Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

I support this Bill but I believe its provisions should not be confined to the construction sector. If one talks to anyone in business, they will say their recurring problem is how difficult it is to get paid. There is a culture around that which makes it a problem in keeping businesses viable. There are elements of this Bill which need to be amended such as the thresholds. However, there are also other ways of doing things in the construction sector.

When I was elected to Kildare County Council in the 1990s, I spent most of my time picking up the pieces after the crash of the 1980s. We need to do things differently if we are to avoid repeating the same problems. Systems need to be put in place to reward good behaviour. There are some good developers in the construction sector but there are some awful ones too. We need to put systems in place that make it difficult for them to function. In 1989 Australia adopted housing legislation which introduced a licensing system for building and development, a move I favour. For example, there is a small contract for any work under AUS$5,000 and a full contract for any work over AUS$5,000. The system ensures any construction company applying for a tender must show warranties. If a construction company is pursued in the courts for non-payment, its licence could be withdrawn in addition to fines and penalties. This system makes the consumer the king.

Under the current system here, one has more consumer protection if one buys a table and chairs than if one buys a house. We do not need to re-invent the wheel but look at best practice in other countries. In Ireland all one needs is the money to start up a construction company. We have seen the likes of Priory Hall where it is individuals or the public purse which has to deal with the aftermath. We need to start learning lessons from that. It would be well worthwhile if the Minister examined Australia's 1989 Home Building Act. It provides a cooling-off period for the company offered a tender. The contractor cannot subcontract work or function unless it has a licence. I use New South Wales as an example but if a company is building in Germany, there must be several elements in place before it is permitted to build.

There are a range of issues that could be considered. The Australian model is not the only example but it is pitched under the department responsible for fair trade. This matter is about fair trade and giving people who operate as they should be in business - or their competitors and partners - a fair chance. The Australians have a complete department dealing with these issues in areas other than and including the construction sector.

It has recently been brought to my attention by several people that there has been a re-emergence of directors who may have gone out of business. This happened in the 1990s as well. Such people return to business to trade, having made people redundant, in what is almost a seamless process. I am concerned the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement does not have the capacity to keep up to speed with this, and the area should be examined if we are to reward good behaviour. I do not believe we legislate for liquidators or those who can carry out that work, for example, and that should also be examined. I do not know if one can get a friendly liquidator or if these people require a particular skill set.

How we do business matters to the people we are talking about today who are down the food chain. They do not have the wherewithal to end up in court getting the kind of judgments that big creditors can get. There is more of a need for us to ensure such people are protected. After all, they are almost exclusively indigenous small firms and they only have to be bitten once or twice before they go out of business.

I am supportive of the legislation, although the limits are too high. It makes sense to change the arrangements if somebody is affected by an issue more than once. It makes sense to change such provisions as we want workable legislation. This is not the only legislation required, especially with regard to the construction sector, and we must change how things are done. Otherwise, the same group of people will re-emerge the whole time, and these are not necessarily the best people to have in the sector. We must reward good behaviour, as there are good developers out there who pay their contractors. One cannot label an entire sector in a negative way but there is a cohort within the construction sector who must be regulated.

See this speech in context