Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Like other Members, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to this important legislation. I compliment the Minister of State on paying attention to the issue, bringing the Bill into the House and following up on the legislation initiated by Senator Feargal Quinn. Of course, I also compliment other Members of the two Houses who have an interest in this issue.

Sadly, the experience of the Celtic tiger years, to say the least, leaves many of us with mixed emotions. Lessons were learned, some them bitter. One of them was that, even before the squeeze, the fittest had set out to survive at all costs and squeezed those below them. That was particularly true in the construction sector. Once it was recognised that things were going to get tougher and tighter in terms of the availability of finance, there was a clear attempt by some to exclude subcontractors and leave them penniless. People in this country have been left destitute and forced into bankruptcy as a result of that type of scurrilous behaviour. It is high time that order was imposed and a common understanding restored that such behaviour will not be tolerated. This is one of many innovations required in the aftermath of the Celtic tiger to ensure we do not end up in the same place again, with people paying the ultimate price in the form of intolerable debt and the economic and social difficulties associated with that. Such ill effects can endure for many years.

This Bill reflects the particular nature of the construction sector and was considered the right way to go about addressing the difficulties that have arisen in that industry . However, its provisions could be applied to all types of contracts right across the board and will probably have a knock-on effect. The problem common to all contracts is how to address a situation where one party enters into it with all good intent but another party has no intention from the very beginning of honouring it. That possibility makes it extremely difficult for people to have trust in the whole system of contracts and to have any reassurance that they can expect a reasonable return on their entrepreneurial efforts. This legislation is testament to the fact that many people have fallen victim to that scenario. As I have stated in respect of every Bill that is brought before this House, legislation is fine so long as it is observed in the spirit and in the letter and provided it is enforced. Unfortunately, many legislative provisions and regulations were not observed or enforced during the construction boom. We are all paying for that now as we discover the extent to which the quality of work suffered as a result. This is where the contract applies to the consumer in that he or she is entitled to expect that the standards set out will be delivered. In other words, a contract should do what it says on the tin. Unfortunately, too often that was not the case during the economic boom we enjoyed or suffered, as the case may be. In so far as we are now seeing its effects in this and other sectors, it is certainly a question of suffering.

The Building Control Act 2007, useful as it was, did not address some of the issues that have emerged in the meantime. Many consumers entered into contracts to purchase property which ultimately proved to be structurally inferior and to have associated financial difficulties in that the contract did not offer adequate protection to the purchaser. The State has a duty of care to ensure contracts entered into, under whatever aegis and whether in the public or private sector, adhere to prescribed quality standards. Those who provide a service to the required standard are entitled to be paid for it and those purchasing that service are entitled to a certain quality of service, whether in regard to a house, bridge, road or whatever. During the Celtic tiger, however, a type of attitude developed that can be summed up in the phrase: "Sure, won't it do?" Priory Hall is the most notable example of developments in respect of which the quality of work would not stand up to scrutiny. Such failures to deliver the required quality standard amount to a breach of contract. Somebody always ends up paying for that and, unfortunately, in most cases, it is those at the end of the line who do so. That is not a reference to a particular socioeconomic status. Regardless of a person's wealth or poverty, he or she is entitled to an expectation that a contract will be delivered in accordance with the specified quality standards. We are all entitled to expert a fair return and delivery. In recent years, however, consumers seem to have been somehow persuaded to expect a watered down version of their rights and to accept, moreover, that those rights should only be applicable and available to those who have sufficient influence and resources to pursue them. That is not how it should be.

What we are dealing with is the notion that no matter what, irrespective of developments, issues and outcomes, the main contractor will get paid and, if needs be, the unfortunate subcontractor can go whistle. This is a serious breach of the law of procedures and practices. Deputy Mattie McGrath referred to the quality of work and the quality of inputs. I recall an incident some years ago where a clerk of works indicated to a local authority that the materials being supplied by a serious player in the construction business for a particular building project were inadequate. This was reported to the engineer who, without any ado, ordered that the materials be tested. The clerks' suspicions were proved correct, the contract was suspended and the work had to be done all over again. That is a simple procedure which worked perfectly well 25 years ago. There was no difficulty with accountability and no confusion as to what should be done in that situation. Clerks of works knew what they were supposed to do, their superiors in turn knew what they were entitled to do and, by so doing, were able to protect consumers in an effective way and ultimately protect the taxpayer.

This is relevant in the context of the legislation before us and in seeking to cope with the bitter reaping of the whirlwind of the boom era that has taken place in recent years and will continue to play out for several years to come. The bottom line is that a simple expedient to all of these ills would have been to apply the old-fashioned rules instead of tolerating shortcuts, cutting of corners and little chats which involved persuading people to agree to things that were not in order. The rules should simply have been applied as they were intended to be applied. If that had been done, we would not have been necessary to introduce these provisions.

See this speech in context