Vol. 113 No. 13
Dáil Éireann has passed the following Resolution in which the concurrence of Seanad Éireann is desired:
That it is expedient that the Building Control Bill, 1984, be referred to the Joint Committee on Legislation pursuant to Paragraph 1 (e) of that Committee's Orders of Reference.
Before I call on the Deputy Leader of the House to move the motion I want to inform the House that the debate on this motion is confined to the general principle of the Bill. It is therefore equivalent to a Second Stage debate on the Bill.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann concurs with Dáil Éireann in its Resolution communicated to Seanad Éireann on 2nd July, 1986, that it is expedient that the Building Control Bill, 1984, be referred to the Joint Committee on Legislation pursuant to paragraph (1) (e) of that Committee's Orders of Reference.
I must apologise to the House for asking it do deal urgently with this motion, and in particular to any Senator who wished to contribute to the debate and whose contribution may be affected by this very short notice. The Government had hoped that this Bill would be enacted before the summer recess but it has not been possible due to the pressure of business to have it passed through the remaining stages in the Dáil. Given the urgency of the situation the Government feel that it should be referred to the Joint Committee on Legislation from where it will be reported back to both Houses. Indeed, given the fact that discussions on this Bill will be of a fairly technical nature I believe that this is the most appropriate course of action.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide a new statutory basis for the making and administration of building regulations. The purposes for which regulations may be made under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 are those set out in the Public Health Acts, 1878 and 1890, and relate only to matters of public health and safety. However, since the enactment of the 1963 Act a number of factors, such as the need to provide for energy conservation and for a more flexible system of building control as well as developments in the EC, have rendered the power available under the Act inadequate to deal with the range of purposes for which building regulations are now considered necessary. Section 3 (2) of the Bill, therefore, expands the purposes for which regulations may be made to include not just public health and safety but also the welfare and convenience of persons in or about buildings. The regulations may also provide for the special needs of the disabled, for energy conservation, for the efficient use of resources and for the encouragement of good building practice. Section 6 contains the provisions relating to the procedures for the administration of building regulations and for a more flexible system of control.
Draft regulations were first published in 1976 for comments. Late in 1980 the evaluation of the technical comments was completed and an amended draft of the regulations was published in March 1981 taking account of the comments received. At about the same time a draft of a control system based on certification by the industry was circulated to all interested parties for comment. Comments were received and following discussions with interested bodies further drafts of the proposed control system were circulated, the latest being in April 1982. The publication of the Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry on the Stardust fire in July 1982 necessitated a further review of the content of the draft regulations and indeed another look at the proposed certification system. The tribunal's recommendation that some form of approval by local or central authority would be required in relation to the fire parts of the regulations was particularly relevant in this regard. The tribunal considered that it would be undesirable to rely solely on a certification system where fire safety is concerned. The provision in section 6 of the Bill for the issue of fire certificates by local authorities takes account of the tribunal's recommendation in this respect. The building regulations themselves have also been revised to take account of other recommendations made by the tribunal.
The Bill repeals the relevant sections of the Planning Acts dealing with building regulations and sets out in one piece of legislation the statutory provisions which will apply to the control of the construction of buildings. Section 2 of the Bill designates as building control authorities those local authorities which are fire authorities under the Fire Services Act, 1981.
Section 3 contains the power to make building regulations and specifies the buildings to which they will apply and the purposes for which they can be made.
Section 4 provides the power for building control authorities to dispense with or relax particular provisions of building regulations in individual cases. Power is taken in section 5 for the Minister to dispense with or relax generally any requirement of building regulations where he considers that compliance with the requirement would be unreasonable in relation to any particular class of building operation, works or material. Section 6 of the Bill provides for the making of building control regulations which will deal with the control arrangements necessary to ensure compliance with building regulations. The section provides a flexible power which will enable different systems of control to be applied to different kinds of buildings or to buildings in different areas or in relation to different provisions of building regulations.
The provisions of sections 7, 8 and 9 enable building control authorities to serve a notice requiring action to be taken to ensure compliance with building regulations. Section 10 of the Bill provides for inspections of buildings by a person authorised for the purpose by a building control authority. The power in section 11 for a building control authority to seek an order from the High Court is additional to that contained in the sections dealing with the enforcement notice. Section 12 enables the Minister to prohibit the use of certain materials.
The building regulations advisory body, provided for in section 13, will be a body broadly representative of the building industry. Proposed amendments to the regulations may be referred to the advisory body for their comments and it will also be open to them to initiate amendments. Penalties for offences under the Act are generally similar to those under the Fire Services Act, 1981, and will depend on whether an offence is of a summary or indictable nature which in turn will depend on the different circumstances of each particular case.
As a result of the existence of building bye-laws in some areas it is necessary as a transitional measure to provide in certain circumstances for the continued operation of building bye-laws after the date on which building regulations come into operation. Section 20 is the general transition section but there is one provision, subsection (7), to which I should like to refer. Senators are probably aware that, in areas where building bye-laws are operated, small building works, particularly house extensions, have often been carried out in the past without bye-law approval. This has caused problems in house sales as evidence of compliance with bye-laws may have to be shown to intending purchasers and this caused hardship in a number of cases. Subsection (7) covers such cases.
I am satisfied that this Bill provides a suitable framework for the introduction of a comprehensive and flexible system of building regulations and building control. I commend the motion to the House.
I was completely taken aback when I learned after 2 o'clock this afternoon that it was intended to take this motion this evening. I have a particular concern in this area. I am a practising architect. I am in this House through the nomination I received from the Irish Architects Society. I have a duty to perform as far as the society and its members are concerned. I was disappointed that I did not have an opportunity to get my notes which I prepared some considerable time ago. This is rather unfortunate where an important Bill is concerned. Luckily it does not happen too often.
The Second Stage debate took place in the Dáil on 28 March 1984, 5 June 1984 and 19 June 1984. I find it very difficult to understand that it must now be rushed through with such haste. The Bill is an important Bill and I would certainly not want to impede it. It would be churlish of me not to say that I have a certain regard for the Department of the Environment, from which I have often got help in the past from the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan. It was an unusual situation for the Leader of the House, Senator Dooge. I thank him for his courtesy in postponing the debate for the few hours to give me an opportunity to read over the Bill. Under the circumstances, unfortunately, my contribution will be brief and I will simply deal with some of the most important parts of the Bill.
With regard to section 13, which deals with the building regulations advisory body, this should be representive of all the parties involved — the professions, the consumer, the trade unions and, of course, the building industry. The Minister should be satisfied that it has as wide a spectrum as is possible and that all the various interests are catered for so that no party would have a vested interest nor could any undue representation of influence be exerted by any party on the advisory body. In this area reference might be made to the procedures adopted in the United Kingdom at the time of the Architects Registration Act. All the existing bodies were given representation on the architects registration council. An examination of this may be helpful with regard to the building regulations advisory body.
I understand that low rise residental buildings are to be exempted from the control system, at least in the initial stages. Of course, they will not be exempted from the regulations. It will be necessary to comply with the regulations in all these cases. It is simply that they will be exempted from the control system. This might be looked at again to see is it advisable. It is in this area that a high degree of control is needed because of fire fatalities and injuries which occur. When preparing my notes, I got out the records of accidents and fatalities in this area over the years but unfortunately I do not have them now. The Minister would agree that a large number of serious accidents have taken place in this area. For that reason I ask why housing should be excluded. There will be no proper control from that point of view. As a result, local authorities will not have to do spot checks. The volume of certificates will be reduced.
It is important that people who have heretofore been in practice and carried out similar functions should not be excluded and care should be taken to ensure that they are included. Otherwise they would be deprived of their employment and livelihood. It is obvious that it is not possible to practice as an architect if the right to certify is taken away. That is very important for a number of people. If people who heretofore had been engaged in the practice of design and the supervision of the construction of buildings are deprived of the right to certify, I can see the spectre of compensation arising.
Most of the problem could be solved by the expeditious introduction of an architects register. This is a fundamental area. It is a very far reaching Bill, both socially and economically. There is no point in saying it should not be rushed through. After a lapse of two years, this latest rush is very difficult to understand. Even at this late stage, a hard look should be taken at some of these sections. I am not too sure if the Minister clarified in his introduction speech why this course was being taken. I presume it is because of the serious consequences that are involved and because it is a highly technical Bill.
The building regulations are sensible and reasonable. I should like to congratulate all those who were engaged in the drafting of them. It was an onerous task while the language is phrased in legalistic terms and may present difficulty in many ways, nevertheless, it was a mammoth task. There are people who suggested that it would be more straightforward and would cost the country far less to pay a certain amount of money for the regulations which are in effect in the United Kingdom but the proper course was taken, to deal with these ourselves. Everybody concerned — the Department, the technicians, the draftsmen—without exception, should be congratulated on the result. However, difficulties may exist in the profession with regard to interpretation. The problem will be greater in small offices where perhaps one individual will have to be familiar with all the details of the building regulations. This is a task and a study in itself. The larger offices will be better prepared, where one individual could be concerned with different sections of the regulations.
The regulations, to a certain extent, have made building construction as we knew it in the standard texts and treatments obsolete. Of course, this is progress and is unavoidable. It would seem, with regard to interpretation, that this may end in the courtroom. Therefore there should be an ongoing monitoring and assessment of the regulations. I presume that this will be a priority with the Department.
One extremely important consideration is the question of professional indemnity for certifiers. It is becoming more expensive and difficult to obtain indemnity insurance. This cost factor will increase the cost of building. In this area, it is difficult to know with any certainty when indemnification will expire. Does it expire at end of a year or can provision be made — I am sure it would be very expensive if it could — for it to continue indefinitely with regard to a particular job? I am thinking of work done in a particular year. I am sure the Minister is not in a position to clarify that but it is one of the areas of concern.
With regard to section 16, which deals with penalties, it appears that these are very onerous — £800 fine and a prison sentence for making a simple mistake on a certificate or in the case of a conflict of interpretation it will cost £150 per day beyond a specific period and a term of imprisonment with a fine of £10,000 on indictment. These are very heavy penalties. Further thought should be given to them. In many areas there is a feeling that we are criminalising architects and builders. This is regrettable. As I understand it, the designer will have to prepare certificates where this method is adopted — a certificate before the work is started, a certificate when the work is in progress and a final certificate when the work is completed. The builder will have to provide a certificate of completion stating that the works have been carried out in accordance with the building regulations.
The practice of architectural building is today surrounded by so much legislation, expense and hazard that this move towards criminalising the profession will certainly be the last straw. It should be carefully reviewed. Those who drafted the regulations will prove to be a great help in relation to the constant monitoring of them.
It is time that all the old bye laws were replaced, with all the changes there are in design and materials. For example, with regard to timber frame construction, while it is not new by any means, the method is new. In many other areas, such as drainage, plastic and PVC have taken over from earthenware and all the old methods are obsolete. It is only proper that our standards should be updated in this respect. The Department of the Environment and An Foras Forbartha completed the drafting of these regulations as far back as 1976.
Public safety, as the Minister has told us, is very important. Yet, as I mentioned in this House a short time ago, accidents continue to increase on building sites in spite of the good legislation we have such as the factories Act and other Acts. Despite legislation these accidents will happen.
I should like to pay tribute to all those responsible for the preparation of the guidance manual. This will not be regarded as a legal document in the same way as the building regulations will be. This is unfortunate. Perhaps the Minister will look at that. The guidance manual sets out to interpret the regulation and includes many diagrams and illustrations which are most helpful. Unfortunately it is a rather expensive manual to buy. I suppose it is a necessary textbook in third level education establishments and perhaps in second level schools also. It is unfortunate that it could not be sold at a lower price. Perhaps this will be possible in the future.
The building industry is in a very bad way. I never saw it so bad and there is no great prospect for improvement on the horizon. Anything that would interfere with the industry and make the situation worse should be avoided. With regard to the preparation of plans at present, architects and those in established offices have a problem because in many instances there are people who, although employed, are doing this work as a nixer. They have no overheads or VAT to pay. Established offices find it very hard to cope with that.
I should also comment on the importance of the construction industry. It would be unfortunate if anything was done to drive people out of this industry during the recession because when things pick up — I hope they will in spite of the portents — we want the building industry to be in a stong position.
As I understand it, State, semi-State and local authority buildings generally will not be subject to the control system. This is a mistake. Local authorities should have to apply for planning permission for schemes within their own areas. At present they do not have to do so. This would give the public an opportunity to participate in their proposals and plans. A review of that area is overdue.
With regard to certification there are always problems which the public would not be familiar with. In my capacity as an architect I would on many occasions be asked to prepare a certificate of compliance and in some instances, for example, here a septic tank and well should be separated by a distance of 100 feet perhaps the distance might be only 99 feet, 95 feet or 90 feet and it is very difficult for an individual to know what to do in such case. Do you refuse to sign the certificate because of one foot, two or three feet? On the one hand you have an individual to whom the certificate of compliance is important and, on the other hand, to sign that certificate is wrong. It is often difficult to come to a satisfactory conclusion. If a house should be built, say 80 feet from the road and when I measure it it is only 79 or 75 feet, do I refuse to sign the certificate for somebody who, as I say, may be in a bad way?
These problems arise and very often the designer has to make a very difficult choice. With regard to the responsibility of the designer I am not too sure where this ends. With regard to negligence it ends in the court. I am not too clear about that. There are practical problems in this area. Where concrete is used, I might make a cube test of the concrete and it may prove satisfactory but that is no proof that the concrete used in the actual work will be exactly the same. It could be different. I know of one case where a one-inch mild steel bar was lifted and snapped. There are always these contingencies that it is very difficult to cater for.
I am disappointed that we got such short notice about this Bill. This is understandable under the circumstances and I want once again to thank the Leader of the House for his courtesy in giving me that little bit of extra time to read the Bill.
The fact that this Bill has been taken off ice is welcome. Since this Bill was moved in the other House and the Second Stage was passed, many people wondered what became of it. The Opposition appealed, for some reason or another, for a delay in the passage of the Bill. I am not too clear why they made this request. However, it would appear that their request was adhered to. However the Bill is now being referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Legislation. I hope that it will not take as long to get to that committee as it has taken to come through to this House.
The motion before us is to refer the Bill to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Legislation. I understand we are now having a Second Stage debate. I am not too clear what the position will be when the Bill comes back from the committee. I presume it comes back to the other House for Report and Final Stages.
Section 13 empowers the Minister to set up a building regulations advisory body. We are discussing in this House at present the Air Pollution Bill. The building industry could contribute towards a reduction of air pollution and this could form part of the regulations. I ask the Minister to have an environmentalist on the advisory body.
I am disappointed that we have not made greater progress with regard to the provision of facilities for the disabled in public buildings and in buildings generally. A lot of attention was given to this some four or five years ago. We have been reminded from time to time to provide for the disabled in all future buildings. We have also been asked to make provision for the disabled in buildings which are being renovated. There are a number of instances where renovations and building operations have taken place without adequate provision for the disabled. When this Bill comes into operation I hope it will bring about an improvement in this area. The fire regulations were front page news in the recent past, particularly since the tragic Stardust event in this city a few years ago. Again I am not happy that we have made adequate provision for fire prevention in the building regulations or bye-laws. I should like to see greater emphasis put on this aspect of the regulations and also to see a publicity campaign with regard to educating our citizens on the dangers of fire. From time to time there is a tragedy involving death. Those who are closely associated with the victims of these tragedies fully realise how simply life can be lost through fire. There are still great fire hazards in many buildings used by the public. I take particular notice, when I go for socialising or entertainment, of the fire regulations and despite the great efforts of the local authorities and the fire authorities, there are still potential dangers and some of them not too far from this building. I shall not name them. Certainly I would consider them potential fire hazards and I would like to see the powers extended to cover existing buildings to ensure that all buildings used by the public generally, are as safe as is humanly possible from this terrible hazard which can have such tragic results. A few years ago when I was leaving this House one night — when the other House normally used to sit until 10 o'clock — I was driving out the Merrion Street gate and down Mount Street when I saw smoke coming from an upstairs window. There were no people in the street at the time. There was a person coming around the corner from Merrion Street and while I knocked on the door of that building I asked him if he would get to the nearest phone and summon the fire brigade, which arrived within minutes. I left the scene of that fire when the fireman smashed the upper window thinking that no harm was done except to property. I was shocked the following morning to hear on the radio that two people had died in that room while I was standing there. That happened very quickly. There are many amazing instances that many of us could relate where death occurred from the smoke such as comes from materials that are in most homes and buildings.
There is a division in the other House. The Senator may continue to speak or can wait until the Minister returns.
I merely say this to emphasise the danger. I realise I am speaking to the converted but there are a great number of people who do not realise the danger of fire. I would like to see a publicity campaign mounted — something on the lines that we have during the Clean Up Ireland Week — for a week or a month every few years to highlight the dangers of fire, to try to bring home to people that there are fire hazards in practically every home and that it is necessary for every family to have fire drill. It is only those people who are closely associated with a tragedy or who live near where a tragedy occurs who realise how quickly death can occur.
I have always held the view that we in Ireland have paid insufficient attention to the insulation of buildings and in particular our homes. During the sixties and seventies there was a great rush to provide as many houses per year as possible. Indeed successive Governments would boast of the number of houses that they could build in each year. A very necessary objective, of course, was to provide homes for those who could not provide homes for themselves. I am afraid during those years in the rush to provide as many homes as possible and to get as much kudos as possible for the Government in power we got to some extent inferior houses. I would have preferred, and I am sure that the vast majority of those who now occupy these houses would have preferred to have waited a little longer for the houses to give the authorities time to give a little more attention to the construction. Of course, it would add a little to the cost of every house. The provision of a renting system in course of construction would have adequately compensated for the extra cost in the construction of the houses.
Not only is this my view but I have discussed this over the years with a number of builders and most of them agreed that insufficient attention was given, particularly during the sixties and seventies, when there was this great rush to boast about the number of houses being provided in each year. In our climate, anyone building a house today would be well advised to install double glazing and I know that Government Departments and local authorities are reluctant to advise people of this mainly because of the cost. Many of the houses that were built and some even today being built by local authorities were constructed without adequate insulation in the roof, which is far more important than double glazing. I do not believe that the cost would be prohibitive of giving some attention to greater insulation in the building of houses. I do not believe that the cost of double glazing or the cost of wall and roof insulation would be prohibitive and I am convinced there would be a saving over the next two, three, four or five years depending on the amount of heat that a family would require. It would be a saving to the family and to the nation, because we would be conserving the energy about which there has been so much publicity. During the great house building rush great inconvenience was caused to the families who eventually occupied houses which did not have insulation and in some cases had not open fire-places. There was an anxiety for people to switch to oil central heating. In the mid-seventies we know what happened when the oil prices escalated and people found that they just could not afford to continue burning oil. They were faced with the added expense of conversion to open fires.
They are under threat now.
I sincerely hope that this Bill when passed will assist many people who are frustrated with the building by-laws, particularly those people with small and some with not so small extensions, which the Minister spoke about, who discover, when it would come to selling the house, they did not have proper bye-law approval for the extension. In many instances which I am aware of, it was not possible to sell the house. I am even aware of some instances where they eventually did not sell the house because their buyer had gone or their financial difficulty was over — I suppose they were the lucky ones — perhaps the opportunity of moving to another locality, either to improve their standard of living, or to improve their employment had passed them by because of the difficulty of obtaining by-law approval after the extension had been carried out.
The Bill will expedite the building of houses, because certainly I know in the Dublin area the by-law office has been stretched to the limit in providing the best possible service. In very many instances they were over cautious in giving bye-law approval lest there be a mistake. I am not faulting them for that. Certainly in my own local authority area they do a good job generally. They do as efficient a job as is possible for them to do. Because of the work load many people had difficulty in obtaining bye-law approval. I would hope that this Bill when passed will ease the problem of obtaining by-law approval.
I would be anxious to see greater regulations with regard to the provision of insulation and fire precaution and prevention and the hightening of peoples' awareness of the dangers of fire and how simply they can happen. Very many lives could have been saved in the past. People who were caught in a fire situation will be the first to admit that lives could have been saved if only people had realised the dangers that they were living in with regard to fire.
I would hope that this motion will pass here tonight but that after the summer recess the Oireachtas committee will examine the Bill and will send it back as quickly as possible to the Dáil. Then, I am sure, it will come back to us here. Perhaps the Minister in his reply would let us know if that is the way it works. I am not familiar with how Bills which are dealt with by the Joint Committee on Legislation come back to us. The Bill will arrive here at some stage and we will have an opportunity to speak on Report Stage, if I am correct, and hopefully guiding, with our experience in local government the Minister and his advisory body of the future. The Bill is lengthy and technical but it is an extremely important Bill. Because of its importance, I do not think it should be put on ice again. I would hope when the Oireachtas committee receive it they will deal with it expeditiously and return it to us so that we can make our final remarks on it.
I, too, like Senator Fitzsimons, have not had an opportunity of studying the Bill in detail. At the time that the Bill went through the Dáil as we all realised, it was put on the bottom shelf. Of course we were so busy with other things, we did not bother to study it. It was foisted upon us rather suddenly today. Not that I am complaining too much about that because the committee, I am sure, will deal with it in fair detail. Perhaps the Minister will let us know if I am correct in saying that it will come back here on Report Stage and we will have an opportunity at that stage of saying something further on it?
Again I would like to apologise to the House and to thank them for taking this motion at such short notice. I do appreciate that somebody like Senator Fitzsimons, whose name is a household word in the building industry right across the country, would have quite a lot to contribute in this area. It would be unwise of me or indeed any Minister not to heed some of the points he made. He is an architect of some standing. I have no doubt the points which he and Senator Larry McMahon have put before us here tonight will be taken into consideration.
Both Senators raised questions which I will have to respond to regarding representation on the advisory board. Senator Fitzsimons asked that it would be broadly based and that certain interests would not have undue influence on the decisions. I can assure him that it will be a broadly based board. It will be representative of all sections of the community. Senator McMahon did say that there should be representation for conservationists and environmentalists. These points will also be taken into account.
In regard to low rise housing it has to be said that what is proposed is a first phase of what will be essentially more detailed legislation. It was felt necessary that the various authorities would first have an opportunity to familiarise themselves with and set up the systems which would be necessary to implement these regulations. This is essentially the first step.
I am a little concerned that the Senators feel a little perturbed as to why this matter is being rushed through. It is not being rushed through. It is actually being referred to the Joint Committee on Legislation. The Taoiseach, in reply to a question on the Order of Business stated in the Dáil the reason why it was going to the Joint Committee on Legislation. He said that the purpose was to ensure that the Bill would get greater consideration in detail. The Government feel that this legislation warrants that type of detail. Events of recent times have shown this and both speakers mentioned the Stardust fire — and rightly so. People are concerned and it was as a result of the Stardust report that further consideration was given and that there was a review of the whole situation.
I appreciate that many Members of the Seanad had done much preparation for this Bill and that it was foisted on them at fairly short notice today, but they will have another opportunity to discuss this. I have no doubt that the Senators will then have an opportunity to make their points to the Minister who will be here on that occasion.
A further point made by Senator Fitzsimons was the effect the penal element would have on the professions involved in the building industry. This is a matter essentially for the Minister for Justice. The Minister for the Environment already has been in contact with the Minister for Justice in this regard and an amendment has been circulated to that effect.
I apologise to Senator McMahon for leaving during his contribution but the division bells sounded. I have no doubt that when the Bill comes back to the Seanad each and every Senator will have sufficient notice and will be armed with the detail teased out at the Joint Committee on Legislation. This should contribute more and broaden the debate considerably.
There is a further plus by letting the Bill go to the Joint Committee on Legislation inasmuch as, unlike both Houses of the Oireachtas, the committees will still be functioning during the recess and we are gaining time by putting it to the joint committee. Of course they will not meet every month but when I was a member of the Joint Committee on Legislation we met on several occasions during the recess. By the time the House resumes in October I hope that some progress will have been made.
On a point of order, with particular reference to Senator Fitzsimons, who is not a member of the Joint Committee on Legislation, what facility is available to him to make a submission to the committee for the Committee Stage because by the time this Bill comes back to this House it will have completed its Committee Stage and will be on Report Stage. Senator Fitzsimons is an expert in this field and he should have the facility to make submissions and to appear before the committee on the Committee Stage, so as to make a better input to the Bill.
It is a matter for the committee but I have no doubt that the machinery will be there for Senator Fitzsimons to make submissions.
I am very grateful to Senator Ferris. Could I also ask — and I take it that the answer is in the affirmative — if we will have an opportunity of tabling amendments when the Bill comes back to this House?
On Report Stage. We will not have a Committee Stage.
