am a strong advocate of resourcing local authorities properly but they experienced the greatest loss of public sector employees during the recession with a 23% reduction in staff. Even if the best regulatory regime in the world is in place, if they do not have the staff to carry out inspections, the regulations will never be enforced. We need greater support for local authorities in terms of resourcing.

One of the great merits of the Green Party motion is the proposal for a building authority whose function would be to assist co-ordination, improve standards, gather data and potentially be a location for information for people who discover defects in their properties for mediation or adjudication. That would be an eminently sensible addition to the important role of local authorities. It would not be a quango but it would be an important regulatory instrument. Even though the Minister will not support the proposal tonight, I urge him to reconsider that, particularly because it will be one of the recommendations in the Oireachtas committee report on the same issue. There was such a strong feeling among all committee members on this issue that we took a unanimous decision a number of months ago to hold a series of hearings and to invite industry, statutory and departmental representative as well as expert academic opinion and submissions from people affected by these issues. I am hopeful that we will produce a good, detailed report with further legislative recommendations. I hope the Minister will consider all of them. A building authority in addition to an adequate regime for dealing with defects will form part of that.

Sinn Féin has tabled a short, friendly amendment, which I understand the Green Party is willing to accept, in respect of the fire safety issues. Given what we have heard about Newbridge and my own experience, there is a need for an urgent review of the existing regulations to ensure that not only are they being adequately enforced but that they are up to scratch in light of the recent tragic events in London. One of the issues that has emerged from the interesting debate on the back of that tragedy is the increased use of combustible materials in construction generally, something which many of us not directly involved in the industry have been surprised to learn. The increased use of such materials is not in and of itself a fire risk but there clearly needs to be a review of these materials, as provided for in our amendment, to ascertain if our fire safety regulations and compliance regime should be strengthened to tackle the issue. The cladding used on Grenfell Tower was not lawful.

Despite that fact, it was used, with the tragic effects we have seen.

With regard to the Fianna Fáil amendment, I want to acknowledge the work of Deputies Cowen and Casey in the discussions we have been having. In this debate there has been quite a lot of consensus. People do not want to play party politics with an issue of such importance because we want to try to improve the system of consensus and unanimity. While I will not support their amendment, it is only because I think there are parts of the Green Party motion which are stronger. Nonetheless, there is very little of what Deputies Cowen and Casey have outlined today that I would disagree with and I believe we can return to those issues in the committee report to the satisfaction of everybody.

While we are discussing all of these policy issues, we have to remember that in all of the developments we have discussed, whether we have named them or reserved the names, there are real families who are living either in substandard accommodation or in fear that the accommodation they are living in may be substandard. There are also a huge number of developments where residents are not even aware they are not compliant with building or fire safety regulations. I go back to the example I used from my own constituency. The only reason the firestopping was discovered to be non-existent was that the homeowner decided to do renovations on a property that was sold to them with a local authority grant as part of an affordable housing scheme. Again, to re-emphasise the point, not only did they discover that, but it took two years for the local authority in question and the developer to step up to the plate. Even if we think BCAR are great and do not need to be improved, there are many other issues in terms of enforcement and compliance that do need to be urgently looked at, which is why Sinn Féin is more than happy to support the motion.

What I would urge the Minister and his new team to do is, in addition to today's debate, to sit down and work with us when our committee comes forward with recommendations, both in terms of their own party members on the committee and in their own engagement with us. If we make a proposal that at first sight does not seem to conform with their view of how we should proceed, they should engage with us, listen to us and deliberate with us so we can come out at the end of this process, starting with this motion today and the committee report in a few weeks' time, and improve the system to the very best standard possible. This would mean that those people currently living in defective buildings can get some remedy and we would not be here in five or ten years' time, after we have seen a significant increase in new builds and refurbishments of public and private housing, with either the existing types of defects coming back to haunt us or new problems. I believe this could be a real turning point and a real example of this House working collectively, Opposition and Government together, but that requires all of us to sit down and work on a collegiate basis. If we do that, I think we can put together a building control compliance and consumer protection system that is better than anywhere else in the world, one we will be proud to put our names to.

I too wish the Minister and the Minister of State well in their new roles. I congratulate Deputy Catherine Martin and the Green Party for proposing this motion, which we will support, as we will support the amendment in the name of Deputy Ó Broin and his colleagues.

I want to join with those who have spoken about the awful occurrence at Grenfell Tower in London. I want to convey our condolences to the families of those who have perished and those suffering from the effects of that awful fire. It is a stark reminder of how lives can be lost when standards are ignored.

I agree with Deputy Ó Broin that this is a very opportune time to introduce an independent inspectorate in order to make buildings safe. We need construction to ramp up. We clearly have a shortage of houses and apartments and we hope, and are working to ensure, there is an increase in construction in the immediate future. In that context, we need to be absolutely certain we have the highest standards and that they are implemented. It is all very well to have standards but we have to ensure there is a body that will make sure they are implemented. That is why I believe we need to establish an independent inspectorate, and we support the Green Party in that regard. That inspectorate could be along the lines of the EPA, for example, or of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. Such a body would have the power and remit to go in and examine homes under construction at various stages from foundation to finish. This is particularly urgent with regard to apartments where there are multiple occupiers. The "knock them down and fix them later" legacy of the Celtic tiger boom must never be allowed to happen again. I believe we should also have a register of inspections carried out that is available for public examination so there is an understanding and confidence that shoddy workmanship will not go unnoticed. I agree with Deputy Catherine Martin that this has to be adequately resourced.

Sadly, none of this will help the unfortunate householders who are faced with bills of between €15,000 and €38,000 in at least one development in the Dublin area, as we were told in the briefing today, and we know there are many more. They need a resolution process as proposed by the Green Party motion, another aspect of the motion which we will support. I agree with the suggestion that directors of companies that built substandard homes should be prohibited from being directors of any other company in the building sector for a significant time. We need to have some safeguard whereby, if people build something defective that is dangerous, they cannot set up another company, become directors and start all over again. We clearly need to do something about that and I would support that element also.

I was in the role of Minister of State in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, as it then was, at a time when many of these issues were coming to light. One of the first meetings I had was with the residents of Priory Hall. The pyrite panel was also established at that time. In fairness to my senior Minister of the time, he did reform the building control regulations. That was hugely resisted by the very developers who had built substandard properties during the boom, when regulation was pretty invisible or just did not exist. At least there was that improvement. Unfortunately, however, there has been very little building since then, which is why I believe now is the opportune time for the establishment of an inspectorate, or whatever name it is given. Effectively, it would be there to ensure there is a random inspection programme and that builders would genuinely recognise that if they were doing something that was substandard, measures would be taken and there would be the possibility of a full inspection that would be publicly available for people to see. I believe that is the right thing to do. I welcome the fact the committee, of which I am not a member, is also working on this. I believe we should ensure we introduce these measures.

I want to quote one of the people who sent me an email, and I am sure many of us in the House received emails from residents who are trying to deal with this and who do not have the money themselves, which is why it is so important we look at the legacy issues as well as setting important standards for the future. One of the emails I received states: "For owners of apartments that are barely ten years old, it is unfair to be saddled with the financial burden that comes from the greed and carelessness of developers and contractors who benefited from the construction boom". That is just one quote but I had the opportunity to speak to other people who were also affected. They are people who genuinely have large mortgages and who simply cannot afford to do this work themselves. We need to find a resolution process for them as well.

I want to ask the Minister about an issue raised in the media. It is suggested the Construction Industry Federation has stated it is drafting upcoming legislation in the area itself. That is just not on. While I understand there has been some clarification from the Department or the Government, we cannot have the Construction Industry Federation deciding how to regulate itself. We need completely independent regulation. If there is any question about this, we absolutely need to have it clarified.

I want to also raise the issue of the fire safety review, which was referred to in the Minister's speech. While I am not sure if that is the same review Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin referred to, I understand there was a fire safety review commissioned in September 2015 and that it has been completed for some time.

The Minister said that what I assume is the same report is currently under consideration. It was received by the Department and, subject to clarification on a number of issues, it is intended the arrangements necessary for publication will be made at the earliest opportunity. I urge that it be published. I understand it has been with the Department for some time. Clearly there are people who have a real fear following the awful tragedy in London as they just do not know whether their own building is safe. I know the Minister has said he has asked all of the local authorities to go back, look and find out. I have spoken to councillors in my local authority and asked them to please follow it up with the council. All representatives need to do this. We have to ensure these fears are allayed and I urge that the report be published.

The horror in Grenfell was murder by negligence. In November, the residents in the Grenfell Action Group wrote, "It is a truly terrifying thought, but the Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord". That was prophetic. For two years they had been warning about fire safety and other issues. Critically, as a fire consultant explained to me today, it was not just the combustible nature of the material, it was the fact that the gap between the building and the material created a flue which allowed the fire to bypass the separation and fire resistance required between units.

The question we have to ask, apart from the criminal negligence that needs to be accounted for in Britain, is whether it can happen here. Last week, I raised it with the Taoiseach and I met him again today. Kevin Hollingsworth has confirmed that the answer to the question is that it can happen here. The deficiencies in our regulations themselves, and not just in enforcement or compliance, allow for this to happen. There is supposed to be 60 minutes fire resistance between units. The Government has known since the 1980s that the fire regulations do not provide that. I watched a film today where officials who are still in the Department with responsibility for the environment, watched tests showing this and were asked to change the regulations to ensure separation, from the roof to the separating walls. There are problems particularly in roofs but there are problems in sockets and other areas, which mean we do not have the 60 minutes. The fire in Newbridge that was mentioned earlier proves this. There were eight units, which means that a fire starting in one unit should take 420 minutes to spread to the last unit. It took 26 minutes. Those houses were signed off and certified as compliant.

There is a problem with the standards. Last year, the Minister asked fire consultants to make submissions, which they did. The fire consultant I spoke to met the then Minister, Deputy Coveney. The new version of the building regulations was agreed. Today, I was told that earlier this year they totally ignored the consultant's proposals for changes. Then we have the fiasco of self-certification off plans with no inspection of buildings. I could go on but I do not have time. This is absolutely scandalous. We are guilty up to our necks of refusing to listen for more than 20 years to experts who have told us the standards themselves, never mind the enforcement and compliance, are completely deficient, completely substantiate, and as recently as this year we ignored the advice of the experts in this area and signed off on new regulations. It is an absolute scandal.

This motion is given added poignancy by the disaster in Grenfell in London, and I extend my sympathies to all affected. What it showed was class, race and, as has been said, corporate manslaughter, and one of the issues is the outsourcing of public housing to private companies, a process which is happening here. The Dáil and the housing committee in particular should get a report and an update from the Minister. We heard some bullet points tonight but we need to interrogate this. Tens of thousands of people in the country are affected by the poor building regulations and the self-regulating that developers have been allowed to do. This stems from the close connections of these developers, in particular to the two big parties historically. It has led to the likes of what we have heard about today, with hundreds of residents in Beacon South Quarter in Sandyford picking up the tab of between €15,000 and €30,000 per apartment to address deficiencies in fire safety, water, ingress and structure. The fact developers are allowed to become insolvent and then re-trade, move along their merry way and set up somewhere else is completely unacceptable.

The motion references pyrite as a sole example of where remedy has been brought to bear. This was down to years of campaigning, since 2009 and even earlier, by residents and some public representatives. There are still thousands of residents who have an element of pyrite who are stuck in limbo and who only have stage 1, which may never progress and probably will not progress, but they cannot sell their houses. People heard one resident on "Morning Ireland" on Monday, a resident of my estate where hundreds of houses, including my own, suffer from pyrite but the developer, Shannon Homes, still operates. Nothing can be done.

I am not as benign about the Fianna Fáil amendment as Deputy Ó Broin, because the amendment removes the section which calls for a building authority, which is the key point, I would have thought, of the motion. If Fianna Fáil is not in favour of having supervision of the construction sector through a building authority, how is it in favour of it? It should be called to account for this because I heard the same guff about it being a terrible disincentive to getting the construction sector back on track if we start adding all these extra demands on them. Where did we hear this before? We heard it from Boris Johnson and David Cameron in the years preceding the likes of Grenfell when red tape had to be removed to help business carry on its merry way.

NAMA was involved with Beacon South Quarter and funded the completion of many of those apartments in Sandyford. Apparently the works were signed off by NAMA. Does the Minister of State not think the State has a liability here? I agree it should not be the State that steps in on these legacy issues, but a levy should be imposed on the construction sector to fund them. This is meant to be done for pyrite and should be done in this regard. NAMA has to be asked to account for why it was happy to sell them off and not do those proper checks.

I now call Deputies Thomas Pringle, Tommy Broughan and Clare Daly, who are sharing five and a half minutes.

No, we are sharing seven and a half minutes.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice has two minutes.

No, he is not with our group.

He is on the list. If there are only three Deputies speaking they are sharing seven and a half minutes.

Deputies Pringle, Broughan, Clare Daly and Fitzmaurice are listed as sharing time, with seven and a half minutes between whoever of them will contribute. I call Deputy Pringle, who is first on the list.

We were not aware of this.

I think the Acting Chairman has made a mistake. Deputy Fitzmaurice is with the Rural Independent Group.

I clearly indicated it was five and half minutes between the three Deputies and Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice has two minutes after that. We will check it. I ask Deputy Pringle to go ahead.

I ask the Acting Chairman to check it now because I will lose time.

We cannot start without knowing.

We are in the process of checking it. I ask Deputy Pringle to go ahead and start speaking and we will deal with it as we go along.

Deputy Fitzmaurice has confirmed that it is not our group.

Give me a chance to check it. I am going by the indication on the screen.

We cannot start until we know what time we have between us.

I am saying the three Deputies have five and a half minutes. I ask the Deputy to commence as the clock is ticking.

It is eight and a half minutes.

You can argue all you like but the clock is ticking down and you are wasting the time of other speakers. I ask Deputy Pringle to commence.

With respect, we are not wasting the time of other speakers. We are trying to ensure that we get the time that has been allocated to our group under Standing Orders.

I am operating by what was given to me by the office-----

We have no problem facilitating Deputy Fitzmaurice. We always facilitate him.

Chairman, you should really stop the clock. It is not fair on the speaker.

There are at least another eight speakers after this group. Time will run out if Deputy Pringle does not start. We will try to clarify it as you are speaking.

Chairman, it is wrong to run the clock. Can you not just stop it?

How can you clarify it as I am speaking? If I take a third of five and a half minutes I will have to sit down and I will not be able to come back in again.

I am operating under Standing Orders.

Will somebody stop the clock and put it back?

You can argue against the clock all you like, but there is a time limit on this. It has to finish in an hour and 50 minutes, with the Minister to respond. There are 41 minutes left and there are at least another eight speakers. Deputy Pringle, you are only taking other Members' time. I ask you to start.

It is the longest day of the year.

I am not taking other Members' time. The time is allocated to us under Standing Orders. However, I will cut my contribution short to facilitate other Members.

First, I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, on his appointment. The motion is not his direct responsibility but local authorities should have a far greater role in building control and regulation in the State.

To clarify, there are four speakers with seven and a half minutes, including Deputy Fitzmaurice. It is up to the Members.

Perhaps the Chairman can calculate it and advise us when it takes place. However, it is something that will have to be taken up with the Business Committee because our group was not aware of it. We have no objection to sharing with Deputy Fitzmaurice when it is required, but it is something that must be addressed.

This motion from the Green Party is timely and worthwhile and I support it fully. We have seen the tragic events in London. Hopefully, through the grace of God, there will not be a similar event in this country. However, I wish to use my time to discuss the expert group report on the defective blocks that were used in Donegal. An estimated 5,000 homes have been identified as having serious problems due to the mica content in the blocks. The houses are crumbling before people's eyes. The Minister is probably aware of that. The expert group report has been released and the Mica Action Group is very disappointed with it, because it does not make any definite recommendations in terms of redress or remediation for those homeowners. The Government and the Oireachtas have a responsibility to deal with this and to assist home owners in correcting the problem, even though it will cost a substantial amount of money.

We have failed to regulate the construction industry. We do not insist that product standards are implemented and we do not check or enforce them. We do not require manufacturers to have product liability insurance which would provide the comfort to homeowners that they could have redress if there is a problem with their building at some stage in the future. We must address that. The motion recommends that local authorities be given extra staff to carry out on-the-spot inspections of houses as they are being constructed. That would be a self-financing and worthwhile step. The self-regulation clearly does not work and it will not work in the future.

The Government's proposed amendment includes an interesting line in which it "requests that continuing priority is attached to the completion of further important steps". Who is it requesting to continue the priority? Surely it is the Government's responsibility to prioritise it and to fulfil that request.

I broadly welcome the motion. I was probably the first political representative to raise the pyrite scandal in the House when it became apparent in summer 2007. Ironically, it was the former leader of the Green Party, Mr. John Gormley, who filibustered me for almost three years before any action was taken on pyrite. I was also involved in highlighting what happened in Priory Hall and in some other important developments in my constituency.

I wish to mention briefly Lynam's Hotel in O'Connell Street which is currently being modified to become a family hub to house homeless families. A constituent contacted my office yesterday in great distress. She along with her two young boys were placed in Lynam's Hotel late on Monday night. They arrived to find the place without running water or electricity in the room. She felt very unsafe. Lynam's Hotel is being offered as a late night solution when no other family accommodation can be found, instead of sending families to Garda stations as happened recently. However, Lynam's Hotel is still a building site. Anthony Flynn of Inner City Helping Homeless, a housing charity, went to the property yesterday with Dublin Fire Brigade and I understand that a full inspection was to be carried out today. There is a photograph on social media of a fire escape chained shut and I understand that members of the fire brigade declared the building a fire hazard last night.

I also understand young students and a family, including four children, were today evacuated from 24 Mountjoy Square due to safety issues. A fire safety notice was issued for this property in August 2016.

Can the Minister outline what other occupied properties around Dublin have fire safety notices, indicating the address and date of issue of the fire safety notice for each property? How can tenants be left in a property which has had a fire safety notice for almost a year? I ask the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, to act urgently on this.

I will take one minute and give the rest of the time to Deputy Fitzmaurice.

There is no need. It has been resolved.

The Minister said that the problems in construction were largely due to inadequate design, poor workmanship and improper materials. That is not quite true. That was part of the problem but it was mainly the quest for super profits by cutting corners, which was facilitated by the State's failure to have a proper system to ensure that standards were enforced and that regulation was put in place. In that sense, the State is responsible and must take a lead in this.

I will deal briefly with the legacy issues. People have catastrophic problems in the homes they purchased at the height of the boom. They are now being told that they must carry the cost of remediation. That is unacceptable. I echo the points made with regard to the report of the review that is held by the Department. It was commissioned in 2015 after the fire in Newbridge. I have tried to get the report through freedom of information requests and questions to the Minister. That information must be published. It is in the public's interest to do so. There must be transparency around this. It is quite urgent, because it is not just Newbridge or Blanchardstown. There was a scheme in my constituency as well in which untold damage was done in 20 minutes. The reason for that and for there being no fatalities is, as Deputy O'Loughlin pointed out, that it happened during the day and people were not at home.

We must ensure the system of self-certification is abolished and replaced with a detailed procedure of independent inspections to ensure compliance with building regulations. We do not have that now. All the bluster from the former Deputy, Phil Hogan, did not deliver that scheme. There must be a proper independent authority. In that sense, I welcome the motion. It is incredibly timely on the part of the Green Party. It is good that it is before us. Not only did local authorities in some areas not have the power but they did not even exercise the power they had, in some instances cynically allowing the Statute of Limitations to run out to leave residents in a situation where they could do nothing. They then said they sent a letter to the management company, told the company that there were a few problems and a few fire safety defects and it was up to them now; that the local authority's job was done. That is not good enough. These legacy issues must be addressed and the State must facilitate that. We must take a lead on it.

I thank Deputy Clare Daly for her co-operation. The Rural Independent Group speakers, Deputy Mattie McGrath, Michael Healy-Rae and Michael Fitzmaurice, have seven and a half minutes.

I thank Deputy Harty for giving his time to Deputy Fitzmaurice. Whatever the mix up was, it was not on our side. However, these things happen. He is welcome. Unlike the two bigger parties who wish to stop us talking, we will look after each other.

We will not be stopping the Deputy.

I cannot hear myself with these Deputies talking. They complain that they do not have enough time but then they waste it heckling. I compliment the motion and the Green Party, particularly Deputy Catherine Martin, on tabling it.

One of the main features of the problem is the terms of the existing regulatory framework. I refer to the dangerous imbalance that may exist between the right of a family or an individual to a safe and protected home and the interests of those who may have developed the property without the necessary due diligence to serve that right.

We had a boom and a bust and we now have very bad houses. Unfortunately, the tragedy in England brings it home to us. There are too many regulations affecting ordinary people trying to build a house on their own. They are going to build their house to proper standards anyway and have the work properly supervised because they are spending their own money. The problem is with the quick fix, the quick buck. The county councils have to take their share of responsibility. There are housing estates in Tipperary that are disastrous. They were not and are not subject to enforcement policies.

I compliment Deputy John Paul Phelan on his appointment to his new role as Minister of State. I am sure Kilkenny will be in safe hands now and Waterford will not be able to take any bit of it away from it. I look forward to the Minister of State reinvigorating local government after his big colleague, the big bully, former Minister Big Phil, destroyed local democracy.

I wish to put a question or challenge to the Minister of State and the Minister. I am informed that Dublin Fire Brigade, and all the fire brigades, have a maximum height capacity of 37 m. We are talking about building high-rise buildings up to 60 and 70 m. We have such buildings. This is an accident waiting to happen. This is a very serious point put to me by fire brigade personnel. I ask the Minister to check this out and ensure that we have equipment to reach all parts of buildings in Dublin safely. I do not want to be scaremongering but I am interested in protecting life.

I compliment Deputy Catherine Martin. It is not that the county councils are building houses. Mine did not build any last year or the year before. What are they doing? Why are they carrying out these inspections? I ask the Minister and Minister of State, just as I asked their predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, to call in the county managers and make them account for their actions. They are well enough paid to do the job and they are not serving the public.

I do not think Deputy Mattie McGrath should call anybody a bully. I ask him to withdraw the remark. I call Deputy Michael Healy-Rae.

He is the biggest bully who was ever in this House. We all know that.

I compliment the Minister and the Minister of State and wish them every success on their appointments. I really mean that because I believe everybody deserves to be wished well on a new appointment. I wish them all the good luck in the world.

I thank the Green Party for bringing this very timely and important Private Members' motion before the Dáil. The sad events in England and the massive loss of life there, which we must acknowledge here this evening, are a wake-up call for all of us, including local authorities and the Department, indicating that we must do everything to ensure people are living in homes that are safe and comply with the regulations. I compliment the fire service, including those who work in it and manage it, be it in the local authorities or otherwise. I thank and compliment the fire service in Kerry County Council. Its members do excellent work, protecting people in their homes and tackling forest fires. At all hours of the day and night, they are out fighting fires or attending road accidents. They are on call. It is nice to acknowledge the work of such people, who are very much working voluntarily because they have only their costs covered. I thank them very much for that.

In Ireland today, there are thousands upon thousands of young couples and families who bought property at the height of the boom. Tragically, these houses are not up to standard. The buyers are paying massive mortgages and they are stuck with the banks. Everybody got a bailout except these young couples. The people who owed hundreds of millions got off scot free but those who borrowed €200,000, €300,000 or €400,000 to buy a house are now left high and dry. We should really consider them and do everything we can to help them. I thank the Green Party for airing this issue tonight. It is a credit to both its Members.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this issue. I welcome the debate tonight. I wish the Minister and Minister of State good luck. They have a tough job in hand in their Department.

In Dublin especially, there was a major problem over the years with pyrite. Certain quarries on the outskirts of the city posed a problem. Some of the problems have been rectified but a test needs to be done on all new quarries that are open to make sure the material is suitable. Many families who bought houses got into serious trouble over pyrite.

A certain amount of regulation is required, and no one denies that, but there are simple steps that can be taken for anyone who comes from the building side of things. Bringing blockwork up to the hip of the roof of a building with 40 apartments would prevent a lot of problems. There are simple procedures.

People in Dublin are talking about the price of property but if there are people with 40 letters after their names dreaming up ideas, the price of houses will be put totally out of the reach of people. One must watch what one does with regulations, therefore. There is a certain amount of regulation needed, and no one denies that.

Everyone sympathises with what happened in England. There are, however, simple things that can be done by anyone in the building sector to stop fire flying from one apartment to another. They need to be done. Timber is being used to construct walls, such that one can hear what a person is saying next door, and that will not work if we want to prevent fires from spreading. It is as simple as that. There is a 20-minute delay with regard to many of the fire boards and it should be ensured that there is testing.

Governments need to wake up to the fact that many of the small quarries are being put out of business. The pre-1963 measure of recent years was a hoax. We are looking at monopolies in quarries. Whether we like it or not, we need quarries. There could be pyrite in one quarry but we need to open quarries around the country. We have the so-called environmentalists objecting to that also, but we need to make sure this is sorted once and for all. We heard earlier that this has been a problem since the 1960s. No Government is going to click its fingers and solve this overnight. It will take a lot of money and time, and we need to start somewhere. We will need a big budget to do it. If one is building a house for oneself, one does it to the best of one's ability. I do not want to see geniuses coming from every council around the country when people are building one-off houses telling them what they have to and must not do, as was the case over the past year. If one is building one's own houses, one builds it to the best specifications.

I thank Deputy Harty for ceding time. I call Deputy Catherine Murphy.

I wish the Minister and Minister of State well. Both have very important portfolios. We look forward to holding them to account in their jobs.

The most important thing, a first principle, is that one should be safe in the house in which one lives, be it an apartment in a 25-storey block or a single-story building. That is what the objective should be. We saw this very badly violated last week in London. In Millfield Manor in Newbridge, the speed at which the fire travelled through the block of houses shows it is not just at height that there can be a problem. It is absolutely unacceptable that, 15 months after the event, the report is not published. It must be published immediately. The Department has initiated some work on determining the extent of the problem and considering other areas. It will be really important to see that.

I compliment the Green Party on tabling this very timely motion. I was elected to a county council in 1991. Essentially, the nuts and bolts of what we did involved picking up the pieces after the last crash. Some of us are actually quite experienced in picking up the pieces after building downturns or crashes. The motion is quite correct in stating residents themselves are affected, be they occupiers or home owners. The public purse is also affected. If one really wants to take shortcuts, one will do it where they cannot be seen. One will do it in the laying of sewers or by putting water mains too near the surface, or by having soak holes instead of proper drains. I have seen these things routinely. They have to be remediated by the local authority when, invariably, the bad builder goes out of business or is not seen. It really shows up at the point where estates are taken in charge. It is not unfair to say that those who are lucky enough to be able to buy a house, which involves the biggest investment they will have to make in their lives, have more consumer protection for the table and chairs they buy than for the house they buy.

That is not right. We saw that in sharp focus when the likes of HomeBond could not be seen for dust when the pyrite issue erupted.

We need a properly regulated building industry. It is not just about putting good standards in place. They must be enforced. What we need to do is reward good behaviour but also punish bad behaviour. Essentially, there needs to be a mechanism by which to do that. I believe there is a mindset that this is about property that is regulated, given to somebody else to self-certify and one then hopes that everything will be all right. I believe it is down to the Government to promote the standards. The standards must be capable of being rigorously enforced. Otherwise, we will be picking up the pieces into the future. While there are costs up front, those costs are saved in the longer term by getting quality building in place.

Our planning system is really more about planning control. What I mean by that is that we have local area plans and there is a public process. However, they are largely physical plans. They identify things that need to happen and identify standards. It is then down to the individual builder. There is the good, the bad and the indifferent in that group. I have seen absolutely all of those.

An Bord Pleanála permissions would be complicated by the legislation that was passed before Christmas. The local authorities would then be trying to interpret some of the conditions attached to the decisions that are made. Local authorities already have estates of more than 100 houses. They already have difficulty interpreting some of the conditions that An Bord Pleanála attaches. That is something that needs some attention in its own right.

We should not mind taking good ideas from elsewhere. I particularly feel that the building work contractor's licence in Australia is a really good idea. The builder must have a licence to take on any project worth more than $12,000. If the builder loses that licence, he or she cannot build. The really bad people are weeded out by doing something like that. There must be a contract in place. There are statutory warranties in place. It also puts the consumer as king in terms of the person who is going to buy a house as well as in the case of it being built for a local authority or a housing association. It puts the obligation on those who build the houses. That is something that is well worthwhile looking at. It is already in place in Australia and it works very well there.

One of the points made in the motion was about the Construction Industry Federation possibly drafting legislation. If anybody has an idea that that would be a good thing, please get rid of it. We need a tension between the construction sector and the people who regulate it. We have seen where soft regulation does not work elsewhere and it certainly does not work in this sector.

With regard to pyrite, when HomeBond was sought out to be used as redress, it was not available. I am thinking of the late Shane McEntee at this stage. He really made a difference by getting that panel in place. A number of us had ongoing engagements with him because we saw some of the problems with pyrite. Where the remediation scheme has been put in place, there are still people very badly affected in that they cannot sell the property on, though they may be living in inappropriate accommodation that is too small, because they have not got to a degree at which the pyrite is bad enough, but it is still evident. There is more to be done there.

I published a piece of legislation in the last Dáil. One of the things I looked for was a national planning compliance register. The reason I looked for that was because there could be a really bad developer in one part of the country who people found out about and would not buy a house from. Then, the developer would move to another place where he or she was not known. That information would not travel with the developer to the new local authority. Each local authority is working in its own silo. We have to stop that. A compliance register could list people who have enforcement audits out against them or who have been through the courts due to a deficiency. That kind of thing needs to happen. At the moment, it does not work. We saw a celebrated case - to use the word "celebrated" inappropriately - in which there was a very high-profile person who was able to go on and do very serious damage elsewhere. The public purse picked up heavily for it. There was also stress involved for the people who were living in the large complex he subsequently built.

The motion is quite right that it is very timely that we should look at this sector now. We are starting to rebuild. Let us not make the same mistakes that were made in the past. The sector must be properly regulated. Proper regulation does cost money to enforce. When we start to look at the cost of things going wrong for both individuals and collectively for the public purse, we will find that those costs will be well absorbed in the upfront costs that it takes to make sure that we get good standards and that we weed out the people who are taking liberties with the standards that are set. The standards need to be beefed up. However, where they are in place, and in some cases, where there are good standards, they are of no value unless they are properly enforced. With that aspect of it, there must be a survey of the local authorities to investigate their capacity to carry out enforcement, because sometimes the follow-up really lets the system down.

I have to bring this debate to a conclusion in 15 minutes. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy John Paul Phelan, to try to limit his contribution to about seven minutes, with Deputy Martin taking a further seven minutes.

I thank Members for their kind remarks. It has been a busy 24 hours for me and, I am sure, a busy week for the Minister, Deputy Murphy. For a start, with regard to the issue of the Construction Industry Federation developing legislation, there was a story published online last week but it was corrected later by that particular outlet. There is not legislation. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Oireachtas to debate and discuss any legislation anyway. As I understand it, that story was corrected later on.

With regard to other matters that were raised by different speakers in the debate tonight, I will turn to a few of them if I can. I thank Deputy Martin and the Green Party for raising the issue and the Social Democrats as well. It is very topical at the moment because of the devastating fire in Grenfell Tower in London, which is a stark reminder to all of us that we need to maintain a strong focus on compliance with building regulations, particularly the part B fire safety element of those regulations.

I will respond to a couple of issues raised by Deputies individually. The previous speaker, Deputy Murphy, spoke about taking in charge of estates. It is an area that will now come under my remit. There has been pretty significant improvement and an increase in the resources that have been given to local authorities across the country. However, there is still a backlog in some local authority areas, particularly in taking in charge. However, the delays have been reduced from what they were before. It is something that I will be arguing with other ministerial colleagues in order to ensure it continues to go in the right direction.

Deputy Mattie McGrath in a two-minute contribution managed to say that he wanted more regulation and less regulation at the same time. I do not know how that would particularly work. Deputy Fitzmaurice raised a very relevant issue with regard to the testing of new quarries to prevent pyrite. It is not something that I have heard before. The Deputy has left the Chamber now, but I am sure that myself, the Minister, Deputy Murphy, and officials will look at that.

Deputy Clare Daly spoke about the need for a State fund to be established to rectify deficiencies in buildings that have been built in the last 15 or 20 years.

There is the potential to remove liability from those who constructed those buildings in the first place. Ultimately, it has fallen to the taxpayer to rectify problems, a number of examples of which have been given, but it should not be the starting point. The starting point is that liability rests with those who constructed those buildings in the first place.

Deputies Ó Broin and Catherine Murphy spoke quite correctly about the importance of what we talking about in terms of a house. It is a home regardless of whether it is for an individual or a family. Indeed, as Deputy Murphy noted, it is the most significant investment most private owners will ever make. This is what makes these regulations and the discussion of them all the more important.

We cannot accept the motion as proposed by the Green Party and the Social Democrats because it is not accurate. It is not accurate to say that nothing has been done. It is certainly politically arguable to say that more should be done and more needs to be done, but it not accurate to say that nothing has been done. In light of the tragic event in London, all local authorities have been requested as a matter of urgency to review their multi-storey social housing units to ensure all early warning systems, including alarm and detection systems and means of escape, including corridors, stairways and emergency exits, are in place and functional. Action is being taken to alert the building industry and landlords to remain vigilant with regard to fire and life safety in buildings for which they are responsible.

Unfortunately, we are all too well aware of the many incidences of building failures or severe non-compliance concerns that have come to light over the past decade. The economic and personal consequences of these situations have been very significant. While in general, building defects are matters for resolution between the contracting parties involved and the State has no statutory role in resolving defects in privately owned buildings, it plays a vital role in maintaining an effective regulatory framework for building standards and building control.

Local authorities have extensive powers pursuant to the Fires Services Acts 1981 and 2003, which have been invoked effectively in recent years in a number of cases where concerns have arisen regarding fire safety in buildings. A number of initiatives have been introduced over recent years as part of a broad-ranging building control reform agenda. Taken together, these reforms have brought a new order and discipline to bear on construction projects and have created a culture of compliance with building regulations. It was through the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014, SI 9 of 2014, that the key deficits identified in the system were addressed by empowering competence and professionalism in construction projects and establishing a chain of responsibility that begins with the owner. The owner must assign competent persons to design, build, inspect and certify the building works who, in turn, must account for their contribution through the lodgement of compliance documentation inspection plans and statutory certificates. The statutory certificate of compliance on completion is signed by both a registered construction professional and the builder and must be in place prior to occupation. It effectively represents a badge of approval reassuring owners of buildings that their building is compliant with the building regulations.

The building control management system, BCMS, was introduced with effect from 1 March 2014 to facilitate the electronic administration of building control functions and provides a common platform for clear and consistent administration of building control matters. The BCMS is subject to ongoing improvement to achieve further efficiencies and innovation in building control.

Strong and effective regulation in the building control system and the construction industry is essential to provide insurance underwriters with sufficient confidence to cover risks at prices which are sustainable and which the market can bear. Reform of the building control regulations in 2014 was welcomed by the insurance industry, and there is evidence that, since then, more construction related insurance products have become available on the market, such as the products which offer first party insurance cover for damage and non-damage related claims.

As part of the local government reform programme, a centralised structure is being created for the governance and oversight of the building control functions of local authorities through a shared service in a lead local authority. I again thank the Deputies who raised this topical and recently tragic issue for discussion. I thank those Deputies who participated in the crucial debate on this issue. I encourage the House to support the Government amendment.

I congratulate the Minister and Minister of State and wish them well in their respective roles. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. The record of building control authorities in taking high-profile enforcement action and prosecutions has been criticised by both the Pyrite Panel in 2012 and last week by the expert panel on blockwork in Donegal and Mayo. Yesterday, the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government was reported as saying that a register of enforcement notices served and the outcome of any decision of the District Court in respect of an enforcement notice are held by Ireland's 31 building control authorities. However, as it stands, to find out statistics about building control authority enforcement, one needs to visit the offices of all 31 building control authorities during office hours. By contrast, the Food Safety Authority has a website which contains a significant amount of information across its range of activities, is updated regularly and includes details of enforcement orders issued. It operates a consumer helpline that received almost 12,000 calls in 2015. It co-ordinates inspection and reporting from around the country through 33 official agencies operating locally.

The Construction Industry Register Ireland, CIRI, which was referenced and lauded by the Minister, was created by the construction industry. It is like putting the foxes in charge of the hen house. The fact that CIRI will be separate from the Government's planned lead local authority is very problematic because it is a requirement for registration with CIRI that an applicant declares convictions under the Building Control Acts. As was reported yesterday, convictions under the Building Control Act are not recorded centrally but are on 31 registers throughout the country. I would like clarity from the Minister as to how the CIRI admissions board will check that an applicant or a registered member is telling the truth about previous convictions. How will the CIRI board verify information from applicants from overseas who have an entitlement to work in Ireland? If there were a national regulator with enforcement powers and centralised access to each of those 31 registers of enforcement notices and District Court orders, it would have a full picture of a person's compliance record, how many enforcement notices have been issued against him or her, whether he or she has convictions under the Act and whether he or she is a fit and proper person to be allowed to carry out building work.

No regulatory body will oversee the operation of CIRI the way that the energy regulator does for the registered electrical contractors of Ireland and registered gas installers, which are the registration bodies for electrical and gas installers. This is why our motion seeks the creation of an Irish building authority. It is not a quango. It is a regulatory body and we need a real, strong independent regulator.

There is a lot of merit in Fianna Fáil's amendment and I am glad to see it has followed our lead on the law reform needed to deal with remedies. However, its motion does not recognise that a national regulatory body would provide the essential oversight of existing building control in a manner which is not being done at present and a supervisory regulatory role in respect of the proposed construction industry register. Regrettably, the Minister cannot see the merit of this authority either. What the Minister proposes would keep these two functions separate, which makes no sense at all - one body to inspect and enforce compliance with building regulations and a totally separate private body that is given a monopoly on registration and fees for those who will be responsible for complying with those rules.

The national building control management system, which was mentioned by the Minister, aims to appoint a lead local authority which will have overall responsibility for building control management on a national level. That authority will not operate as a regulator. The lead authority referenced by the Minister will have no legal obligation to exercise a regulatory oversight function in respect of the national activities of building control authorities, to co-ordinate regulatory activities and enforcement, and to publish information relating to this work.

Enforcement will continue to be decentralised among 31 building control authorities, without a single public-facing profile that could educate people about the value of building control and could publicise building control activity, including enforcement, on a regular basis in an accessible format.

People deserve better than a "wait and see" attitude from a Government that has yet to face up to the scale of the problems so many are facing, and it needs to consider practical ways in which it can help. Many homeowners have spent years trying to secure legal remedies through the courts and through arbitration, putting their lives on hold while they do. In the Minister's counter-motion, it is quite clear that the Government will continue to refuse to give support to these homeowners, and that is nothing short of disgraceful and an abdication of responsibility. I welcome his call on local authorities in recent days to review multi-storey social housing units, but why not call for a nationwide audit of all multi-unit housing and a Government fund to deal with dangerous defects?

I thank the many Deputies who spoke in support of the motion. No doubt the people on the front line, the real people both in the Gallery here tonight and those at home who are affected by this through no fault of their own have hung onto every word that has been said. We, as Members of this House, must do everything in our power to protect and support homeowners whose lives have been turned upside-down and have been hurled into a heartless financial pressure zone, all as a result of greed-driven cowboy builders and we must prevent this happening to another generation of homeowners.

I thank the Deputies for sticking to the time allotted.

Amendment put.

In accordance with Standing Order 70(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Thursday, 22 June 2016.

Top
Share