Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

I am glad to be able to speak on this Bill, and in particular I am glad that a Bill which was drafted by an Independent Senator has seen the light of day in this House. I commend Senator Feargal Quinn for his work on this Bill and I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, on taking the Bill forward. I look forward to the Government taking on board more constructive and reforming Bills from the backbenches, irrespective of which or any party they come from.

I have been raising this matter on the Order of Business for some time. I am concerned that this Bill may have come too late for too many small contractors, as Deputy Ellis has stated. The fault for that can only rest with the previous Government, as Senator Quinn's Bill was ready before it collapsed. Had measures such as this been in place before the property bubble burst, thousands of jobs would probably have been saved, which would have been most welcome.

I have been approached by several constituents who are owners of small businesses and who were victims of exactly the type of situation which this Bill seeks to prevent from occurring. The first time I was approached, I was absolutely staggered that a small contractor could be so ill treated by a major contractor. In the particular case of which I am thinking, the major contractor used any money he got to pay some of his own debts rather than pass on money that was due to the sub-contractor. Unfortunately, all I could say at that time was that the Government intended to bring forward this Bill. Sadly, it is too late for them, but it is very welcome that this Bill is before the Dáil.

I very much welcome the dispute resolution process in the Bill, which I believe has proved to be very effective in dealing with disputes in the UK. Any situation where courts can be kept out of the resolution of disputes is welcome. I hope people in the construction business would welcome a situation whereby they could avoid going to court. However, I agree with Deputy Wallace when he says the minimum level of a €200,000 contract to be covered under this Bill is too high. The Bill is designed to protect the small business person, who by definition has smaller contracts. I am sure the Government has some reason for having it so high, but I ask Minister to reconsider this issue.

Interestingly, section 2(1)(a) provides that if one of the contracting parties is a State entity, the minimum level will be €50,000. As Deputy Wallace said, however, there is a far greater danger to small contractors from other private contractors than from State entities. I certainly hope that is the case in any event. If a €50,000 minimum level is set for the State, then a €50,000 minimum level should be set for the entire industry. To do otherwise is just leaving the door open for smaller contractors to continue to be bullied by large private contractors and would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill. I welcome that the Minister of State acknowledged in his speech that the regulatory impact assessment has recommended that this provision be either removed or reviewed. I hope this can be examined again at a later stage, and Deputy Tom Hayes made this point.

Another point I wish to raise is the issue of including suppliers under the Bill. As the Minister of State mentioned it in his opening speech, I know this issue also arose under the regulatory impact assessment. The reality is that given the nature of the business of construction, the majority of supplies are bespoke. How can we seriously facilitate a situation where a supplier is expected to get a court order to have its materials returned? This would mean going onto a construction site and tearing out the plumbing or the windows. The Minister of State argued in his speech against including all suppliers by claiming that arrangements to include numerous suppliers could create an unduly onerous process which could create a barrier to entry for smaller enterprises. I believe suppliers to the construction industry should be entitled to the cover of this Bill, irrespective of whether the process is onerous.

See this speech in context