The Bill before us has been long awaited. Surprisingly to date it has generated very little interest inside or outside the House, and certainly in the public press. It is surprising that this is so in view of the far-reaching effects which the Bill, if enacted, will have. It is likely to have much the same effect on the physical shape of our towns, housing stock and so on as the planning Acts had in the early sixties. It is true to say that the effect of those Acts is still working its way through our society.
We have to have a system of construction standards to control and regulate the building industry. That is necessary because experience has shown clearly that sufficiently high standards have been sadly lacking down the years. It should only be necessary to refer to the Stardust tragedy where standards of fire protection were virtually non-existent and to such housing fiascos as the low-cost housing schemes introduced by Fianna Fáil in the early seventies to indicate that. That type of housing is still causing problems in many areas. A number of those houses are in my constituency and I am aware that there are some in Cork and other areas. The cost to local authorities of maintaining those houses as a result of the poor standards of control exercised at the time they were built is phenomenal. It is difficult to see what life span those houses will have. Without the expenditure of significant amounts of money on them they will not have a very long life.
It is clear that there is a necessity for a system of control and a need to implement standards to regulate the building industry. The system must be a formal one because there are vested interests involved in the building industry who contend that the planning Acts are causing them too many problems such as unnecessary delay and expense. They contend that to add in these building regulations will cause further delay and more expense. It is also claimed that the simplest form of control is to accept that the building industry has sufficiently high standards at present.
The examples I have given indicate that the standards in operation are not sufficiently high in all cases and that there is a need for a form of legal control. The low standards, when they occur, are primarily because of the effective operation of the profit motive in our building industry. From experience in my constituency it seems that when there is a choice between maintaining standards and maintaining profit margins that the standards suffer if the builder involved thinks it is possible to get away with low standards. For this, and many other reasons, it is the duty of the House to enact laws that will regulate and set high standards for the good of the community.
The purpose of the old by-laws was to secure the public health and safety of the community. Those aims have been added to by new building regulations and it is proposed to include the convenience and welfare of people in buildings such as making buildings accessible to the disabled or to provide such things as energy conservation and the efficient use of resources. That is welcome as a general principle and provides an excellent basis for the formation of regulations and standards. The regulations were published in draft form in 1976 and there has been considerable debate as to their technical content. I might add that the debate has taken place within the confines of the professional bodies involved and there has been little obvious public debate on their effect or effectiveness.
There are some serious shortcomings in the regulations but they can be remedied and the general content improved providing a sound basis for standards in the future. To illustrate one of the features lacking in the building regulations I should like to refer to a debate in the House, if we can call it such because it only lasted a few minutes and was on a Private Member's motion which I moved seeking postal votes for disabled, which was attended by a number of disabled people. Those people had great difficulty not only in gaining access to the House — for instance, it was not possible for them to get to the Visitors' Gallery and they were accommodated at the back of the Chamber — but had also great difficulty in gaining access to a toilet. The building regulations do not rectify that position. They do not propose to enable any controlling authority ensure that existing buildings are converted to permit access by the disabled and provide toilets for them. I am thinking in terms of public buildings in particular where the disabled have a right of access. They have a right to the same facilities that more able bodied people have. We should seek a change in the building regulations to ensure that their rights are met.
The building regulations have been criticised in that, we are told, they are written in what is known as parliamentary English which without considerable experience and practice is difficult to read and understand. As a means around this it is suggested that a guidebook could be provided which would go a long way towards solving that problem. I understand that the Minister has indicated that An Foras Forbartha are preparing such a book. That is very welcome.
The building regulations have also been accused of being too specific and restricting, particularly regarding opportunities for being innovative in design and allowing for the emergence of new building materials. It is argued that instead the regulations should be expressed as simple functional requirements. The so-called "regarded as satisfying" system would go some distance towards overcoming that objection and it is to be hoped that in future further clauses would be added to take into account changing methods and materials. I hope that in time through experience the regulations will become more readily understood and nearer to perfection.
Section 2 of the Bill designates as building control authorities those local authorities who are at present fire authorities under the Fire Services Act, 1981. This means that there will be in the region of 80 to 90 building control authorities. I would like the Minister to indicate how the proposed reorganisation of the Dublin sub-region will be affected by this measure. Is it in this instance the Minister's intention to have one building control authority for the whole of the Dublin sub-region, in other words Dublin city and county and the borough of Dún Laoghaire?
Section 3 contains the power to make regulations and specifies the buildings to which they will apply and the purposes for which they can be made. I am not at all happy that the regulations are not to apply to existing buildings and in this regard we will be looking for a date to be set by which all existing buildings will be required to meet the standard of the building regulations.
Section 4 provides the power for building control authorities to dispense with or relax provisions of the building regulations in individual cases. It is noted that an independent arbitrator will adjudicate in situations where there is no agreement. That is a totally unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. We believe that bodies similar to An Bord Pleanála should have the powers to adjudicate on disagreements. Also, I ask the Minister if this proposal goes forward who is to pay the arbitrator's fees? Is it the Minister or the objector?
A large number of materials are produced the use of which in the building industry should be strictly controlled. It goes without saying that materials such as asbestos and in particular polyurethene foams which give off dangerous fumes when burning should be strictly controlled. In my view polyurethene foams should be banned entirely from use in the building industry.
In regard to section 6, we believe that the introduction of building regulations will have a lasting and profound effect on the building industry and the built environment generally. As I said earlier, this effect will be as large and revolutionery as the changes which were brought about by the Planning Act of 1963 and subsequent Acts. Section 6 of this Bill introduces the concept of privatisation and self-certification into building control matters which were traditionally dealt with by the public authorities under public law. For that reason we have very serious objections to that section. It is significant that the Bill is not accompanied by any consultative documents dealing with the proposed control system. That the Minister can expect the House here to debate a Bill which purports to set about controlling the building industry in this way without indicating in detail what kind of control system he proposes to operate is unrealistic on his part. Possibly this debate is on a par with the other debate going on in this House on the Criminal Justice Bill under which we are being asked to give fairly wide powers to the Garda, again without having details of controls and various other matters which could have a bearing on whether this House passes the Bill. Before the debate on this question goes much further the precise system of control the Minister proposes to operate should be put before us in this House.
However, a number of pieces of information are available which perhaps indicate the line the Minister proposes to move along. We have not got the details, but I would like to refer to three matters which need to be dealt with. First, section 6, the main part of the Bill, probably is copied entirely from British experience without any benefit being taken from that experience. Up to 1979 there was little enthusiasm for drastic reform of the building control system in use since the early sixties. This system was far from perfect but when examined closely it proved to be basically good. It had developed in response to needs over hundreds of years and had the merit of having been tested in use, being familiar to those who needed to use it as well as to those who administered it. Furthermore, there was a constant process whereby the building regulations themselves were being simplified to basic functional requirements, as I mentioned earlier, in the so-called "deemed to be satisfied" system. However, this was not good enough — I am speaking about the British experience. After the 1979 election the new Environment Minister, Mr. Michael Heseltine, saw a golden opportunity to indulge in two favourite Tory pastimes, bureaucracy-bashing and, of course, privatisation.
This concept originated across the water and we seem to be taking it on board. It seems strange that a Department with a Labour Minister is proposing that this form of privatisation should occur. The concept of privatisation and self-certification into building control matters, which traditionally were dealt with by public authorities under public law, is being introduced in section 6. It is significant that the Bill is not accompanied by consultative documents dealing with the control system. How the Minister expects the House to discuss the Bill honestly and sincerely in the absence of such critical information is beyond comprehension. However, I will deal with the bits of information which we have.
Before doing so I will refer to three matters of a political nature which have arisen as a result of the Bill. First, section 6, which is the main part of the Bill, is slavishly copied from the British experience without any benefit gained from their experience. Up to 1979 there was little enthusiasm for drastic reform of the building control system in use since the sixties. That system was far from perfect but when examined closely it was basically a good one which had developed in response to needs over hundreds of years and had the merit of having been tested in use, being familiar to those who needed to use it as well as those who administered it. Furthermore, there was a constant process whereby the building regulations were being simplified down to basic functional requirements as in the "deemed-to-satisfy" system.
However, in Britain this was not good enough for the Tories after the 1979 election victory and the new Environment Minister saw a golden opportunity to induge this favourite Tory pastime of bureaucracy-bashing and privatisation which has produced the 1984 Housing and Building Control Bill in Britain.
Much of the foregoing probably explains why much of the debate on this Bill is clouded in secrecy. Obviously it is not in the interests of individuals concerned to be identified closely with the interests of private consultants and the proposed stranglehold which private consultants will now be permitted with the introduction of private certification. It is my information that the Minister all along has been holding secret negotiations and consultations with the representatives of private consultants in organisations such as the Royal Institute of Architecture in Ireland, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Institute of Engineers in Ireland and the CIF. It is also our information that he has been unable to reach agreement with those people, who apparently have a veto boycott over the introduction of the control system by threatening not to participate in the certification process. This will make nonsense of this Bill.
The failure by the Minister to negotiate agreement between these competing bodies has denied this House information on the control system which it is entitled to have, which it is essential to have if we are to legislate effectively through a Bill. Will the Minister inform the House on the discussions he has had with the trade union movement in regard to this Bill? For instance, what will happen eventually to the workers in the building by-law departments in Dublin and Cork now that they are to be phased out?
As I have said, the effect of this Bill will be far reaching and we should now think carefully of these new proposals, for a number of reasons. First, we must ensure that the emerging regime of control will assist the efficient and orderly development of the building industry. Second, we must create a system of control which will have the confidence and support of the public.
To achieve these aims the system of control must be easy to understand as well as being effective from the point of view of the consumer. From the information to hand, the proposals for certification will not achieve the desired aim — indeed they will have the exact opposite effect. The proposals are not only cumbersome but tortuous. The opportunities for conflict, misunderstanding and abuse inevitably will lead to long delays and cause large increases in building costs.
Who will write the certificates? This question is fundamental to the control system. Presumably the certifiers will be people such as architects, engineers, surveyors, builders, technicians etc. — the list could be endless. How will those people be prescribed? Will the Minister appoint them? Who will decide who is suitable to be a certifier and who is not? If the Minister is not to be involved in the vetting of individuals, is it intended that the professional consultant bodies will perform vetting duties? Perhaps the myriad organisations representing the various professional, technical and building bodies will each nominate certifiers in their own areas, or will the Government set up a "quango" to certify certifiers? Can we be given the answers to these questions?
There are a thousand other questions which must be answered. Will there be different grades of certifiers for electrical work, mechanical work and building work? If, for instance, architects are to be approved certifiers will they be allowed to certify their own designs? There is not much objectivity there. Will self-certification be limited?
What about fees and the cost of certifiers? Obviously a certifier will have to carry out a detailed analysis of any submission to him before he will write a certificate of compliance. This will involve considerable cost and each certifier must have full administrative backup to do a proper job, in much the same way as local authorities process building by-law applications at present. He or she will have to carry insurance cover and the cost of this plus the administrative and other costs will ensure that considerable fees will be charged by certifiers. It is significant that this service currently is provided free of charge by the building by-law departments in Dublin and Cork.
From the consumers' point of view the new system of control must ensure that they will have the right of redress in the event of negligence. If negligence is proved, the guilty party must pay. Is it intended to limit the period during which it will be possible to sue for negligence or damages? Will the right to redress shift back to the local authorities in such cases as appears to be the position in Britain consequent on court cases there? If that is to be the procedure, why remove that right from local authorities in the first place? Is the Minister negotiating insurance guidelines with the private consultant bodies? It was suggested in Britain, for example, that a minimum of £1 million by way of cover would be necessary for individuals engaged in private certification. Would that be adequate insurance in the event of a very large building being constructed and for how many years would the cover last? There are many questions which remain to be answered and it is not possible for this House to continue realistically with the Bill until such time as the Minister provides other information on all these matters. It is not proper for the House to give the Minister power to introduce a controlling regulation certifying system without this House having examined that system and agreed on its being the correct one.
The system of building control we would favour would be one which would ensure that local authorities in Dublin and Cork retain their existing powers and that these powers be extended to the rest of the country. While county councils and county boroughs as well as urban district councils all apply and enforce the Planning and Development Act only seven of a total of more than 80 authorities administer building by-laws and of these only four have special staff and back up to deal with the technical aspects of by-laws. Our view would be that the building regulations be introduced to replace the by-laws as a first step and then to extend the administration of the regulations throughout the 80 planning authorities by acquiring the necessary technical staff over a phased period. It would be necessary to introduce a control system of application for approval under the building regulations and to follow up with a system of inspection of building works. In addition we would propose the introduction of a statutory period of six weeks for dealing with all applications maintaining the existing liability situation which has proved down the years to be adequate. It should be the case also that where commercial applications are being made for approval under building regulations, these applications are charged for at a commercial rate.
In conclusion, I reiterate that we consider the Bill to be totally inadequate. The Minister is asking us to empower him to introduce a control system about which we have not a clue apart from bits and pieces of information picked up here and there. We are aware that some negotiations are in progress in the background with some bodies but as of now we are being sold a pig in a poke. The Minister has not come clean.