Mr. Tom Parlon:

We have regular discussions with Revenue but in terms of policy we have made this an issue for our pre-budget submissions. We have formed a new committee to draft this year's pre-budget submission, which will focus on the impact we can make in growing the economy, creating jobs and avoiding the black economy. The Government always weighs its stimulus plans against the potential for economic leakage because it does not make sense to spend on a project if the expenditure is going to disappear into another constituency or the black economy.

On the issue of illicit fuel, construction companies have a right to use marked gas oil on site. The amounts used would certainly not be as large as in the agricultural sector. I am conscious of where I come from, however, and there is a strong view in the agricultural sector that the rebate should be retained. There is a high level of criminality involved, as well as environmental risk from dumping. This has spread to Dublin city recently in terms of washing. The CIF takes the view that if people could reclaim the rebate we would do away with criminality immediately and Revenue and the Customs and Excise could reduce the amount of resources they are required to devote to this area. This is one of the biggest issue they deal with and, in terms of the black economy, diesel laundering represents one of the biggest areas of loss of revenue for the Exchequer. These problems could be addressed with a stroke of the pen. Our right to seek a rebate would have to be guaranteed but even if the rebate was doubled there would still be savings for the Exchequer.

I will ask Mr. Fitzpatrick to deal with the register of builders but the judgment on the REAs came as a shock to us. We had been negotiating a reduced rate for the last 18 months but the machinery for negotiating deals is very slow and torturous. We were only dealing with the compliance element of a 2.5% reduction. We are considering the situation, which is new to us, and our message is that our member firms are still obliged to respect the employment contracts and agreements they have entered into with individual workers unless there is consensual agreement to alter them. We are letting the hare sit and it is steady as it goes. We are not recommending anyone to take advantage of the new situation because, even though the REAs have been struck down as unconstitutional, they are currently the basis for our employment arrangements. We want to get our own act together before we sit down with any other sector. I believe we are taking a responsible approach in letting things sit. The judgment came as a bolt out of the blue.

In regard to gaps in compliance and enforcement, there is generally an onus on clients, including the Department of Education and Skills, to award contracts to the lowest tender. Quantity surveying is an exact science and it is not a big task to work out exactly how much a school with eight classrooms will cost. Our president outlined the pressure on work. We cannot justify or explain it but member firms have tendered below cost. That is something we are trying to deal with inside the industry but clients have accepted these tenders. We do not have a magic bullet. A company that is well-financed could choose to build a school for half price in its own area if it had a mind to do so but generally we can no longer offer such largesse. Below cost projects lead to problems, such as inferior work, risk of breakdown, major delays and extra costs in finding new contractors. We believe significant responsibility rests with the clients, who should be more selective and critical in analysing the financial viability of tenders. They are obliged under law to check everything and we believe there is scope in that regard.