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.