Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I thank those who prepared the Bill, Senator Feargal Quinn, who is here today, and Mr. Seán Gallagher, who provided much of the expertise behind it. While it is important legislation, much more needs to be done in the construction sector. However, that should not stop us from doing things that could have a fairly immediate effect. I would like to see much more comprehensive legislation that puts the consumer centre stage similar to the licensing system in parts of Australia, including New South Wales, which I will deal with later.

Many of us know of people who ran successful businesses, in many cases for decades, including family businesses transferred from one generation to the next, but are struggling to stay in business or have had to close a business because somebody else higher in the food chain did not pay them. Many jobs have been lost in this way. They go under the radar because they are in ones and twos or over a protracted period of time. They are under appalling pressure because they have taken out guarantees to pay suppliers and they may owe the Revenue, which is intolerable.

Obviously the Bill cannot apply retrospectively but we need to learn from our mistakes. Many of the people involved do not have recourse to the law because it is either too slow or too expensive. While this Bill is aimed at the construction sector such practices are not confined to the construction sector. However, in recent years with the downturn in fortunes of that sector, examples are all around us. One could understand that the limits might be different for a tradesperson whose labour is being paid for. However, the threshold needs to reflect that suppliers may have a number of customers who did not pay and I believe €10,000 is a more realistic level to keep these businesses afloat. While the definitions in the Bill appear to be wide they could be expanded upon in Committee Stage to address anything that is excluded at that level.

Clearly those who have already taken a hit it will not get comfort from this. However, at least they will have the knowledge that some lessons have been learned. We need to become more proactive. While the Bill will form the legal basis for enforcing payments given that the Government has accepted it, I would like to hear from the Minister how it is intended to apply in practice. Who will have responsibility for the day-to-day enforcement? We need to understand the practicalities of implementing the Bill's provisions, given that it is not the courts' role in the first instance.

Like other all walks of life main contractors come in the "can't pay", "can't pay in full" and "won't pay" categories. During the boom years subcontractors and suppliers could avoid those with the worst reputations. However, as that will not be the case in the years to come, exploitation of those is possible as we ramp up the industry. It is really important at this stage that we put some protections in place. Withholding retentions has been commonplace as has been the employment of tradespeople on C2 contracts. Many of those tradespeople did not have the option of working directly for a main contractor or subcontractor, but were self-employed. They found themselves earning a considerable amount of money for a short period of time and then suffering the consequence of not having any kind of social protection when the downturn came. Redundancy payments and social protection payments need to be dealt with for these tradespeople.

Of course this legislation needs to be linked to the proposed bankruptcy legislation, which sadly has been postponed. We are constantly told about the need for confidence which will not be possible unless there is certainty. While we often talk about that in a European context, it is deplorable that where we can put some confidence into the system by introducing that legislation we are delaying doing so. That legislation is complementary to the Bill we are discussing.

Currently those who were first into the courts to seek a judgment have an unfair advantage over those who do not have the funds to go to court. Fair allocation of what is left when a business winds up needs to come into this equation. That may end up saving some small businesses at the expense, for example, of some money that is owed to the banks. It will allow them to be there and regrow their businesses when the industry ramps up.

One of my suggestions to the pyrite panel was that we embrace the Australian system of licensing contractors. I understand that may well be one of the recommendations coming from that panel and I hope that is the case because it would fundamentally change things. Currently a person with access to a set of tools can validly call himself or herself a contractor. Developers need only have access to funds to call themselves developers. They do not need one day's experience in constructing anything to call themselves contractors. There is no penalty if they have left a trail of destruction, as many have done, often leaving it to individuals or the State to pick up the pieces.

Legally, local authorities can refuse planning permission where there have been failures in the past. However, all the building contractor has to do is to move to a different county and start developing there because there is no national register. Local authorities do not pass information to each other as to who the offenders are. I suspect County Kildare is no different from anywhere else in the country in terms of the construction sector. However, given that its population grew threefold in three decades, we have considerable experience with that sector.

It is about the good, the mediocre, the bad and the ugly. The good are those who get planning permission, build according to that permission, complete the estate and seek to have it taken in charge by the council. They pay their subcontractors and their suppliers. They are the ones we do not notice. They are the compliant ones, the ones we want to keep in the industry. They are the ones to whom we should give advantage. They take pride in what they do and use the work they do to enhance their reputation. A licensing system is not necessary for them, but it gives them an advantage which is that in a fair trade situation they are the cream of the crop and the ones who do not comply are weeded out.

The next group are the mediocre and the bad. They are the ones who start with the best of intentions but need to be badgered to ensure that what is built meets the expectations of those who purchase. They are the ones who do not finish the road surface, landscaping or public elements of the estate. Often there is a glossy brochure with a vision. People bought into that vision and paid for it. However, several aspects of the finished product end up falling short. A licensing system would improve the standards and add to the consumer protection. It would also make it much easier for local authorities which are trying to badger them into compliance. It is wrong that the public purse is paying for this, as the industry should do so. Licensing is one way to ensure the industry itself enforces regulations.

See this speech in context