I move:—
That, in the opinion of Seanad Eireann, the Government should introduce legislation to ensure, whether by way of statutory recognition of the status of and standards for builders, implied warranties in the construction for sale of new buildings, or otherwise, that the public will not be fraudulently imposed upon by "jerry-builders".
This motion really arose out of a discussion on the Second Stage of the Rent Restrictions Bill. I originated a discussion then on the matter with the Minister for Justice, because of the fact that reference to the problem of "jerry-built" and unsound houses had been contained in the Report of the Town Tenants' (Occupation Tenancies) Tribunal. In paragraph 157 of that report, and subsequently, reference was made at some length to a situation which arose to a large extent in the immediately pre-war years—more so than, perhaps, at any other time There were then a certain number of builders who were not as scrupulous as they might have been in keeping to the standard which the more reputable builders adopted, and, in consequence of their unscrupulousness, very great hardships, indeed, were imposed upon a considerable number of people. Now, it is as well that we should understand that when an ordinary person goes to buy a house, the purchaser takes upon himself the entire responsibility of knowing whether that house is well and substantially built, or that it does not contain any concealed defects. In many of the building schemes that existed in the period of which I speak, it was a common habit for the purchaser, so to speak, to be given a free lease, and therefore, when he was buying his new house, there would be no necessity for him to consult any solicitor. If there had been such a necessity to consult a solicitor, the solicitor, if he were advising him properly, would have advised him of the liability that was imposed upon him, and would have told him that he must either take his chance or get the house inspected by a competent surveyor. However, there grew up a habit, largely, of dealing with new houses on the basis of free leases and, in consequence, the purchaser did not get advice from anybody and, very often, did not appreciate the liability which he was taking on himself, in that he was making himself responsible for the fact that the house had been properly built. I might perhaps quote a sentence or two from the Report of this Town Tenants' Tribunal. Paragraph 157 of the Report of the Town Tenants' Tribunal states:—
"Section 31 of the Housing Act, 1931, made it an implied condition that every dwellinghouse let at a rent not exceeding £30 a year in the Dublin area or £25 elsewhere, is at the commencement of the tenancy fit for human habitation. An admirable provision worthy of extension; yet at times hard upon an innocent landlord. Sometimes a landlord may have bought a house from or erected by a dishonest builder, and may be unaware that it is unfit for human habitation. He may have to pay dearly to the tenant for breach of the implied covenant, without having any redress against the real culprit. During the building boom, novices who knew nothing about building, and sometimes others who were not novices, built and sold houses that were ‘jerry-built', and some worse than ‘jerry-built', leading to some remarkable actions in the courts. Such frauds can defy detection by the most skilled architect when he can only make a superficial inspection of the completed job. Inferior materials may be hidden in the structure which disintegrate or perhaps decompose with a penetration of moisture. Some shocking cases of this heart-breaking class of swindle came before the courts where humble people had put their life-savings into the purchase of a house, only to find, when time and weather revealed the fraud, that they had lost everything."
I do not think that anybody will have any doubt as to the existence of the danger. The danger is one that affects to a very large extent the young newly-married couple, and it is perhaps, appropriate therefore, that this motion should be discussed in the month of February, when we are approaching the spring, and when their thoughts are turning perhaps in a certain direction. I think it was Stevenson who once referred to the fact that if what was going to be the home looked very beautiful superficially from the outside in the eyes of a young couple in the spring and if it looked the same when the drabness of the winter came along it was, indeed, home.
Really the difficulty about this is that the people who are in the position, particularly in the future as I see it, of purchasing newly-built houses will not be able to counteract this fraud unless there is some step taken to assist them in so doing. There is a variety of ways in which it could be done. So far as the motion which stands in my name is concerned, I have referred to the question of standards in building, added to the method of an implied warranty, so that if a house which had been built was not properly habitable and was not constructed of good materials, a purchaser would have an action against the builder.
Perhaps I might deal with the second first of all. As the House is aware there is a provision in the Housing (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act, 1939, which deals with houses which are for letting. That section provides that in any contract entered into after the passing of that Act in the case of a house subject to a certain valuation, there shall, notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary, be an obligation out of which you cannot contract. It is provided that there shall be an implied condition that the house, at the commencement of the tenancy, is reasonably habitable and an undertaking that it will be kept throughout the tenancy reasonably fit in all respects for human habitation.
So far as that obligation is concerned, that would not apply in the case of a purchaser, but I suggest that it would be a reasonable stipulation on a vendor to ensure that the house was habitable. He could not get away from this statutory provision, and in the ultimate event, would have to satisfy a court that the house he had built was reasonably fit for human habitation.
There have been plenty of cases in the last 15 years—I cannot speak of an earlier period because my experience does not go back far enough—in this age of building with concrete blocks, where houses have proved not to be habitable. I know three specific instances myself where completed houses were purchased by people who could ill-afford the loss, and who when they had completed their purchase in the spring of which I am speaking, thought the houses looked all right. In the winter, they have found that the houses were weeping and dripping with water that was saturating through what were supposed to be concrete blocks but what in fact were little dashes of cement thrown in to keep together voluminous masses of sand.
The proportions of the mixture were hopelessly weak and no reputable builder would have used them. I have suggested one way in which this matter might be met. The second way I would suggest is by prescribing some standards of building. That is a question which I can quite appreciate is a very thorny one, but I do say this: in future years, so far as I can see for a very considerable time, we are going to find it very difficult to get all the building materials we require and there will in consequence be governmental Orders as a result of which only a certain amount of building materials, particularly timber, will be released in a schedule for certain builders and for certain works.
It does appear to me clear, therefore, that if we could arrive at a standard we could at least ensure that those who did not work up to the standard, would, so long as the stringency remained, get no supplies so that they would not be able to continue after they had been found out in the construction of jerry-built houses. We now come to the question of how best that standard should be operated. The Vocational Commission's Report deals with this matter, not at very great length. But, in paragraph 604, it does deal with the setting up of a national construction council.
I would suggest that within the framework of what is advocated in that report, there might be a possibility of working out something that would meet the problem we have to face. I want to be quite clear on one point—I am not advocating anything, and would not advocate anything that would mean that the building profession would become something in the nature of a closed shop, because I do not think that would be desirable. But I do not see any reason why a builder should not be treated by statute as being a person of exactly the same importance and the same assistance to the community as, say, a solicitor. The solicitor's profession is confined by statute and in order to become a solicitor, you have to conform to certain regulations and qualifications, but anybody who conforms to those regulations and qualifications can become a solicitor.
In the same way I should say that the builders profession should be one that receives statutory recognition, that it should be put on the same plane, and that anybody who conforms to the regulations and the qualifications should be capable of becoming recognised by statute as a proper builder. I would take that a little bit further. It appears to me that if you set up a national construction council on the lines indicated in the report, it could do what the report suggests, that one of its functions would be to set up certain standards of work and materials for public buildings and dwelling-houses. I am not so much interested in business premises. They do not come into this motion. This is in respect to dwelling-houses alone. I think it could prescribe certain standards and, having prescribed these standards we could well make the case that one of the statutory things that members recognised by that council must do is to undertake to keep to those standards of workmanship and materials, so that to anybody who came along they could show that they were going to keep to these standards of workmanship and materials. They would be entitled to carry out work as a builder and would be entitled to get all the appropriate licences, within the proper priority, for that type of building, as well as being entitled to receive all the appropriate State grants. Here is the way I think it would be effective. If any member of that organisation was once shown not to have carried out a job according to the proper standards or with a good type of materials then he would be cut off from any Government grants or any licences he needed, and in that way you would have a sanction for good building, without any restrictive operation on the number of persons who would go into the building trade to build all the houses we require. It appears to me that that would be a substantial addition to the suggestion of the building operative trade themselves, the setting down of standards according to which they would operate.
As the House is aware there is something on the same lines in the shape of specifications by the Department of Local Government in regard to grants, to the effect that a job must be carried through under trade union conditions as far as labour is concerned. I suggest to the House that the analogy is more or less the same. At the end of the war we are starting out on what we hope is a new era, in which we must make up for the six years during which little or no building, in comparative terms, was carried on. I suggest very strongly to the House that when we are starting on that era, we should make certain that we are starting on the right foot, and that the buildings that will be put up here will be ones that will really last. The way to do that is by making certain that we put into new houses materials—that are now scarce and are likely to remain scarce for some time— that would be put to proper use. We should also make certain that the ordinary poor type of person who is investing a life's savings in the purchase of a house should be protected so far as possible from the fraudulent type of builder, who, I am glad to say, is not very frequent amongst builders, but is there. The investor should be protected from him so that that type of fraud is prevented in either of the two ways I have suggested, or in any other way that anybody else can suggest.
