Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government debate -
Wednesday, 28 Mar 2018

Vacant Housing Refurbishment Bill 2017: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

The second item on the agenda is detailed scrutiny of the Vacant Housing Refurbishment Bill 2017. I welcome Dr. Richard Manton and Mr. John Bailey of Engineers Ireland; Mr. Peter Hynes, Mr. Richard Shakespeare, Mr. Pat Nestor and Mr. Séamus Murphy of the County and City Management Association; and Mr. Paraig Cantwell and Mr. John Commane of the Institute of Clerks of Works.

Before we begin, I wish to draw the attention of the witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The committee normally gives witnesses approximately four minutes for each opening statement, but there is a fair bit of flexibility. I invite Dr. Manton to make his opening statement.

Dr. Richard Manton

I thank the Chair for the invitation to address the committee. I am the policy officer with Engineers Ireland. I am joined by Mr. John Bailey, who is a chartered engineer and a fellow of Engineers Ireland. Both of us are representing Engineers Ireland at this meeting. Engineers Ireland is one of the oldest and largest professional bodies on the island of Ireland. We have over 25,000 member engineers. Our membership incorporates all disciplines of engineering, from consulting and contracting organisations to the public service, semi-State organisations and academic institutions. Engineers Ireland awards the professional title of chartered engineer, which is the gold standard for engineers working in Ireland. This professional badge of excellence is awarded following a rigorous assessment and is recognised internationally and in Irish law.

We acknowledge the work done by the joint committee and its advisers on building standards and controls. I refer, for example, to the Safe as Houses report, which was published last December. It is clear that we would all like to see an increase in the supply of safe high-quality housing that provides value for consumers, particularly in the ongoing climate of housing shortage. Therefore, Engineers Ireland welcomes in principle this Bill, which endeavours to increase the delivery of much-needed units of accommodation. We agree that bringing vacant properties into residential use, if done correctly, will help to address the housing shortage and to revitalise villages, towns and cities. We commend the move towards co-ordinated building permitting, which we believe should be applied to all building projects. However, we believe the Bill as drafted will have little effect on the availability of accommodation in the short or medium terms. While we do not question the intent of the drafters of this Bill, we are concerned about its potential unintended consequences.

We would like to raise three main points, the first of which relates to building standards and safety. The Bill proposes to replace the statutory requirement for a fire safety certificate, a disability access certificate and compliance with other parts of the building regulations with a works permit. The effect of this would be to introduce a third system of building regulation compliance documentation, following SI 9 of 2014, which is known as BCAR, and SI 365 of 2015, which is known as the opt-out. Since its introduction, BCAR has promoted a greater awareness of the need for proper design and inspection of fire protection measures. An unintended consequence of the proposed Bill might be to relegate this awareness to a works permit scenario, with a consequent lesser emphasis on the importance of the fire safety certificate and disability access certificate documentation. The Bill proposes to revise the technical guidance documents. It should be noted that building regulations are minimum performance standards that are set for the safety and comfort of occupants and the general public. We have particular concerns relating to fire safety. If buildings approved under this system are perceived as being built to lesser standards, this could further distort the property market.

The second point we would like to make relates to the proposal in the Bill to impose a time limit of two weeks on a local authority to revert with the results of a pre-application assessment. No time limit is proposed for the local authority to deliver a decision for the subsequent one-stop-shop application. We note that no provision is being made for the local authority to seek an extension of time for the determination of the application. There is no provision for comment from a third party. No provision is being made to allow the local authority to seek additional information from the applicant. We believe the failure to provide for first-party or third-party appeals of decisions could give rise to a constitutional challenge. If the desired effect of the Bill is to be achieved, the processes needed to accommodate the above issues need to be faster and less cumbersome than the existing processes. All the while, the time required to assess a design proposal will not be affected by this Bill.

Our third point refers to authorised persons and local authority resourcing. The Bill outlines the role of authorised persons in enforcing building regulations and proposes the creation of a new register of such persons. It is absolutely essential that these authorised persons are qualified and competent professionals, and that they are approved for specific activities. For example, a structural engineer would not be competent to review an electrical engineering design. Furthermore, the number of competent persons needed to carry out design assessments and conduct site inspections are simply not available currently in the public sector. We would also question how the qualifications of authorised persons would be vetted before they are placed on a register. It is probable that most, if not all, of the assessments and inspections would have to be contracted out to the private sector where there is an emerging shortage of competent professionals. Therefore, to populate a new core of independent inspectors, and achieve the timelines outlined in the Bill, significant additional resourcing of local authorities would be required. We challenge the assertion that the Bill would not entail a direct cost on local authorities or the Exchequer.

Engineers Ireland commends the work of those who drafted the Bill and the committee. We believe that moving towards a co-ordinated building permit system and a greater inspection and enforcement capacity in local authorities would assist in the efficient supply of safe and high-quality housing. However, we do not believe that the Bill can achieve this objective. We look forward to continuing our engagement with this committee and with the Government in order to develop solutions for consumers and the wider public.

Chairman

I thank Dr. Manton for his presentation and for his ongoing attendance at these meetings. He has become quite a regular attendee. I call on Mr. Hynes to make his opening statement.

Mr. Peter Hynes

Ba mhaith liom ar dtús fáilte a chur roimh an coiste agus mo buíochas a ghabháil as ucht an cuireadh a bheith libh.

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to address the committee. I am accompanied by my colleague from the land use and transport committee of the County and City Management Association, CCMA. Mr. Richard Shakespeare, who is seated on my left, is the assistant chief executive of Dublin City Council. We are also accompanied by Mr. Seamus Murphy, chief fire officer with Mayo County Council, and Mr. Pat Nestor, senior building surveyor with Dublin City Council.

I wish to confirm that the return of currently vacant or under-utilised upper floors to residential use is a high priority for the CCMA. We strongly support any initiative which will assist in the regeneration of urban areas and, in particular, our small towns and villages. That said, we have concerns regarding the current proposal that I would like to share with the committee.

The objective of this Bill appears to be the smoothing of procedures currently in place to support the provision of residential accommodation. The main procedural requirements that the Bill proposes to replace with a single, one-stop-shop process are: planning consent; fire safety certificates; disability access certificates; commencement notices; and certificates of compliance.

Local authorities are committed to facilitating the provision of residential accommodation and measures which support this goal are very welcome. The general welcome for the provisions of the Bill from Deputies and Senators who have spoken or contributed to the debate so far are noted. There is clearly a perception that the current regulatory controls in place in terms of obtaining planning permission or demonstrating compliance with the building regulations are onerous and excessively time-consuming. We do not share that perception. We consider that the proposals may not confer advantages in terms of delivering projects and will introduce significant risk for developers in the event that their applications ultimately fail on the completion of projects. We have included two comparative tables in our submission, one which illustrates the existing planning and building control provisions and a second which outlines the timescale for the proposed system. We suggest that the existing systems can deliver more regulatory certainty at a faster pace.

The Bill proposes to legislate for entirely different functions within a single statute. Notwithstanding the comments on combining regulatory and building control systems, the provisions of the Planning and Development Acts and the Building Control Acts were set down for entirely different purposes. While the Building Control Acts focus on standards in buildings and construction, the Planning and Development Acts have a much broader environmental and social role beyond the built environment.

The one-stop-shop panel of authorised persons is expected to reach a conclusion on proposed projects compliance regarding all aspects of the building regulations in two weeks or less. We are of the belief that this is not an adequate period in which to consider complex construction technology issues. While a building may well have been correctly designed and significant time taken by the designers to consider these matters, it is the local authority that is expected to approve the designs as per the provisions of the proposed Bill. This is an onerous undertaking and a fundamental departure from long-established principles and existing provisions of building control. If there are difficulties with compliance issues and these are not resolved upon repeat inspection, a development will be deemed to be unsuccessful and the developer must revert to the established planning and building control procedures. This would appear to place the developer in an almost impossible situation. Having entered the one-stop-shop process in good faith, a developer could be left with a completed building which cannot be occupied.

It is our view that the proposed system carries little, if any, advantage in terms of the time necessary to gain approval for a project as against existing procedures and, in addition, transfers significant risk on to the owner of the works, the authorised person from the one-stop-shop panel and the local authority. Having approved, inspected and signed off on the works, the local authority cannot expect to be immune from responsibility and liability if there is a failure in the building that results in harm to occupants, firefighters or others.

I again thank the Chairman and the joint committee for the opportunity of presenting today. We are happy to respond to questions as best we can. The two tables to which I referred earlier outline the comparison in respect of the existing system, which, since the Bill was initially promoted, has been greatly improved by the February 2018 schedule of exempted development. The latter has taken a large chunk of the problem on the planning side out of the equation. The comparison speaks for itself and I would be happy to go through the tables with members.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Hynes. I call on Mr. Cantwell, from the Institute of Clerks of Works and Building Inspectors in Ireland, to make his opening statement.

Mr. Paraig Cantwell

I am the chairperson for the Institute of Clerks of Works and Building Inspectors in Ireland. I am accompanied by my colleague, Mr. John Commane, who holds the position of secretary. We both work as clerks of works and building inspectors with different local authorities. Our organisation has members throughout the country.

We thank the committee for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Bill. We welcome the proposals contained in the Bill because they address the issue of vacant properties and propose their return to much-needed residential use. Many units are located above shops and offices and they will provide a challenge in the context of being converted into or refurbished as habitable spaces. Last year, the Government announced a repair-to-lease scheme to tackle similar problems. The progress of this scheme has been poor to date.

We see the concept of a one-stop shop as a model which should be tried. It is a good proposal to streamline the process and create a one-stop-shop situation in local authorities. As a previous witness has said, three different timelines are associated with the certificates and permissions and three different Departments are involved. The proposal seeks to reduce the amount of bureaucracy involved and make it easier for owners to renovate their properties.

The proposed works permit will raise some questions, particularly in the case of residential property to be refurbished above shops or offices. It will be a challenge to comply with the proposals regarding disability access certificates, fire safety certificates and technical guidance documents.

Towards the end of the 1990s and in the early 2000s, the number of clerks of works engaged in inspection greatly decreased. The reduction was due to the uncontrolled self-certification by developers and builders of their construction work. Defects were overlooked or ignored, resulting in many seriously sub-standard developments nationwide. It is the view of the Institute of Clerks of Works and Building Inspectors that had competent clerks of works been employed, most of the current problems would not exist. This assertion was supported as recently as last year in a reply given to Deputy Boyd Barrett during Leaders’ Questions when the former Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, correctly identified a lack of inspections and the absence of qualified clerks of works on building sites as the main contributory factor to defective work and non-compliance with building regulations during the boom years.

It is a fact that in this country local authority inspections of the built environment are not at as high a percentage as in other countries. We should learn lessons from the Celtic tiger years, particularly well known cases such as Priory Hall and others that had serious infrastructural and structural issues. Despite the fact, presumably, that the work was signed off by others we still had problems. We foresee that the problems will still exist due to a lack of independent oversight. For that reason, we, the Institute of Clerk of Works and Building Inspectors in Ireland, are of the view that more independent inspections from local authorities are needed to carry out these inspections. We support more independent oversight and inspection by appropriately trained and competent personnel employed in the local authority services.

At present clerks of works are employed on major construction projects throughout the country. Some are directly employed by the client, local authorities, health boards, Department of Education and Skills and other agencies. Others are employed directly by architects and consultants.

It is important to emphasise the importance of additional resourcing by local authorities at administrative and technical levels as such staff will be required for the implementation of this Bill.

Clerks of works have been a core element of local authority teams over the years as well as playing an important role within the HSE, Department of Education and Skills and other such bodies on very complex projects.

Concerns have been raised by other bodies about the competence of authorised persons who will carry out the inspections under the system. The authorised person regime has been in place since 1992 and is the basis for all local authority building control inspections. This objection makes no sense. If the Bill is not passed, the same regime will continue to apply. Local authority building inspectors do not have to be registered under the Building Control Act 2007 as assigned certifiers do.

On inspection by an authorised person, we, the Institute of Clerks of Works and Building Inspectors in Ireland, understand what is meant in terms of the powers they have, more so than someone who is working under Building Control (Amendment) Regulations, BCAR, or SI 9. The numbers of inspections dictated by BCAR are at critical milestone points in construction before work is closed up. Who better to carry out these inspections and report back to architects, engineers or surveyors than a clerk of works who is based on site or calling to sites at different intervals? We are after all working together to ensure a good quality of work is achieved using correct materials and procedures.

The potential of this authorised person regime would give a local authority a panel of people who would be appropriate to the needs of whatever the inspection was and who could be ticking off the same list. In some cases, it might be checking if there is an operational fire alarm; in other cases, it might have to call in a specialist to do something more complex. This would effectively streamline the various processes which are all doing the same thing.

The recommendation that local authority building control be reviewed and resourced in the Safe as Houses report would align with an increased role for authorised persons as contemplated by this Bill

It follows that for a clerk of works to be an “authorised person” under the Vacant Housing Refurbishment Bill 2017 they must either be an employee of a local authority or a public body or be specified on the list.

It is the Minister by way of a statutory instrument who will set out the criteria to get on the list. Membership of the Institute of Clerks of Works and Building Inspectors in Ireland has been for many years and currently is recognised as a pre-qualifier by local authorities and other Departments for a post of clerk of works.

There must be no compromise on quality or safety as the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 will still apply.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cantwell.

Deputy Pat Casey

I thank all the witnesses for their presentations. I will make a general comment before I focus on the presentation by Engineers Ireland.

I wish to stress that the purpose of this Bill is never to minimise fire or disability standards and I stress this every time I speak on the Bill. The purpose of the one-stop shop is to try to harmonise three different processes into one. The fire and disability standards remain exactly the same as they are under the Building Control Regulations today. There is no deviation in standards but we are trying to harmonise planning exemptions, fire certification and disability certification into a one-stop shop process where one can go into the local authority and get the whole thing done and dusted rather than going through three separate processes, the way it happens at present. At no stage are the fire and disability certification standards being put at risk. The current building control regulation applies to this work, the very same as it applies to SI 9.

On the issue of the local authority not having time to seek the time extensions, we are looking at existing building and from a planning process perspective, there is no public consultation. We are not looking at redesigning the exterior of the building; we are literally talking about the reconfiguration of the interior of the building. In relation to the planning process and third party appeal process, we have to start looking at realistic ways of how we get these buildings back into use. We do not think there is a need for that. Equally now the Government has come along with SI 30, which is almost identical to what this Bill is proposing, which removes most of this from the planning process also.

On the local authority trying to seek additional or further information, let us look at what we have done for the development of 100 houses. They must go through a pre-planning process with An Bord Pleanála and it is during that process that the detail is thrashed out. Then once one submits the application there is no further information or anything else after that, but the board must make a decision in a set period. It is in the pre-consultation period that all the work must be done. There is an indication coming from that process that the pre-planning process does work in the development of 100 houses. We might need to tweak this as we go forward, but the intention is to try to get this done and dusted.

On the issue of the "authorised person" and the qualification of such persons, we can take some information back on this. Equally we look at the building control regulation, the qualification that applies to the assigned certification process and how those people qualify. They come from different backgrounds and they can qualify to sign off on certification. We are looking at the same type of person here. We are not trying to deviate from it. We may have to work on that aspect of it.

On the point that the public sector does not have the resources, that is correct. That is why we said that a framework agreement could be entered into where people who have these skills are engaged by the local authority through a framework agreement.

On the cost to the Exchequer, an assigned certifier costs money, an authorised person costs money so we would see a similar fee would apply. It is up to the Minister to decide on that. That would not be a cost on the Exchequer and the developer would have to pay for the certification process.

I think they are the main points.

In the submission from the County and City Management Association, CCMA, the CCMA raised the issue of the different functions in respect of planning and development and building control. The functions are different but they are carried out by the one local authority and the personnel in that local authority. I do not see why there should be an issue with joining those two functions together as one function in the future, in the interest of trying to streamline the process.

Section 4 of the Building Control Act allows the building control authority to grant dispensation or relaxation of the requirements of building regulations. This Bill acknowledges that, but equally it is seeking technical guidance documents to be produced by the Department to address this issue. At present, we have 32 local authorities, each with its own interpretation of the dispensation or relaxation in respect of fire or disability certification.

This Bill is asking the Government to produce a technical guidance document to facilitate the refurbishment of existing buildings into habitable dwellings.

In terms of the executive function, I would have no problem if there was to be a requirement that the chief executive had to sign off on this. We all know, from our work with the local authority, that the planner or fire officer makes the decision and that the chief executive only signs a document that is presented to him at the end of the day. If there is a feeling that this Bill is weaker because the signature of the chief executive is not required, I have no problem with addressing that.

The point was made that the developer is exposed at the end of the day if the authorised person will not sign a works permit. That is no different from what is happening under building control at the moment if the assigned certifier will not sign a certificate of compliance on completion. They are the very same processes. I believe the building control regulations, BCAR, are weak in this respect. Disability and fire planning all has to be agreed before builders go to site. Currently, under BCAR, if I am converting my building I can send a seven-day notice and even if I have no fire certificate or disability certification, I can start, providing I have applied for those certificates. We are dealing with old buildings here, so once work commences the first certification, or the disability certification, might not arrive for two months. The work might be completed, and it is possible that none of it is compliant with BCAR. I believe the system we are proposing is better because all of these issues are dealt with upfront, before builders go on site. At the moment there is a weakness in BCAR in that builders can go to site and commence construction without having a fire certification or a disability certification. We are dealing with older buildings, which are more dangerous and more complex in terms of both of those items. Fianna Fáil's Bill is much stronger on that issue. Since this Bill was introduced the Minister has signed off on Statutory Instrument No. 30 in February, so the whole planning process has been exempted from both of these situations.

There is a question of liability here, and an additional piece of work on this might be required, but we would see this as being very similar to how BCAR operates at the moment, where the public liability lies with the assigned certifier, or in our case the approved person. They are the professionals and they sign off on that. In my time in the Dáil I have continually pushed for independent inspection. I believe that the country needs to go in that direction. I can ask a local authority what percentage of buildings it is inspecting. The system in place at the moment relies on self-regulation, where the builder is paying the assigned certifier to sign off on his own work. This Bill seeks to move towards independent inspection. We strongly believe that this is the way it should be for everything, not just in this respect.

Mr. John Bailey

I believe we are ad idem on most items. It is a very good idea to have a full design completed before we get to site. That does not happen at the moment because there are cost implications, and detailed design tends not to get done until statutory approvals have been obtained. The Deputy mentioned an analogy between the authorised person and an assigned certifier. We have very strong reservations about the position of assigned certifiers at the moment. The reason for that is that we are not jacks of all trades. I am a very specialist structural engineer and I am simply not competent to look at an electrical design or heating and ventilating. Therefore, to ask a single assigned person - the assigned certifier - to sign off on all aspects of those technologies is not realistic at all. We feel that if that was to be done for authorised persons they should be split into specialties, the same way as engineering and architecture are.

This Bill has many good points, particularly the idea that everything is signed off through a one-stop shop and having designs completed before getting to site. They are no-brainers. In fact, we would like to see those aspects of the Bill extended to all construction projects in the State. We certainly agree that independent inspection, and indeed independent assessment of the designs before commencement, is a no-brainer as well.

Mr. Paraig Cantwell

The only reference we would be concerned about is the inspection regime. Where would the clerk of works come in? It would lead to more inspections on site. We have some members who are assigned certifiers, but even outside that we feel that there are not enough inspections on sites. That is our main concern.

Deputy Pat Casey

We agree with that, and that is why this Bill equally says that when the one-stop shop approval is secured, that process can dictate the number of inspections to be carried out on a project. We all know the type of work we are talking about might be a very simple or very complicated piece of construction work. Some might not involve any construction work at all; perhaps a fabric change is all that is required. Other projects might require detailed and numerous inspections. This Bill offers that required flexibility. The number of inspections that has to take place during the process will be indicated on the final approval.

Mr. Paraig Cantwell

We agree with the Deputy on that point.

Mr. Peter Hynes

I note the opening remarks about the minimising of standards. I presume that the intent is that there would not be any compromising on standards. That in itself is perhaps part of the problem. Compromise and flexibility are sometimes part of the same discussion, and part of the difficulty of dealing with existing structures is shoehorning them into standards which were written after they were constructed - sometimes centuries afterwards - without requiring fundamental change to the existing structure. While the intent not to minimise or compromise standards at all is shared, it may be that some of the issues may require flexibility in these standards. That is a topic that needs to be ventilated and should be part of the discussion on technical guidance documents. Perhaps this Bill is not the arena for it. We have to figure out what is acceptable, what combination of flexibility is acceptable, and where local discretion should be allowed to vary very stringent requirements to meet common sense situations as they arise. Even the intent not to compromise standards is not as straightforward and simple as it might appear on first reading.

On the question of decisions in our system currently, decisions are made when the final document is signed. Decisions are not made by planning officials or by fire officials but rather by the delegated person when that signature is made. That gives rise to a concern about the liability that may accrue to certain personnel under this Bill. We share absolutely the ambition to harmonise and streamline the processes in the best possible way.

The processes are significantly different. There is a limit on the extent to which they can be handled by a multiskilled team. As a previous speaker said, the skill sets are extremely specialised and are dependent on training and experience. They are not easily transferable from one to the other. We would share the ambition on pre-planning and pre-planning discussion. We have considerable experience in different areas. If one looks at examples of best practice around the country where the planning process seems to deliver on the ambitions and objectives we all share, one will see that pre-planning is a big part of that. We welcome the ambition to produce technical guidance documents on dispensations. We would welcome the opportunity to contribute to that discussion. It might take some time, but we welcome that ambition. The key concern at our end relates to what is agreed before work starts on site. How can it be confirmed that what has been agreed and accepted is delivered? Part of that relates to inspection regimes. If we take this route, an inspection regime will need to be built. That has resource and cost implications. The question of whether those costs would be borne by the public purse through central or local government, by the developer or by the consumer is one for another day. Costs and resources will be required to provide for an independent inspection regime, regardless of whether this work is done in-house or is outsourced.

Dr. Richard Manton

I thank Deputy Casey for his comments. I take his point that his intention in proposing this Bill is not to reduce standards. It is intended that in the awarding of a works permit, standards will remain the same. However, I would be uncomfortable with the replacement of the requirement for a fire safety certificate. I will make a point about the current operation of the seven-day notice. We share the Department's characterisation that the replacement of the fire safety certificate requirement would be a highly retrograde step in this new system of building control regulation. For good reason, it currently takes quite some time to assess an application for a fire safety certificate. There are many considerations to take into account in the refurbishment of vacant buildings. I will not go through them all, but they include the means of escape, the types of material, the spread of smoke and compartmentalisation. The risk that is currently associated with the operation of a seven-day notice is that someone will go through the process of being awarded a fire safety certificate at a later stage following a rigorous assessment. We would not like to see any compromise in fire safety regulation. We would have concerns about the awarding of a works permit if the inspection regime that is currently proposed were not up to the same standard.

Chairman

I will allow Deputies Casey and Cowen back in.

Deputy Pat Casey

I suppose this goes back to the intent of the Bill. We might have to look at the exact wording. We are saying that the works permit will include a fire certificate and a disability certificate. This means that the very same process which is gone through today will have to be gone through under the system we are proposing. I will take on board the point that it is probably not realistic for this to be done in two weeks. When we interact with people about the vacant properties all over our towns and villages that are just sitting there, we are told that the process is very complex and drawn out. It takes a period of time. We are trying to harmonise that without changing the standard. Our intention is that the works permit we are proposing will include within it the current fire certificate, disability certificate and exempted development certificate. I will take on board what the witnesses have said about time. I appreciate that fire safety is complex and not straightforward. It is more complex when an existing building is being retrofitted than it is when a new building is being constructed.

I would like to pick up on some of the points made by Mr. Hynes. He spoke about different skill sets. Local authorities are responsible for the approval process anyway. They show they have the skill sets we are talking about when they implement the approval process. Fire officers, disability officers and others are using these skills every day of the week. They are there at the moment. We are not bringing anything extra to the approval process, but the inspection process is different. This is where it is said that there could potentially be a cost to the State. I remind the witnesses that builders and developers currently have to pay assigned certifiers, and we are saying that the authorised person charge should still fall to the builder. Where is the extra cost to the Exchequer? We have acknowledged that the expertise is not there and that some of this might have to be part of a framework agreement. Such an agreement would be done with a local authority which would appoint an independent assessor to a project to oversee independent inspection. That is where we probably want to get.

The Minister has given a commitment in respect of the technical guidance document. That piece of work or process has already started. Although the Bill we are proposing would not do anything different from what is provided for at the moment, we are clearly putting our hands up and saying there can be 31 or 32 different interpretations of "dispensation". I appreciate that flexibility will be required in certain cases, but perhaps there should be less flexibility in this regard. If the local authorities had technical guidance setting out how to refurbish existing building stock - perhaps showing how to take a number of models and develop them out - it would be much easier for them to follow than it is for fire officers to interpret how relaxed they should be in respect of one building or another. I am saying all of this as a quick response to what we have heard from the witnesses on this Bill.

Deputy Barry Cowen

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I acknowledge Mr. Bailey's point that we are ad idem with regard to the intent and the thrust of this Bill, which is being proposed because the existing systems are not serving the people we represent as they were intended. He mentioned the vacant house refurbishment scheme, which was introduced by the Government last year and under which it was intended that 800 applications would be approved. If the existing systems were serving the people adequately, we would have had 800 approvals under that scheme, but instead we had none. We have a housing emergency and crisis. The guidelines pertaining to the development and progression of vacant units, including over-shop units, so that they enter into the market are restrictive.

Perhaps the valid point made by Deputy Casey addresses the concerns of Mr. Hynes with regard to liability. Mr. Hynes and his colleagues are not served well by the fact that there are no guidelines for existing buildings. It is not right, proper, fair or appropriate that the guidelines which apply to new builds have to be used. This must be addressed forthwith. I am surprised that it has not been addressed to date. It has been confirmed here that, as Deputy Casey alluded to, it is intended to bring together all the resources of the local authority, which is responsible for issuing these certificates, in order to ensure we no longer have all the delay and prevarication that exists at present. As public representatives, we hear in no uncertain terms on a regular basis that things have to change.

The point that needs to be made about the system of certification is that self-certification cannot continue. We know all about the ramifications and the lessons we have learned in that regard. In the future, the certification would ideally be done by the local authorities. If they had the resources and the personnel to facilitate this sort of independent certification, and were in a position to charge appropriately, it would give them an income stream, if nothing else. They would be independent almost in the same way as the Revenue Commissioners. This will not be possible in the absence of certification, however. That is what we have to strive towards. In the meantime, we are saying that the only way in which this can move forward is for it to be contracted by the local authority to assigned certifiers with relevant qualifications that make them suitable to meet the demands placed on them.

The end game from our party's perspective is to move towards independent certification run and led by local authorities and that the costs associated with it will not be as severe as they are in the marketplace today. If one looks at the costs associated with such a system in the UK it is very favourable in comparison with the situation down here. In order to get to that end game we have to play our part in so far as we can in improving the system. That is why I brought forward a Bill. That is why we invited stakeholders such as the witnesses with expertise and professionalism to have an input into it so we can instruct Government in the hope it adopts it as policy and that it is enacted. That is the way the democratic process works, as frustrating and slow as it is. If we can speed it up, it is our duty to do so and that is what we want to do.

Mr. Peter Hynes

I will respond very briefly. We all share the aspiration to get vacant, older units back into use, none more so than rural local authorities. It is true the further we get from the skylines of the greater Dublin area, which are crowded with construction cranes, to places where they are a threatened species and still have not returned after the migration.

Deputy Barry Cowen

Ladders would do in places.

Mr. Peter Hynes

We aspire to better than a ladder. We share the aspiration. It is a very important priority for local government to get people living back in our towns and villages. If we do not achieve repopulation, many of our smaller towns and villages will be on a downward spiral and it will not change any time soon unless initiatives like this take hold. We absolutely share the ambition and aspiration. If I understand what Deputy Casey said in his last contribution, the intent is that the processes of deliberation on fire certificate, disability access and exempted development, which has by and large been simplified since February, would be dealt with within two weeks. That is an ambitious aspiration. I do not think it is realistic in any system to expect things to be that radically transformed. If the Bill was simply asking for the streamlining of systems to deliver those certificates as they stand in a timescale that is set, there may be a realistic deadline which we could discuss and agree and deliver on but what is set is set. If it is set at a week, we will endeavour to deliver. We would be happy to have that discussion. It is a bit like the health care system. The services delivered in ear, nose and throat care are radically different to the services delivered in cardiology care. Would we want the two combined if we had problems in both areas? The members can make their own choices on that. We would certainly welcome a discussion on it.

On the question of technical guidance documents for existing buildings, a great deal of progress can be made on it. We would certainly welcome the opportunity to input on it. There is always a balance between strict conformance with standards. When a standard is set, it is a standard; it is not a standard less 10% or 20% with the discretion left in the hands of the operative to make the call. It is a tricky balance. Technical guidance documents for existing buildings is an area where we could make some progress.

The transfer of liability for ongoing inspections to local authorities is quite a significant change from the current regime. It will have resource implications. If the resources are available it can be made to operate. If that is where the Bill takes us, we will obviously try to make that work.

While we share the ambition, we have concerns around the timelines that have been set. If the clarity that we have heard is that the same systems apply to more rigorous timelines, that certainly can be made to work and we would be happy to have an ongoing discussion on it.

Chairman

Do Mr. Cantwell or Mr. Bailey wish to add anything?

Mr. Paraig Cantwell

We welcome the idea of local authorities taking on more staff to carry out more inspections, particularly more clerks of works. I can see where Mr. Peter Hynes is coming from. It would be a big financial burden under the current set-up with taking on local authority employees.

The issue of technical guidance documents for existing buildings is definitely a good idea but, as Mr. Hynes said, we should draw a line so there will not be grey areas. It would have to be very clearly defined which technical guidance documents one would work to for existing buildings. They are our main ideas.

Chairman

Does anyone else want to add anything?

Deputy Pat Casey

I thank Mr. Hynes for his contribution. We all have the same overall objective. Technical guidance documents would assist the fire officer to deal with the certification of applications. It comes back to the fundamental issue of independent inspection and assigning an independent inspector. It should be throughout the whole construction period. We sometimes question whether we should review the opt-out clause in inspections. Every building should be independently inspected.

I will ask Mr. Hynes a tricky enough question. What percentage of buildings does each local authority independently inspect? I do not think it is happening. I think if they are reaching 15%, that is all they are doing. That is why the thrust of everything we are doing here is moving towards independent inspection that is controlled by the local authority, either through a framework agreement or direct employment. Most of the cost would be borne by the developer who has to pay for the service himself. He is employing his assigned certifier but we believe the local authority should assign an independent inspector and the developer should pay that fee to the local authority, not to the assessor.

Chairman

I have a number of things I would like to raise. I do not question the bona fides of the Bill in any shape or form although I disagree with most of it. In response to Deputy Boyd Barrett's question, Mr. Cantwell said inspection and the absence of qualified clerks of works on building sites was a main contributory factor to defective work and non-compliance with building regulations during the boom. During the boom time many of the problems came to fruition and we are now dealing with the consequences of that with regard to a number of standards we have had to rightly bring forward. Under the Building Control Act 2007, local authority building inspectors do not have to be registered as assigned certifiers do. That is staggering to me. It is something that would have to be included in the Bill. It would have to be changed in the Bill. I have a real fear around the liability it would incur in local authorities. I have a real fear around the one-stop shop. I do not think it has been thought through properly. In my local authority in Dún Laoghaire any appointments that have been asked for in the Department on the delivery of housing have been sanctioned. I do not see taking on staff being a problem in the delivery of housing but it has to be independently certified. We need to go back to the original status where the clerk of works was involved.

As Mr. Cantwell said, due to the many specialties that exist under the “clerk of works” umbrella, in his statement:

Clerk of works are employed on major construction projects throughout the country. Some are directly employed by the client, local authorities, health boards, the Department of Education and Skills and other agencies while others are employed directly by architects and consultants.

If we want to amend the Bill in any shape or form or send it back to the drawing board, we must address the question of independent assessment and certification, and ensure there are no consequences for the standard of building and development, be those projects retrofits or new builds. People must be able to move into or purchase a property knowing that it has been built to the highest possible modern standard as opposed to the standard of some of the buildings built during the boom when we did not have proper regulation.

I have grave concerns about the Bill, although I understand its intent and acknowledge its bona fides. I will explore the Bill further.

Does anyone among the witnesses wish to respond to my comments?

Dr. Richard Manton

I echo the Chairman's comments on the qualifications of assigned certifiers under SI 9 of 2014, known as BCAR. Individuals with such qualifications are registered construction professionals, for example, chartered engineers, which we as Engineers Ireland award, registered architects and chartered building surveyors. It is imperative that whoever assesses designs and conducts inspections on site is qualified to an appropriate level. As the Chairman recognised, these are complex building projects and are becoming even more complex for good reason, that being, to ensure the highest safety standards. Therefore, we would not like to see any step back from that.

Related to that is the type of inspection regime. I would be concerned if there was any step back from the current level of inspection. A point was also made about independence, but we can revert to that at another time. The current BCAR inspection regime is based on risk assessments and assures that there are inspections at key, critical moments in the building process. We do not want to see inspection only being carried out at the end when the key building components have been covered up and it is otherwise difficult to see what has happened on site.

Mr. Peter Hynes

I will briefly address a couple of the points and the direct question that was asked. I do not have the numbers with me, but I confirm that Dublin City Council has an inspection rate of 80%, which is probably top of the class. The target is 15% and I understand that some counties are in the 20% to 40% range. Mayo meets its target of 15%. The numbers form part of the National Oversight and Audit Commission, NOAC, performance indicators. They are available, so I will be able to get them for the committee if that was the intent of the question. The point about there being less than a 100% inspection rate is taken.

Deputy Pat Casey

If a site is only inspected once by a local authority, that will be included in the percentage even though the site should be inspected a number of times. There should be a number of independent inspections, not just one.

Mr. Peter Hynes

Mr. Shakespeare might address that point.

Mr. Richard Shakespeare

I can only speak for Dublin City Council. Throughout the life of a build, we will inspect it up to five times. That gives a fair indication.

Mr. Peter Hynes

Yes.

Mr. Richard Shakespeare

Although levels of development have returned to what they were previously when that number of inspections might not necessarily have happened, the assigned certifiers and the liability that attaches give us greater confidence now. From our point of view, that type of inspection regime is about giving the occupants of the building confidence that it has been built to a standard. As to our number of visits, we risk assess depending on whether a building is for habitation, office work, etc.

Mr. Peter Hynes

Local authorities do not have an issue with taking on liability – we carry lots of liability as matters stand – provided we have the appropriate inspection regime and proper control and sanctions when required. They are part of the same equation.

On the question of small towns and villages, which are of particular concern for rural authorities, other factors need to form part of this discussion. Trying to get our small towns and villages repopulated is partly about some kind of financial incentive to make it more attractive to move to the core of a town rather than to undertake a self-build on its edge, which has been the norm for at least two generations. Quality of life issues also need to form part of the thought process, although I acknowledge that they cannot be addressed in this Bill.

Deputy Pat Casey

They are issues.

Mr. Peter Hynes

We would welcome a discussion on them.

Chairman

As no one wishes to add anything further before we conclude, I thank the delegates for their ongoing engagement and for taking the time to attend today. This meeting is now concluded. Our next meeting will be on 17 April at 12 noon when we will discuss housing for older persons.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.15 p.m. until 12 noon on Tuesday, 17 April 2018.