Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 58, lines 31 and 32, to delete “not exceeding the fee specified under section 34(2)(g)”.

This concerns what happens when someone is removed from the register and reapplies. This part of the Bill states that the board will set a fee that will not exceed the standard fees of registration. On face value, this seems fair enough. The issue though is there could be considerable cost for the board in terms of taking action against people who are suspended from the register for a while. Their actions or failings create costs for the board. Under this provision, those costs will, therefore, be paid by all the people who have been compliant. They will carry the costs because the board will not be able to set a higher fee for someone to re-register to get back on to the register following a suspension. It is not that the board should have to set a higher fee but I would like a situation where it could set a higher fee to effectively recover some of its costs for dealing with people who are not being compliant. This provision means that the fees paid by compliant builders and traders who never end up having compliance issues with the board will have to be increased to cover the cost of dealing with the non-compliant entities and individuals. That wording is placing a prohibition that is not necessary. It does not provide the board with flexibility so that if it wants to set a higher fee, it can do so. There is a penalty element to it but it is really a justice element. Those who are non-compliant should have to bear some of the cost of non-compliance rather than all the compliant traders and builders.