Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Generally, I agree with everything the Minister of State has said. I will just make some specific observations. Many of us felt the figure was so high it would be very restricted in who it could apply to. Many of the people who were burned - caught financially - were well down the line, subcontractors of subcontractors, and might not even know who the main contractor was in the first place. It is important that the scope be brought down to a much more manageable figure. Some people might think it is too low. I would imagine some people might say €10,000 is a relatively small contract to be caught by this legislation, but I am of the view that €10,000 is a reasonable amount of money. If a tradesperson is out of pocket by €7,000 to €9,000, it could be a large part of his or her income for several months, so it is important that this would be included.

My only concern is regarding how the threshold is drafted. The text excludes contracts from the application of the Bill if the value of the contract is not more than €10,000. There are a number of scenarios where this could lack clarity. Take an architect's initial design contract for, say, €5,000. Will that be included in the specific contract or is it the overall project we are talking about here? There are many projects where the construction contract could be only a fraction of their project costs. We have all seen it from the Luas line. The pre-construction costs can, in some cases, comprise the majority of the costs, and it varies depending on the nature of the contract. It could lead to some High Court litigation.

What would happen in a situation where variations are allowed in a contract? Many contracts have a figure that is subject to variation depending on various elements in it. I can envisage difficulties and possible adjudications having to go to court, not through the procedures in the Act, where the €10,000 figure is breached because of variations in a contract where it might not have been specified in the original amount. The contract could move over €10,000 during this period were some additional amounts added.

There could be a situation where the main contractor could raise a counter charge for a difficulty with the quality of work provided by somebody he had contracted to do work. One party could say they are owed €50,000 while the other could say that party did a bad job and they are therefore claiming €40,000 back, which brings the amount down to less than €10,000. Where do these opposing items fit into that kind of issue? While I agree with the principle of what the Minister of State is doing here, it needs to be very tight to avoid unnecessary litigation.