Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 May 2018

Vol. 969 No. 6

Report on Building Standards, Building Controls and Consumer Protection: Motion

Deputy Maria Bailey

I move:

That Dáil Éireann shall consider the Report of the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government entitled ‘Safe as Houses? A Report on Building Standards, Building Controls and Consumer Protection (December 2017)’, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 24th January, 2018.

My apologies for being late. I think we are running a little bit ahead of time. As Chair of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on what I believe is a very comprehensive and important report, entitled Safe as Houses? A Report on Building Standards, Building Controls and Consumer Protection, which was agreed by the committee. I will be sharing time with Deputy Ó Broin who is the committee's rapporteur for the report. I thank our committee clerk, our policy officer and the staff of the committee - Fiona, Padraig, Trish and Brian - for all their hard work in putting this report together.

On foot of a proposal from Deputy Ó Broin, the joint committee agreed to appoint him as rapporteur for the committee in the preparation of this report. The committee held meetings with invited stakeholders and experts from a range of perspectives and also sought written submissions. I thank all those witnesses who came before the committee and those who submitted written proposals for their respective contributions. The insight and information provided to the committee by all the stakeholders was invaluable in drafting this report. On behalf of the joint committee and all its members, I thank Deputy Ó Broin for all his detailed work in producing the draft report. As we know, I am sharing my time with him.

He will say a few words after me on the specifics of the report. The issue of building regulations, building control and consumer protection was identified as a key topic for consideration by the committee. In recent years, Ireland has seen numerous housing defects come to light and as building activity steadily increases once more, the committee believes it is imperative and prudent to examine this important area. We must learn from lessons of the past and the committee believes that robust building regulations and controls play a crucial role in ensuring mistakes are not repeated.

Consumer protection is an important aspect of this topic. Effective and accessible legal remedies are needed for homeowners who have discovered and will discover defects in their homes.

The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014, often referred to as BCAR, have already contributed to a cultural change in compliance in Ireland. Furthermore, the proposed legislation placing the Construction Industry Register Ireland, CIRI, on a statutory footing will also enhance compliance. However, the committee wished to examine whether any further policy changes would be required. Our examination of the area has led us to make a number of recommendations for reform, across four distinct areas, on which Deputy Ó Broin will elaborate. In conclusion, the joint committee, in consultation with the relevant Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, the relevant Ministers of State, Deputies Damien English and John Paul Phelan, Department officials, State agencies and stakeholders, is fully committed to monitoring the progress being made on the ongoing implementation of the recommendations contained in this report in addition to other policy initiatives.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I acknowledge the work and support of the Chairman of the committee, Deputy Maria Bailey, during the committee's proceedings and the production of the report. The origins of the report lie in the experience of many of us in working with residents who live in buildings with latent defects that were built during the Celtic tiger period. From my experience in Clondalkin and Lucan, I understand it was not just private developers who were responsible for building homes to a poor standard because there are, in fact, legacy defects in a significant number of social housing developments built during the boom.

We decided as a committee that we would examine this issue, particularly the changes introduced by the Government in 2014, to determine the extent to which we felt they were positive, whether further changes were required, and the further policy proposals we would like to make to strengthen the regulatory regime and ensure latent defects become a thing of the past. We wanted to ensure measures would be put in place to assist those living with latent defects in dealing with problems that were not of their making.

Before 2014, many of the developments that are now household names across the country were the result of bad government regulation and bad building and materials. The people left living in those buildings had very poor consumer protection to deal with the problems they found. While the committee was firmly of the view that the changes introduced in 2014 were significant and marked an improvement, its view was that they simply did not go far enough. That is why we made a number of very specific recommendations, not to discard the changes but to build on them and improve them for people into the future.

We had a number of public hearings. We heard from a wide range of statutory bodies, private sector representatives and homeowners. There were a number of private engagements, including with building control officers who might not have felt comfortable appearing before the committee and with people in developments whose details have yet to come into the public domain who wanted to give us their views.

It is significant that this report was adopted unanimously by the committee. The recommendations, therefore, bear the fingerprints of all of us on the committee as opposed to any individual.

I want to spend the bulk of my time talking about the recommendations, which fall into four very clear areas. We were very conscious that we did not want to disrupt or introduce changes that would take a long time to make. We wanted to try to build on the blocks that already exist.

The first set of recommendations, on building standards and the need for a building standards and consumer protection agency, are very straightforward. The objective is to put in place an agency that will sit above building control authorities or local authorities and act in some respects not unlike the Consumer Protection Agency or Food Safety Authority to ensure quality standards and consistency of approach to assist building control authorities to do their job to the best of their ability, to share best practice and to assist where further improvement might be needed.

Another objective is to have an agency act as a hub for people who discover latent defects, such that they can go to somewhere independent that provides them with information, guidance and, potentially, mediation facilities to deal with issues arising from latent defects so there will be a non-judicial recourse mechanism.

We strongly felt the construction industry register, which we all want to see and in respect of which we all want to see the legislation progress, would be better placed in an independent body as opposed to within and alongside the Construction Industry Federation. That was a very important proposal agreed by the committee.

The building standards and consumer protection agency could also have a role in construction qualifications registration as well as being the custodian of the building control management system. I refer to the computer database at the heart of the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations of 2014.

Our second set of recommendations deals specifically with the 2014 regulations. A strong view was expressed by the committee at a very early stage that what it wanted was a fully independent inspection regime. The idea was that self-certification or even independent certification, or having certifiers employed by the developer, no matter how professional and independent, was not the best approach. Our preference is that, irrespective of whether the local authority uses private individuals or employs the certifiers on a full-time basis, the assigned certifiers and design certifiers would be employed by the local authority. The costs would be recouped by the developer but the direct relationship between the certifier and local authority would be the primary one rather than that between the certifier and developer. Not only that, a certifier could not have any other function or role with the developer or in any other project simultaneously so there would be no conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest.

We also felt very strongly that local authorities should not be the certifiers or employers of the certifiers for their own developments. In the same way that we wanted to break the link between the developer and certifier through BCAR, we also wanted some form of independent inspection of the local authority developments. That is in recognition of the fact that some of the most serious latent defects, although not often widely discussed, are in local authority builds rather than private sector builds. That is why we recommended that certification of local authority rebuilds should ultimately come from the new independent building standards and consumer protection agency rather than the local authority itself.

We also made a couple of proposals on increasing the capacity of local authorities to undertake their own independent inspections alongside BCAR inspectors. We felt there should be mandatory fire inspections of all multiple-unit developments of all types as opposed to a percentage of them. We were very strongly of the view that no building could be opened, used or occupied without a partial or completion certificate being issued, irrespective of the kind or size of the development.

With regard to latent defects, there has been an improvement in practice. There is more voluntary take-up of latent defects insurance by developers and banks but it should be made mandatory. It simply should not be possible to sell a property without adequate latent defects insurance attached to it in order to protect consumers. There needs to be legal change, which is not so much a matter for the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government but a matter that could be discussed with the relevant Ministers in terms of transferable warranties, shorter statutes of limitation and a bar on non-disclosure orders when homeowners negotiate a resolution, perhaps with a builder or seller, but would still like to comment on it publicly.

There needs to be a review of the sections and punishments for developers or builders who breach the regulations. Thankfully, while there have not been any significant breaches so far, we can already see there may be some coming down the line. The need for strong enforcement is crucial.

The next recommendation is very simple. A bar on the awarding of publicly funded construction project tenders should be introduced to prevent such contracts from being awarded to any builder or developer found in breach of building control regulations or standards.

A very simple measure would be a bar on the awarding of publicly funded construction projects for any builder or developer who has been found in breach of building control regulations or standards.

The final area of the recommendations was what to do with the legacy. Part of our difficulty is that we simply do not know the size of the problem in terms of Celtic tiger latent defects. We know some of the high profile projects in the public domain. Some of us know of others in our constituencies that have yet to be made public. However, we do know that there is a problem and that the people who bought those homes in good faith should not be left to their own devices to cover the cost of the defects. We have had pyrite mediation in some homes, although not all. I understand there has been progress under the mica remediation programme, which I welcome, but there has to be some mechanism for people, whether in Beacon South Quarter, Longboat Quay or developments throughout the country to secure assistance. The committee was deliberately non-prescriptive in that regard because we understand the matter is complex. The issue of who pays, eligibility criteria, etc. is not straightforward.

One of the things for which I call - it is a call that is not included in the report but which I believe most committee members would support - is that the Government announce a short public consultation process of about three months to enable stakeholders to express views on how we can have a proper latent defects legacy redress scheme. We could consider an industry levy, taxpayer funding, tax breaks or tax write-offs for homeowners to deal with safety concerns in their properties, but some mechanism must be put in place. For householders who may be facing costs of €9,000, €15,000, €20,000 or €40,000 - they are the kind of figures at which we are looking - we need some mechanism to secure redress for latent defects for which they are not responsible. While, in the first instance, bad developers should be forced to pick up the tab, this was possible because the regulatory regime pre-2014 was not robust enough, for which the State has to accept responsibility.

Last night, in advance of this debate, we invited any of the people who had contacted the committee, either through formal submissions or after the publication of the report, who had been affected by the issue of latent defects to come to a private meeting. We also invited members of the housing committee to attend. Some could and some could not come, but they were all made aware of it. We had abut 20 or 25 people in attendance from a range of developments. They were very complimentary of all the work committee members had done, as well as by other Deputies, including Deputy Catherine Martin of the Green Party for her tabling a similar motion at an earlier stage. What they want from us is not to allow the report to simply sit on shelves and gather dust. They want us to engage on a non-partisan, non-political, cross-party basis with the Minister and the Department to see what we can do to try to strengthen the changes introduced in 2014, introduce new levels of consumer protection to compliment the BICAR changes and also, crucially, put some latent defects redress scheme in place in order that at some point in the near future - preferably in and beyond budget 2019 - the people living in properties with significant safety defects through no fault of the purchasers will receive some support from the Government and the Oireachtas to tackle these issues.

Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government (Deputy Eoghan Murphy)

I thank Deputies for the report which addresses a fundamental concern that has a direct impact on the daily life of many living in the State. Stronger compliance with building standards has been to the forefront of our building control reform agenda which was initiated in 2011 when a high level working group reviewed the existing building control regulatory framework. The key deficits identified in the regulatory regime were the lack of involvement of construction professionals on site and lack of accountability in compliance with the building regulations. In response, a three pronged building control reform agenda has been developed - reform of the building control process; establishment of a national building control management project; and putting Construction Industry Register Ireland on a statutory footing.

Building control regulations set out the procedures for implementation of the building control system. They provide for commencement notices, fire safety certificates and disability access certificates, statutory fees and the keeping of a statutory register. It was through the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014, known within the Industry as BCAR, that the key deficits in the system were first addressed. The amendment requires that the owner must assign competent persons to design, build, inspect and certify building works he or she has commissioned. They, in turn, must account for their contribution through the lodgement of compliance documentation, inspection plans and statutory certificates. The roles and responsibilities of owners, designers, builders, assigned certifiers, etc. during building works are set out in the code of practice for inspecting and certifying buildings and works of September 2016. It has brought clarity and accountability, a focus on compliance and a new order to bear on construction projects.

It is worth taking a moment to consider the most significant changes that have occurred on foot of BCAR. Certified design and compliance documentation is now submitted to the local building control authority before works commence by a competent registered construction professional; owners must appoint a competent builder to undertake and certify construction works; an assigned certifier has to prepare an inspection plan for the building works and carry out, or oversee, inspections in accordance with the inspection plan; the builder and the assigned certifier must sign a statutory certificate of compliance on completion which must be accompanied by plans and documentation showing how the constructed building complies with the building regulations and also the inspection plan, as implemented; and it is an offence to open, occupy or use a building unless the certificate of compliance on completion has been submitted to a building control authority and included in the register. This is also a recommendation made in the committee's report.

I largely agree with the intention of recommendation No. 1 in the committee's report that proposes the establishment of a national office to assist building control authorities. These are some of the very areas at which in the past few years we have worked closely and productively to strengthen with the Local Government Management Agency, the County and City Managers Association and other industry stakeholders, under the umbrella of the National Building Control Management Project, NBCP. However, I disagree that there should be a new national agency or quango. The National Building Control Management Project was set up to provide oversight, direction and support for the development, standardisation and implementation of building control as an effective shared service in the 31 building control authorities. It provides all of the benefits of a centralised structure for the governance and oversight of building control but embeds it in a lead local authority. I am pleased to confirm that Dublin City Council has recently been approved as the lead building control authority. This creates the central and stable executive structure needed to oversee the local building control function to its maximum effect. The lead local authority will be governed by a board, chaired by a county manager, with a range of public and private sector stakeholders. Three building control regions have also been created. This engenders collaboration across the regions and provides an important mechanism for regular communication and feedback between the lead and local authorities. My departmental officials take an active role in these committees.

The key achievements of the NBCP are, first, the building control management IT system, BCMS, which facilitates the electronic administration of building control functions and provides a common platform for clear and consistent administration of building control matters across the local authority sector. Second, the framework for building control authorities, BCAs, was published to standardise work practices, systems, procedures and decision-making in the oversight of building control activity across the sector. The latest version was published in June 2016. Third, a compliance support mechanism has been established for dealing with queries, either from building control staff and-or private practitioners making submissions to BCAs at a centralised level that can then be applied consistently nationally. Fourth, to fully empower staff in BCAs to carry out their work effectively, training programmes have been and are being developed. Fifth, fundamentally, the inspection policy is being reviewed. The minimum national annual inspection target, as agreed with the local authorities, is 12% to 15% of new buildings covered by vaIid commencement notices received. In reality, the majority of local authorities exceed this target. The National Oversight and Audit Commission, NOAC, collects and publishes these data annually. The new policy will position building control authorities to carry out risk based targeted inspections by making more efficient and effective use of the resources available to carry out inspections. A key component of the policy will be to ensure fire safety inspections of new building works, during construction, to check compliance with Part B of the building regulations, are carried out by competent building control personnel. This echoes the committee's recommendation for fire safety inspections. The two reforms, BCAR and the National Building Control Management Project, complement each other by ensuring all involved in the construction process and regulatory system carry out their roles effectively and are focused on ensuring compliance at every stage and level.

Owners, builders and designers are legally responsible for the design and construction of buildings in accordance with the relevant requirements of the building regulations. Design certifiers and assigned certifiers must be members of regulated construction professions. They face serious potential professional and financial consequences in respect of the statutory certificates they lodge with building control authorities. Registration bodies take seriously their obligations in dealing with professional misconduct or poor professional performance. The recommendation made in the committee's report to have design and assigned certifiers directly employed by the local authority blurs the lines of legal responsibilities, doubles the number of professionals involved in the process and waters down the role of those at the coalface. I consider this a backward step. The current system is modelled closely on the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2013 which place statutory obligations on clients and builders during the design and construction stages. The Health and Safety Authority inspectorate carries out inspections to promote, monitor and enforce compliance. It has been very successful in improving safety on sites.

The committee's report suggests the system is one of self-certification, which I believe to be a misnomer. For the majority of projects, design and assigned certifiers are independent of the builder.

Design-build projects are the main exception to this. For public sector design-build contracts, the assigned certifier is employed directly by the client.

The Building Control Act 2007 established a statutory system of registration for architects and surveyors. Last year, the Government approved the general scheme of the Building Control (Construction Industry Register Ireland) Bill to establish a mandatory statutory register for builders and specialist subcontractors. The Construction Industry Register Ireland, CIRI, which was established on a voluntary basis in 2014, now has over 800 building entitles registered. The Government's commitment to placing CIRI on a statutory footing is another strand of our ongoing reform agenda. The Bill was referred to the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government for pre-legislative scrutiny and I am considering the committee's recommendations and progressing the drafting at present. The main objective of the building control (construction industry register Ireland) bill will be to develop and promote a culture of competence, good practice and compliance with the building regulations within the builder community of the construction sector. The establishment of a robust and mandatory statutory register of builders and specialist contractors is an essential consumer protection measure giving those who engage a registered builder the assurance that they are dealing with a competent and compliant operator. The Bill will also allow for complaints against registered builders to be made on a number of grounds and provides for a range of proportionate sanctions to be imposed after investigation. The committee's report recommends a review of sanctions and punishments but I draw Members' attention to the section 17 of the Building Control Act, which sets out the fines and prison sentences that may be imposed. In addition, a person may be disqualified from signing and submitting certificates of compliance with building regulations for two or ten years depending on the offence. This has taken on a more significant impact with the introduction of the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations, BCAR, 2014.

The proposal in the committee's report to create new legal remedies or redress procedures or dispute resolution facilities for homeowners affected by defects would require broader consideration, including with the Department of Justice and Equality and others. While it may have benefits in some instances, it does not represent a panacea for the resolution of building compliance issues. Changes to the statute of limitations, for example, may affect constitutional rights and must be seen in the context of the civil liability code in Ireland. In this context, in February 2018, my Department wrote to the Law Reform Commission and also corresponded with those involved with the review of the administration of civil justice in Ireland requesting that it consider the issue of effective and accessible legal remedies for homeowners who discover defects in their homes. The Government's focus has primarily been on ensuring strong and effective regulation in the building control system and the construction industry and on improving compliance in the building regulations. This reduces the risk and the incidences of defective buildings and has provided insurance underwriters with sufficient confidence to introduce new latent defect type products in Ireland despite a general retrenchment and conservatism in the wider insurance industry. These new products are first-party insurance policies that cover damage and non-damage - breaches of buildings - claims to varying degrees. This means that the purchaser does not have to make a claim through the builder but can submit a claim directly to the insurer. This would be of particular benefit to a homeowner in circumstances where the builder or developer has ceased trading. It is worth noting that while latent defects insurance is not a mandatory requirement, lending institutions and consumers are likely to demand it. As Members are aware, the Government is prohibited from interfering in the cost or terms of insurance offered on the market but as this insurance becomes more popular, it is likely that the market will become even more competitive. As such it is critical that consumers, house purchasers and the public are aware of the various Insurance products and the scope of such policies. With this in mind, my Department is currently engaging with the Departments of Finance and Business, Enterprise and Innovation, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission and the Central Bank with a view to exploring appropriate methods of raising awareness about insurance products and other property-related consumer protections.

While the reforms I have outlined address the compliance of buildings going forward, I fully understand and acknowledge the distressing situation that some owners and residents have found themselves in through no fault of their own due to defects in buildings arising from non-compliance with building standards. The economic and personal consequences of these situations can be significant. However, building defects are matters for resolution between the contracting parties involved: the homeowner, the builder, the developer and/or their respective insurers, structural guarantee or warranty scheme. In this regard, it is incumbent on the parties responsible for poor workmanship and/or the supply of defective materials to accept their responsibilities and take appropriate action to provide remedies for affected homeowners. My predecessors and I have supported homeowners through a number of expert reports and investigations into legacy problems such as the report of the pyrite panel in June 2012 and the report of the expert panel on concrete blocks in June 2017. Also, in the interests of supporting owners and residents living in developments where concerns regarding non-compliance with fire safety requirements arise, I published the framework for enhancing fire safety in dwellings in August 2017. While the committee's report recommends a redress scheme, it is not possible for the State to take on responsibility or liability for all legacy issues of defective building materials or workmanship nor would it send the right message to the industry regarding its responsibility for compliance.

In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower tragedy in June of last year and in recognition of fears expressed in respect of fire safety, I tasked the national directorate for fire and emergency management with convening and co-ordinating a task force to oversee a review of fire safety in local authority provided rnulti-storey, multi-unit social housing and a separate review of medium to high-rise buildings greater than 18 m or six storeys and to lead a reappraisal of our approach to fire safety in Ireland. I have just received this report, which I am considering and I will bring it to Cabinet shortly.

The failures in construction of the past have arisen largely due to inadequate design, poor workmanship or the use of improper products or a combination of these factors. The significant reforms that I have described this evening are aimed squarely at addressing these issues. I thank the committee for its time and analysis of the building standards, building controls and consumer protection. While, as I indicated earlier, I can subscribe to many of the principles in the committee's report, I believe that the building control reform agenda and other initiatives underway provide a full and comprehensive roadmap to embedding a culture of real compliance within the construction industry. In fact, many of the findings and recommendations outlined in Dame Judith Hackett's recent report entitled Building a Safer Future - Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, which appeared in May 2018, are commensurate with the reforms and measures already put in place under the Government's broader building control reform agenda. I thank and acknowledge the engagement, commitment and determination of the local authority sector and industry stakeholders who have been instrumental in shaping and implementing this reform agenda and changing the culture of the construction industry.

Deputy Clare Daly

There is a certain irony that we are discussing this report during the week in which the Grenfell Tower inquiry opened. There was horrific loss of life in that appalling fire. I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that we are incredibly lucky that something similar has not happened here because all of the same features exist. In Holywell in Swords in 2007, fire spread rapidly through cavity walls destroying six units in under half an hour. Had that fire occurred at night when people were asleep, there would undoubtedly have been casualties. The same scenario happened in Millfield in Newbridge. It is only as a result of these catastrophic problems coming to the fore and an opening up of some of the properties afterwards that we have revealed massive non-compliance in a number of areas such as Fingal, south Dublin, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, Louth, Kildare, Cork and, undoubtedly, every other local authority area that has not yet been touched by this. There were breaches of building regulations in Holywell. A fire safety examination of 22 homes found poor workmanship, breaches of fire safety and other regulations yet the developer, Albany Homes, said it was nothing to do with it, blamed the local authority, shrugged its shoulders, denied that it had ever received the report and did nothing to rectify the works. The Department's long-awaited report into the fire at Millfield, which was very weak, also revealed deficiencies that affected the spread of fire: poor workmanship, improper jointing of plasterboard to separating walls within the attic space, fire stopping missing at the top of the separating walls, cavity closers missing at the top of the external walls and penetration of separating walls within the attic with the roof timbers. These are not isolated examples. The Minister needs to be proactive in terms of establishing the extent of these legacy issues because it is only through tragedy that some of the issues about which we are aware have emerged. We must ask ourselves why this is the case. It has been touched on by the report, which I welcome.

If we look at a redress scheme like the pyrite remediation scheme, the question arises as to why it is there. It should never have been there. The State was culpable in not having a proper system of checks at the quarries. It acted improperly and had to take some of the responsibility in that regard. We have a scheme in place because residents had to go out and fight for it. In fairness, the late Shane McEntee was instrumental in delivering that scheme but it is no longer fit for purpose. It needs to be changed and the Minister is well aware of this. The defects in that scheme have been flagged. We have the scenario where householders are buckling under the pressure of damage to their property through no fault of their own.

The root of this is the lack of proper inspection. We know that the decision taken by Fianna Fáil in 1990 to abolish independent building control inspections by local authorities and allow self certification has been a disaster. However, I do not agree that the control regulations of 2014 have solved anything.

The report has been good in highlighting some of the weaknesses in that those regulations did not go far enough in tackling non-compliance. There is nothing to provide the purchaser of a house with confirmation that the builder was or is competent. It does nothing to improve the performance of contractors and nothing to improve standards of workmanship. All it does is identify someone the buyer could potentially sue later down the road if his or her life is falling apart because he or she bought a property that is buckling in that regard.

The assigned certifier is very problematic. While I welcome much of the report, we need to return to a public inspection system. The local authorities do not really have the clout to carry out that function as they have been so undermined. We need independent building control in the public arena that gives robust powers to an inspector who has no conflict of interest unlike the present assigned certifier who is paid by the developer. That person should have access to a site at any stage during construction to carry out any inspection deemed necessary, particularly regarding fire prevention and fire retardant materials as well as foundations, drainage, plumbing and so on. The inspector must have the power to stop non-compliant work and to be able to order the taking down of a building that has not complied with regulations.

Such a system requires the employment of skilled and experienced tradespeople by the local authority or another body to empower a public inspector. If we do not do this we will have a re-emergence of the problems that everybody is complaining about now and the absolutely appalling vista that the victims have to pay for the damage that has been done, which is absolutely disgraceful.

Deputy Mick Wallace

I had not planned on speaking on this debate but I rambled in and decided to listen. The Minister said:

The Government's focus has primarily been on ensuring strong and effective regulation in the building control system and the construction industry and on improving compliance in the building regulations...

I believe that the building-control reform agenda and other initiatives under way provide a full and comprehensive roadmap to embedding a culture of real compliance within the construction industry.

I can guarantee the Minister that in 2030 we will have as big a percentage of poorly built houses and apartments as we have now. Nothing will change; I see absolutely nothing new in how we are doing things. Does the Minister talk to the people who actually build this stuff? It is not difficult to build a house or an apartment block properly. One can build it well just as quickly as build it badly. Sometimes it costs more to build it well, but it is not any more difficult.

When a young couple buys a house the bank, in fact, owns the house. The bank gets someone to certify the house. More often than not it gets an architect, but architects know nothing about building. Architects design; they do not build. A bank will not accept certification from a builder; it will accept it from an architect. It gets an architect to go out and look at it and he or she will sign off on it. His insurance is supposed to cover it. If trouble arises and the place is falling down, it goes back on the client - the person who was foolish enough to buy the house. If the bank owns the bleeding property, why does the bank not take responsibility for the fact that it did not get it checked out properly?

If any of the Deputies present want to buy a house or an apartment in this town in the next couple of years, they can give me a ring, and I will go and look at it. I will tell them if it is built right or not. I can tell them whether the apartment or house is okay and whether the overall complex is built properly. I will not even charge them for doing so. It is not rocket science; building is simple.

There is so much stuff in the Minister's speech and many areas being looked at. However, nothing is changing. We have a big problem in how we supply housing and there is no monitoring of how we do it. We are going to increase inspections from 12% to 15%, which means we will not worry about 85% of them on the basis that they will be grand. Not only should the local authorities be inspecting 100% of them, but we will need to train them to do it because they are not fit for purpose because they have been allowed to go in that direction. We need people who understand what they are looking at. There is no point in talking around in circles on all this stuff. If one really wants to change what is happening and the whole culture around the quality of housing, the control of how things are done and the lack of enforcement, God help us and save us, one would not be well.

Deputy Pat Casey

The report we are discussing this evening represents the committee's genuine efforts to work constructively on housing matters and to provide solutions that will work and are realistic. It is essential that we learn the lessons from the previous housing bubble and the resulting financial crash. It is essential to ensure that the increased supply of housing which is so badly needed and the existing housing stock are of the highest possible standard.

At the end of the day a house is a home for people and it should be built to last. At the very least every home in the Republic should be certified as safe for habitation. The tragedy at Grenfell Tower just under a year ago is an appropriate yet horrific reminder of the consequences of poor materials and insufficient fire safety controls in buildings. Examples of inadequate controls in Ireland gave us the infamous Priory Hall development, and the pyrite and mica disasters.

We also need to be clear about what exactly we are talking about so as not to be cynically raising people's fears about building standards in Ireland for political motives. Everyone here wants the best standards and is working towards that end. The standards in place for the construction of homes in Ireland are very high. Fire safety standards and building regulations are of a high quality and are on a par with best practice internationally, as has been confirmed by many experts in evidence to the committee. It is also confirmed in external expertise that we have sought for policy development in this area.

However, there is little point in having very high standards and comprehensive building regulations that can be pulled off a shelf every time there is an issue. We need a strong, independent and rigorous inspection system which is controlled by the State and enforces the regulations with serious penalties for breaches. I and my colleagues in Fianna Fáil will insist that we work purposefully and relentlessly towards an independent inspection regime of 100%. This will take a sea change in current thinking when it comes to the State's role in the housing sector and one that I genuinely hope can still happen.

I have been working with Deputy Darragh O'Brien and my colleagues in Fianna Fáil in drafting legislation on an inspection regime that is fit for purpose and can be trusted. That is what is needed here. We are also concerned about the lack of inspections in the private and public rental sector and through our vacant housing Bill we will also be clamping down on abuses that are occurring.

I agree that the current building control model, commonly referred to as BCAR, has made significant progress but it still has flaws in the committee's opinion. The current inspection model during construction involves an inspector known as an assigned certifier, who is employed by the builder or developer of the housing development. It does not take a public policy expert to see the potential conflict of interest that exists between the inspector - the assigned certifier - and the fact that the person who is paying the inspector is the developer of the house in question.

Another flaw lies in the prosecution for serious breaches in the inspection of building regulations. There must be severe and appropriate penalties on failures of inspectors. Under SI 9 of 2014 each professional body investigates complaints against its own members. For example, architects investigate architects and chartered surveyors investigate surveyors. This self-regulation is not appropriate in our view. That no sanction has been brought against an architect or surveyor for the last six years is evidence of the failures inherent in the current BCAR regime. Self-regulation on too many levels means no regulation.

It is obvious that we need independent and professional distance between the inspection regime and the developers and builders who construct our homes. There are plenty of international examples of such systems and the model the committee proposes is very worthy.

It is our view that the most appropriate platform for delivering this independent building inspection regime is the approved certifier list, which can be managed by the local authority and will provide the independent framework, with Department guidance. It will be the local authority and the State that will provide the steel that is needed for a robust inspection regime and it will be the State that will sanction and penalise any failings on behalf of the developer or the inspection system.

The committee's proposal of a new building standards and consumer protection agency is the one-stop shop that is needed to regulate and inform policy and procedures in this area. Over time, as this new system beds in and develops, there is massive potential for the local authority, qualified inspectors and builders and developers to learn from one another and to work in partnership to ensure the homes that are built in Ireland are safe, built to an exceptionally high standard and can be trusted, having being independently verified as such. This new model of building regulations and controls will also serve to restore trust in the State's ability to oversee important areas of social policy on an ongoing basis. As a progressive step, this is an example of a Dáil committee producing a workable proposal.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the committee's acting rapporteur, Deputy Ó Broin, and our Chairman, Deputy Bailey, for their work in preparing this report.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I thank Deputy Casey for sharing time. I have read the report and the appendices, although I was not a part of the committee at the time. I commend Deputy Ó Broin and the Chairman, Deputy Bailey, on the work they have done.

In the few minutes available to me, I will focus on a couple of issues. There are some very practical recommendations. What I thought telling from all the remarks thus far is that I believe all of us understand that the regime as it is now is not fit for purpose and could be improved greatly. While it has improved somewhat since the 2014 regulations, more needs to be done. Where I agree completely with Deputy Casey and with others is on the recommendations in regard to a building standards and consumer protection agency. The most significant and expensive purchase anyone or any family will make is the purchase of a family home. The idea that the State should not be involved in overseeing that by way of consumer protection is something with which I do not agree. I hope the Minister hears the comments of the members of the committee. While I do not mean this as a criticism but simply as a comment, the Minister in his response seemed to suggest very little of the report is acceptable to the Government.

I want to address two items. The Minister stated that building defects are matters for resolution between the contracting parties involved, such as the homeowner, the builder, the developer and so on. It would be great if that were the case but he should talk to the people who had pyrite in their homes. Members across the House, including the former Minister of State, Shane McEntee, were crucial to setting up the pyrite remediation scheme that is in place. However, let us consider how Homebond was allowed to walk away. We talk about structural guarantees or warranty schemes but - I debated this at the time with the then Minister, Phil Hogan - no one in the industry has paid into the scheme, although some builders have done so voluntarily. We need to look at how warranty schemes and companies like Homebond, OSG and others operate. We need to be in contact with the Financial Regulator and the Central Bank in order that the licence of an insurer that basically states the defects are not structural and therefore it is not paying out, thereby blanking thousands of homeowners, can be examined. That is where a consumer protection agency comes into play.

I draw to the Minister's attention the issue that arises on page 14 of the report with regard to protecting against latent defects, in particular part 3, which raises the issue of the Statute of Limitations. The original pyrite report of the expert panel highlighted the issue of the Statute of Limitations needing to start from the date any defect - not just pyrite - is independently identified. Many people have been hamstrung by the Statute of Limitations as it currently exists. I produced a Bill in the last Seanad that would have dealt with this. I believe this recommendation by the committee is crucial because there can be instances where issues do not arise or present within seven years and they are then outside the Statute of Limitations. That is something we can do and it is not going to cost the Government any money, so I believe it is a reasonable suggestion.

I am glad to hear the Minister is in receipt of the report from the National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management. As part of that, and we could take the Metro Hotel incident as an example, I believe the area risk assessments were insufficient and when the Minister has had time to study the report, we might have an opportunity to debate it in the House and to see how this can be improved. Fire safety across commercial and residential is paramount to all of us. Thank God no one was injured or killed in the Metro Hotel and that was down to the swift action of the Dublin Fire Brigade. However, we need to learn lessons very quickly with regard to how we can improve.

I very much commend the committee and all its members on putting together this report and on highlighting clearly some practical recommendations that can be implemented.

Deputy Catherine Martin

I welcome this report from the Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government. Many of the issues it covers and many of the actions it suggests were also included in a motion on building standards and homeowner protection tabled by the Green Party that was passed by the Dáil last June. I commend all the members of the committee on their work on this report, as well as all the expert witnesses who contributed to it.

The issues this report outlines are damning. For those people who save up and take on a mortgage, a house and a home is the most expensive and important decision they and their families will ever make, yet control and regulation in this area is still woefully inadequate. We can see that we still have a culture of industry self-regulation. We still have massive under-resourcing and bad communication in and between the building control sections of local authorities. While the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 constituted a positive change to the regime that was in place before, it is still a system of self-certification. The lack of regulation and quality control on our homes is still hanging over us.

Last week the independent inquiry into building standards that was ordered by the UK Government following the Grenfell tragedy was published. That report speaks of a race-to-the-bottom culture in the construction industry - doing things as cheaply as possible - where concerns by others involved in the building process, or residents of housing, are ignored. It also speaks of a lack of enforcement of the regulations, which are not seen as an effective deterrent. This certainly was the case in Ireland during the boom era and may still be true today. Residents are living in dangerous homes, afraid for their safety, with no help from Government to fix defects. Enforcement is under-resourced and practically non-existent.

The recommendations the report before us outlines would go some way towards ensuring the safety of our homes. This report sets out four sets of recommendations. The first set calls for a new State regulator for building standards. Such a regulator would be along the lines of the Food Safety Authority and the environmental protections. It would be a strong, well-resourced independent building regulator, something which was also called for in the Green Party's motion last June. We desperately need such a regulator to oversee national building control and actively and robustly regulate those involved in construction. We cannot ensure there is appropriate building control compliance in this country without a fully resourced, new building regulator office with a real and effective enforcement agency.

This ties into the second set of recommendations, which looks at making the building control regulations truly independent. The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 put in place a system of assigned certifiers but this is still effectively self-regulation by the construction industry. Orla Hegarty of UCD has said that a self-builder or developer is effectively appointing someone to police him or herself, while the appointed person does not have to be independent of the process and has no legal powers. Under the current system, there is absolutely no guarantee that the assigned certifier under the 2014 regulations must be independent of the developer. He or she can still be an employee of the developer and have other close links to the developer he or she is certifying. We do not accept self-regulation in the food industry or in regard to the protection of our environment. Why do we accept self-regulation in regard to the industry that builds one of the most important things in our lives, our homes?

The third set of recommendations relates to the need for substantial law reform. Since Fine Gael took office in 2011 there has been no substantive legislative reform to create new remedies for anyone who finds he or she is living in a defective house.

I have been working with construction law expert Deirdre Ní Fhloinn in drafting new primary legislation to include robust legal remedies for homeowners from builders and those involved in the building process, and I hope to introduce it to the House before the end of this term.

The fourth and final set of recommendations relates to dealing with the legacy of defects in housing. In my constituency of Dublin Rathdown, there are developments where families are facing bills of up to €30,000 to rectify problems not of their making. These families are left with dangerously defective housing with no legal recourse to the corner-cutting cowboy builders who built shoddy homes in an unregulated environment and then sold them to unsuspecting homeowners. There is not even a phone number that they can ring to seek advice on the numerous frightening letters which they have received in recent weeks. They are terrified that boom era building defects will financially ruin them through no fault of their own.

The Government has been inactive on this issue, relying on the homeowners' fear that if they go public the value of their properties will be destroyed, putting them in further financial peril. This is not right, fair or just. Every time I have raised this issue with the Taoiseach and members of the Government, it has been dismissed as being entirely a matter between private parties to a private contract. The Minister did so again tonight. This is a public health issue brought about by an ineffective building control regime exploited by cowboy builders through the boom under the State's watch. Will it take a tragedy to occur or lives to be lost before the Government takes action?

Practical reliefs for people living in substandard and defective homes need to, and must, be considered in the upcoming budget. These can be simple and practical measures like property tax relief or expanding VAT relief on works, which will impose minimal cost on the Exchequer, particularly as the Government provides similar tax reliefs to developers. These people are not looking for a handout. They are asking for practical information and assistance. They are pleading that the Government not abandon them.

The Green Party motion on building standards and homeowner protection passed by the Dáil last year and the "Safe as Houses?" report we are debating today outline the measures Government can take. Inaction is no longer an option. The conversation on relief for these homeowners must not end with this debate today. It cannot be wrapped up and filed away on a shelf in Government Buildings like so many other reports on which no action has been taken. These recommendations have the potential to improve things not just for the future but also for people dealing with defects in their homes right now.

The Minister said that he believes that the building control reform agenda and other initiatives under way provide a full and comprehensive roadmap to embedding a culture of real compliance with the construction industry. This report contains the roadmap for improving the position and lives of these homeowners. It is the real roadmap that Government needs to follow. Will the Minister please give a commitment tonight that he will at the very least explore all options for giving assistance to the many homeowners who are pleading for his help?

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Helen McEntee)

I thank the Deputies for the report tabled this evening which addresses an area of fundamental concern that has a direct impact on the daily lives of many people living in the State. I reiterate the sentiments of the Minister for Housing Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy. Stronger compliance with building standards has been a key priority for Government and has manifested in the building control reform agenda which was initiated in 2011.

A three-pronged building control reform agenda has been developed: first, reform of the building control process; second, the establishment of a national building control management project, NBCMP; and third, putting the Construction Industry Register Ireland, CIRI, on a statutory footing. It was through the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014, Sl 9 of 2014, known within the industry as BCAR, that the key deficits of the system were first addressed. This amendment requires that the owner must assign competent persons to design, build, inspect and certify building works he or she has commissioned. They in turn must account for their contribution through the lodgement of compliance documentation, inspection plans and statutory certificates.

The Department largely agrees with the intention of recommendation No. 1 in the committee's report that proposes a national office to assist building control authorities. It disagrees, however, that there should be a new national agency or quango. The NBCMP was set up to provide oversight, direction and support for the development, standardisation and implementation of building control as an effective shared service in the 31 building control authorities. This provides all the benefits of a centralised structure for the governance and oversight of building control but embeds it in a lead local authority. I am pleased to confirm that Dublin City Council has recently been approved as the lead building control authority.

This creates the central and stable executive structure needed to oversee the local building control function to its maximum effect. The lead local authority will be governed by a board, chaired by a county manager with a range of public and private sector stakeholders. These two reforms, BCAR and NBCMP, complement each other by ensuring that all involved in the construction process and regulatory system carry out their roles effectively and are focused on ensuring compliance at every stage and level.

The Building Control Act 2007 established a statutory system of registration for architects and surveyors and last year the Government approved the general scheme of the building control (construction industry register) Bill 2017 to establish a mandatory statutory register for builders and specialist subcontractors. The Bill was referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government for pre-legislative scrutiny and the Minister is considering the committee's recommendations and progressing the drafting at present. The main objective of the building control (construction industry register) Bill 2017 is to develop and promote a culture of competence, good practice and compliance with the building regulations within the builder community of the construction sector. The establishment of a robust, mandatory, statutory register of builders and specialist contractors is an essential consumer protection measure, giving those who engage a registered builder the assurance that they are dealing with a competent and compliant operator.

The creation of new legal remedies or redress processes or dispute resolution facilities for homeowners affected by defects would require broader consideration. While it may have benefits in some instances, it does not represent a cure-all for the resolution of building compliance issues. Changes to the Statute of Limitations, for example, may affect constitutional rights and must be seen in the context of the civil liability code in Ireland. In this context, in February 2018, the Department wrote to the Law Reform Commission and also corresponded with those involved with the review of the administration of civil justice in Ireland, requesting that they consider the issue of effective and accessible legal remedies for homeowners who discover defects in their homes.

The Government's focus has primarily been on ensuring strong and effective regulation in the building control system and the construction industry and on improving compliance in the building regulations. This reduces the risk and the incidence of defective buildings and has provided insurance underwriters with sufficient confidence to introduce new latent defect type products in Ireland. These new products are first party insurance policies which cover damage and non-damage, breaches of building regulations, and claims to varying degrees. This means that the purchaser does not have to make a claim through the builder but can submit a claim directly to the insurer. This would be of particular benefit to a homeowner in circumstances where the builder or developer has ceased trading. While latent defects insurance is not a mandatory requirement, lending institutions and consumers are likely to demand it. It is critical that consumers, house purchasers and the public are aware of the various insurance products and the scope of such policies. In this regard the Department is engaging with the relevant agencies with a view to exploring appropriate methods of raising awareness about insurance products and other property related consumer protections.

While the reforms I have outlined address the compliance of buildings going forward, I fully understand and acknowledge the distressing situation that some owners and residents have found themselves in, through no fault of their own, due to defects in buildings arising from non-compliance with building standards. The economic and personal consequences of these situations can be significant and devastating in some instances. Building defects, however, are matters for resolution between the contracting parties involved: the homeowner, the builder, the developer and-or their respective insurers, structural guarantee or warranty scheme. It is incumbent on the parties responsible for poor workmanship and-or the supply of defective materials to accept their responsibilities and take appropriate action to provide remedies for affected homeowners.

I know some Deputies have raised the issue of pyrite. I have engaged many homeowners in my constituency on that in recent years and I am fully aware of the devastating effects it has. The Government and taxpayers are paying millions of euro to remediate these homes because, when these homes were built, the legislation put in place by consecutive Governments before was not strong enough to hold the relevant parties accountable. We are now looking at that and have changed it in many instances. That is important to note.

The Minister and many of his predecessors have supported homeowners through a number of expert reports and investigations into legacy problems. It is not possible, however, for the State to take on responsibility and liability for all of the legacy issues of defective building materials or, indeed, workmanship. That would also not send the right message to the industry regarding responsibility for overall compliance. The failures in construction have arisen largely because of inadequate design, poor workmanship, the use of improper products or a combination of all of these factors. The significant reforms announced tonight are aimed at addressing all of these issues.

I thank the committee members for their time and their analysis of building standards, building controls and consumer protection. As the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, indicated earlier, we can subscribe to many of the principles in the report. We believe that the building control reform agenda and other initiatives under way provide a full and comprehensive roadmap to embedding a culture of real compliance within the construction industry. I thank the committee and acknowledge the engagement, commitment and determination of the local authority sector and industry stakeholders. That has been instrumental in shaping and implementing this reform agenda and changing the culture of the construction industry.

Deputy Maria Bailey

I will share time with Deputy Ó Broin. I thank all of the contributors for the ways in which they put forward their ideas and solutions for us to compile this report. We as a cross-party Oireachtas joint committee have regular engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. I refer to chartered surveyors, the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland, the Construction Industry Federation, local authorities, Department officials, and Ms Sarah Neary, who is a regular visitor and contributor to a huge number of the policies that we want to implement.

We work on a wide range of policies to make sure that the standard of development in this country will be high going forward instead of what we had in previous decades. Numerous policies have been put in place in compliance and certification, the building control (construction industry register Ireland) Bill, CIRI, the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014, BCAR, and the building control management system, BCM. Other policies have been put in place to remedy the problems we had in the past and to make sure that the standard going forward is the highest we can possibly implement.

This report is one of the many that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government has published and will be publishing. We are working on a cross-party policy on housing for older people, assisted living and independent living. We have always been a solution-focused committee. I have said before that while we might differ on the way we get to those solutions, we all want the same outcome: to provide a safe roof over people's heads wherever they live in the country. We all want to make sure that the standards are adhered to and regularly checked. Many of the policies put in place will make sure that happens. We must promote, as the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, has said, a culture of good practice and accountability and give great transparency for purchasers. We are on the road to doing that and have implemented it in many ways.

The roles of all involved and the delivery of homes must comply with all of the codes of practice. I refer in particular to continued engagement with local authorities during construction to make sure that is being closely monitored. The building control reform agenda and other initiatives that are under way provide a full and comprehensive roadmap to embedding a culture of real compliance within the construction industry. I look forward to the ongoing engagement. As committee members, we have two to three in-depth meetings each week and it has been a massive challenge for the Department and the committee.

We have a very good working relationship with ongoing open communication and dialogue to make those solutions happen. I look forward to the ongoing positive engagement we have. I thank all the committee members for their commitment and for the time they give. That is not only in committee but in the time before that. A huge amount of preparatory work goes on. A huge level of data have to be collated and the Department is very good at giving us all the information we require. The Library and Research Service here helped us to form these policies not to sit on a shelf but to be implemented. That is where we are different. We are going to make sure that they are implemented so that we all have the standard of development in this country that people desire.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I thank the Chair of the committee for sharing time. We tried at the committee right throughout this debate to keep it non-partisan and non-political. That is one of the reasons the report has such strength. The speech from the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, however, was very disappointing. It was also disappointing that an almost identical speech was read by the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, in effect reading the same speech a second time. It speaks to the problem where somebody tells us they agree with the principles of something but they do not agree with the practical proposals made. That often says that they do not really agree with the principles of the report. I accept that the Minister and all of the officials in the Department want to see the strongest possible building control regime. They want to ensure that we do not go back to the mistakes of the past.

The committee has not made these kinds of recommendations lightly nor have we made them without careful consideration of all of the information and opinions before us. Many of the recommendations in this report were recommended to us by experts in the field. It was on that basis that we made them. I want to make a few specific responses to the Minister's speech. Nobody proposed a new quango. No-one on our committee wanted to set up a body for no reason. Just as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland provide an exceptionally important service to the State, we fundamentally believe that a building control and consumer protection agency is needed. It could be a small and light agency, not unlike the other two that I have mentioned. It could provide real added value, not just to local authorities but also to homeowners who find themselves in properties with difficulties. It could provide the location for, as we said at the start, adequate provision of information. Non-judicial mediation and resolution are significant issues and are issues which, unfortunately, can and probably will arise in the future, although it is hoped nowhere near the scale that we have had.

On the issue of BCAR and the independence of assigned certifiers, and this is one of the things that has truly baffled me from the very start, we have never said in committee that the professionals who will work through the BCAR system are not fully professional and acting with integrity. They are, however, employed by the developer. That is the core of the difficulty that leads many of us to believe it is another form of self-certification. There is not a clear separation between the builder, the architect that the builder employs and the assigned certifiers and design certifiers. Many of these people are part of the company of the architects employed by the developer. That is not fully independent. It is clearly better than the old system of certification off the plans, but it is not independent and that is why we have recommended the proposed change. We could have said scrap BCAR altogether. We could have said just directly employ local authority staff, but that was not a practical solution because there are assigned certifiers and design certifiers, many of whom are providing a very good quality service. It made no sense to discard that. Where a local authority feels that it could employ those people full time within the local authority, however, it should have that option. Where that is not necessary, it should be able to make the decisions about which assigned certifiers and designed certifiers are employed.

Legislative changes are a big problem. The idea that the industry is using latent defects insurance more now than before and therefore we do not need to make it mandatory does not make any sense. If everybody is doing it, then making it mandatory is not particularly controversial. If not everybody is doing it, however, that is all the more reason it should be mandatory. I welcome the fact that the Minister has asked the Law Reform Commission to look at other proposals we have made. These are eminently sensible ideas that exist in other jurisdictions and we should support them.

The biggest disagreement I have with the Minister is on the legacy issues and one of his concluding remarks. He said that the failures in the construction of the past arose largely because of inadequate design, poor workmanship or the use of improper products. I do not disagree with that. All of that is only possible, however, if the regulatory regime within which those things happened allowed them to happen, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

The very fact that the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 were introduced shows that the Government and the Department officials knew that the regulatory regime in place prior to 2014 was not up to scratch. Therefore, the State has some responsibility. We did not propose that the taxpayer would have to foot the bill for latent defects. All we asked is that the Department and the Minister would consider a redress scheme that could be industry funded and allow homeowners to offset the costs of fire safety or water ingress latent defects against tax liabilities or that there be consideration in respect of families who might not have the means to make the changes to have a taxpayer-funded option.

People living in certain properties are facing bills, as Deputy Catherine Martin said, of €20,000, €30,000 or €40,000. Some of those individuals may have the money to cover the cost involved but they rightly believe they should not have to do so because what happened was not their fault. However, other people, including some of the people from Beacon South Quarter who met Deputies last night, do not have the money. They are receiving threatening letters from the management company. They are being denied access to car-parking facilities or to other aspects of the communal areas of the developments because they do not have the money to rectify a problem for which they were not responsible.

It is on that basis that the Government should explore the possibility of some form of a redress scheme. It is incumbent on the Minister to at least explore the proposal I have put forward regarding the setting up of a short, three-month public consultation to listen to the very sensible ideas many people have to put such a redress scheme in place in budget 2019 to take effect from next year. Many of us will be returning to that issue, both at the Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government and in our direct engagements with the Minister and the staff of the Department.

I thank members of the committee and the staff of the committee secretariat. I also thank the officials from the Department who made themselves available to the committee and to me, as rapporteur, on many occasions in order that we fully understood the process. However, it is incumbent on us not to allow this report to simply sit on a shelf and gather dust. If even some of the changes we have proposed find their way into improving our building standards, building control and consumer protection regime, we will have done some service to those people who need our assistance and to home buyers into the future.

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 6.25 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 29 May 2018.