Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

In effect, we are discussing the regulation of the building industry today. We are discussing the building control (construction industry register Ireland) Bill 2017, which effectively proposes that the State outsource control and that the industry effectively regulates the industry. I have listened to the contribution of Mr. Parlon. I thought it was interesting that he praised the contributions of the two academics who addressed the committee a short while ago. He said that the two academics had identified important shortcomings in the Bill.

He omitted to mention that the main shortcoming that the two academics identified was the level of control that they felt this Bill gives the industry in regulating itself.

I want to address some questions, mainly on the issue of bogus self-employment and the direct relationship between bogus self-employment, which is rife in the industry, and poor quality construction and the failure to meet regulations. I believe there is a direct link between the two and that we cannot discuss one without discussing the other. I say bogus self-employment is rife within the industry, and that is not off the top of my head. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, for example, says that 30,000 people are currently bogusly self-employed in the construction industry. The Construction Workers Alliance feels that is a conservative figure. They say there could be as many as 60,000 currently employed in the construction industry who are bogusly self-employed. That has a dual effect. It has an effect on the rights and conditions of the worker with regard to denial of sick pay, holiday pay, pensions and workers sometimes working, in effect, for less than the minimum wage. I contend that it also has a major effect on compliance and building regulations. If a contract is put out to tender and a builder applies for the job, claiming to be able to lay a certain number of blocks in a certain time with a certain amount of people and if it is the cheapest tender submitted and is accepted, as such tenders often are, how can the building be delivered in a way that is not rushed?

We saw a concrete example of this recently. A raid was done on the Dolphin House flats refurbishment scheme's main contractor, Purcell Construction, in July. The raid was conducted by the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social Protection, people from the Department's Scope section and the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC. In some ways, it was a Mickey Mouse situation. An outcome was that the authorities were able to announce in August that all the workers were properly signed up, compliant to taxes etc. They did not say anything about the position in July, June, May or April when bogus self-employment was rife on that scheme. The chair of the housing strategic policy committee of Dublin City Council has stated publicly that he believes the electrical work on that particular project is below par and there are major questions to be asked about it, and that it is linked to the question of bogus self-employment.

It is not just a question of bogus self-employment. In the recent crane operators dispute which was so prominent at the start of summer, the crane operators alleged non-compliance by employers when it came to the issues of pay, training and safety. The best practice for training for a crane driver, as applies to not just New York or Dubai but to Dublin and Ireland too, is to have six months of training. Yet there are people being hired, given a few days of training and, at the end of the week, being put in charge of operating big cranes on big building sites in this city and in this country. How can we have proper health and safety, and applications of building regulations and standards to the highest level when that type of operation is being implemented by members of the Construction Industry Federation, CIF? It is not just one or two rogue members of the CIF, but members across the board. It is widespread in that regard.

Considering the idea that the responsibility for the regulation of the industry using these standards would be placed in the hands of industry, after all I have said, I will compliment Mr. Parlon and the five men from the CIF. They have come in here this morning with a straight face and welcomed these proposals when, back in CIF headquarters, they must be laughing to beat the band that political parties in this House in the form of the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party that are prepared to support the industry effectively regulating the industry. In effect, the fox is in charge of the henhouse. Even if one was to try to put a pretty bow on this package, what one would do, at least, is say that Construction Industry Register Ireland, CIRI, board must have significant representation for workers in the industry and for trade unions. We do not even have that. It is employers' legislation for employers. I am sure Mr. Parlon and the CIF representatives will deny that now and attempt to refute it but anyone looking at this in a serious fashion will see that this is the case.