Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)

I commend Senator Feargal Quinn for bringing this Bill forward, in the last parliamentary term, and the Government on its willingness not only to allow it to proceed through the Houses, but also to support it. I especially welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes's indication that a regulatory impact analysis was undertaken which deemed the Bill necessary and worthy and offered several useful amendments. What is notable in all of this is that it is so extraordinary for a Bill of this nature to proceed this far. The last Private Members' Bill initiated in the Seanad to make it into law was the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1965. I urge the Government to continue on this path of taking a more open-minded approach to legislative proposals from across the floor of both Houses.

Regulatory impact analysis may sound like an obscure concept but it is essential for good policy-making. It helps to ensure that legislation coming before the Oireachtas is evidentially based and that we are all aware of the projected impact of its provisions on society, small businesses and so on. As the Minister of State observed, a commitment in regard to regulatory impact analysis is included in the programme of Government. However, at the end of last year, just over one third of Bills published by the Government were subjected to this type of analysis. Clearly, a greater degree of commitment is required in this regard. We had a stark example of this last week when the Minister for Social Protection indicated that no regulatory impact analysis had been done in respect of the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2012 and, moreover, that none was necessary. That is not how the Cabinet handbook reads to me. No poverty impact or gender impact assessment was done. I described this type of policy-making in an article this week as apparently based on a strategy of pressing different buttons to see what they do. I do not say that glibly, certainly not in a context where the guillotine was used at all Stages of the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill last week. In fact, research by the Technical Group shows that this Government has used it in the case of nearly 70% of legislation, despite its clear statement of intent to do otherwise in the programme for Government. Against that background, I welcome the Minister of State drawing attention to the importance of regulatory analyses. I hope the Government will make greater use of them in the coming years.

The Bill before us today is about protecting small businesses from the vagaries of the market and from some of the practices of large businesses. In preparing for this debate I was shocked to discover some of what goes on in the industry. I did not realise, for instance, that subcontractors and sub-subcontractors often rely on payment from the main contractor. That is an extraordinary environment for any business to operate in and I welcome its review. The Minister of State observed that in an informal industry like the constructions sector, legal protections for the smaller players can be undermined. There is an ongoing problem in that the payment and resolution process is carried out through the courts. We have seen in the case of the Internet copyright legislation, for example, that the courts are simply not accessible to most individuals and small businesses.

We are all aware of the pain that has been suffered by workers, individual contractors and small business owners in this industry. In introducing the Bill in the Seanad in 2010, Senator Quinn noted that more than 500 companies in the sector had failed in 2009, which is an extraordinary number. He pointed out that the State has an engagement process for the large developers by way of the National Asset Management Agency, with some of these people being paid very generous salaries to work through half finished properties in an effort to resolve their debts. However, there is no such engagement in respect of individual contractors and small businesses in difficulty. As I am sure is the case for many Deputies, over the past year I have met many people from the industry - carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, architects, engineers and quantity surveyors - and they are in extraordinary levels of distress business-wise and personally. There are three issues many of them are dealing with at the one time. They have seen their incomes collapse, with little hope of them increasing again in Ireland in the near future. As we know, many people in the industry are having to emigrate. On top of this, they are self-employed and, as we know, the self-employed and small business owners, when they run out of work, do not have the same critical social protections as PAYE workers. Both issues are compounded by the fact many of those working in the sector bought houses during the bubble. They cannot now pay them off and they are in negative equity so they are faced with bankruptcy, repossession and little help from the State. That is not a criticism of this Government, it is a criticism of the system. We are guilty of hypocrisy in that we urge entrepreneurial activity and the taking of risks by small businessmen, but at the same time, it is implicit that for someone who fails, there will not be the same protection as there is for those who have not taken the same risks, the PAYE workers. We must address that urgently.

I have a sad example from my own constituency of a family-owned quarry in Blessington, which has been dealing with many of these issues. A further issue arose for the business with serious allegations of price fixing or cartel activity in the cement industry. In an article in the Irish Examiner, Michael Clifford said that if the allegations are true, the State has been defrauded out of hundreds of millions of euros, as the State is the largest buyer of concrete in the country. He said no State agency or court has ever properly investigated what goes into the market despite decades of complaints. He further pointed out that investigations in other jurisdictions revealed cartels and price fixing. I have no idea if there is cartel behaviour but the allegations are serious. Individuals have brought cases but the failure of the Competition Authority to conduct a meaningful investigation is surprising despite numerous complaints and the evidence of such activity in other jurisdictions over two decades. Successive Governments have not had the will to pursue this.

The Competition Authority is independent in the performance of its functions but in the Competition Act 2002, there is provision under section 30 for a Minister to order the authority to investigate a particular sector. It is my understanding the Competition Authority has very limited resources and has made the decision that it does not have resources to take this on based on the evidence that has been presented to it. I drove around this quarry in Blessington and the owners pointed out to me machinery that was idle and trucks that were being sold one by one to keep staff on. I spoke to them this morning and they told me that on Friday they had to lay off another four staff. Day by day and week by week, this is bleeding the country dry, so I urge the Minister to look at the executive authority he has under the Act.

There are two parts of the Bill that I particularly welcome. I welcome the breaking of the dependency on the main contractor being paid. That is very important in addressing a serious power imbalance in the sector. I also welcome the affordable process contractors and subcontractors can take so they do not have to risk money they do not have to go to the courts.

I urge the Government to keep focusing on this and to look at bringing in comparable social welfare protection for the entrepreneurs and small business people who really do take risks, putting their houses and savings on the line to create jobs. It must also ensure the Competition Authority has sufficient resources to investigate these serious allegations. The Minister is aware that the business rates being charged are killing small businesses. He should also take another look at upward-only rent reviews.

See this speech in context