Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

There is broad acceptance of the amendment proposed, but in fairness to Deputies Fleming and McDonald I should reply to the issues they raised, as it is a key issue that we must debate. That is the purpose of Committee Stage. It is a good thing.

Four outstanding issues emerged from the regulatory impact statement. Members will see that the amendments I proposed, which broadly have the support of the House, reflect the views expressed in the Second Stage debate. Three of the four outstanding issues have been resolved. The one issue that was raised, in fairness to Deputies Fleming and McDonald and other colleagues, was bespoke suppliers. We must have the debate. I did not rule the amendment out of order. That is a matter for the Chairman and I respect his ruling. However, it is an important debate that we must have. If we can find a solution to it, I am all ears. We will take as long as we like to deal with the Bill. If members wish to spend ten months talking about the issue, that is fine with me. I have always taken a co-operative approach to the Bill, as Deputies are aware. The Bill is not the preserve of the Government as it was introduced by Senator Quinn. We have looked closely at the issue of bespoke suppliers. We have examined international experience and the experience in this country. I regret that we have been unable to include it in the current phase of the Bill. However, it is not as difficult as people say. The issue of supply and install is covered in the Bill. In other words, if I as part of a contract ask someone to design and install a staircase, as far as we are concerned, that is covered in the Bill and it is allowable.

As Deputy Sean Fleming has said, the difficulty emerges with some of the raw materials, such as concrete, and where responsibility for that resides - who owns it at that stage? We believe that is more appropriate to prompt payment legislation than it is to this Bill, given that prompt payment legislation regulates the way in which people are paid for goods and services that are provided. Colleagues would need to produce a formula that they believe is foolproof, that has the support of the Attorney General and that will not extend the scope such that it becomes non-applicable. The net issue is one of construction. If the bespoke materials are included, are we talking about it outside the construction area? Are there other areas of industry we should include in it? If so, we would be talking about a totally new Bill.

The intention of Senator Quinn's Bill, which was introduced some years ago now, was to deal with this explicit net issue of ensuring people, big and small, within the industry were paid on time. If we widen it so far, it becomes a new piece of legislation and as a result will take many more years to resolve. We have looked at this very closely, having regard to the comments made by both the lead spokespersons in this area and the other Deputies, and we have not yet found a solution. We believe it is more relevant in the area of prompt payment legislation. For that reason, even if these amendments were in order, I would not be accepting them at this stage. However, if people are saying they have a solution to this issue between now and Report Stage, I would be open to that.