Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on the Bill. As the Minister of State is aware, this Bill was initially introduced in the Seanad by Senator Feargal Quinn and the Government at that time gave every support to him. We made the unusual decision - and a relatively unusual decision even in this Dáil - that the Government would support a Bill from an Independent Senator, giving help and access to the advice from the Attorney General, etc. in the development of the legislation.

I regret we are talking about this Bill now because I had hoped it would have been passed earlier last year. I understand there were many technical difficulties that had to be overcome and legal advice had to be sought. It shows nevertheless that there are difficulties in our system when it takes this long for legislation to get through. If there are issues that take a year to resolve while other parts of legislation can proceed quickly and have a significant impact, we are better to go ahead with the part that is ready. We could come back a year later with the difficult issues and make amendments to the primary legislation if necessary. That is in preference to holding up the entire process for a year while trying to get the issue absolutely right.

We must consider what we are talking about. To a certain extent in the context of this downturn, we are closing the stable door for many people after the horse has bolted. We know how the construction industry works. Even if we are talking about a State contract, the top contractor gets the payment. This is the party with whom the contract is signed. That contractor feeds down through a food chain of subcontractors and their subcontractors, etc. The money, in many cases, was not getting to various subcontractors down along the line, with the result that people who had run perfectly good businesses and paid all their creditors found they were not being paid. Such people would have been pushed out of business or survived with significant bad debts on their books. When those in the middle found they were not being paid, those dependent on them in turn also found they were not being paid. It is fair to say many went out of business not because of anything they did but because they had been trusting on payments.

This Bill is a significant step in the right direction. It is very important we protect the small operator at the end of the food chain. I know there was pressure, when my party was part of the Government, to have higher limits, but €40,000 or €50,000 is a significant sum for small operators. They must be protected from losing such amounts and it is an important provision in the Bill.

There are very ambitious timescales for adjudication, with which I agree, but we must ensure they are adhered to. There is a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and I am a great believer in it. In too many sectors we may be seeing inordinate delays while decisions should be made. If we look across Departments and even at organisations like the Ombudsman, we can see this happening. It is ironic that one of the roles of the Ombudsman is to deal with delays in the public service. It is legitimate to make a complaint to the Ombudsman because the administration of a process is delayed. Some of us could complain to the Ombudsman about the delay in the Ombudsman's office in making decisions recently. It seems that queue is getting longer, and I hope that phenomenon will not be repeated in this legislation.

Mention was made of An Bord Pleanála and the four month statutory objective in making decisions. There has been more of a breach than observance of that provision. I understand that if somebody is building a major piece of infrastructure, with much technical information, more than four months might be required for a decision. If an appeal relates to a single house, which should be fairly simple to resolve one way or the other, why does the process go over four months? I have seen that happen time and again. When in government I made a suggestion to some colleagues, which may not have been taken up but which I will make again. Perhaps this Minister of State will take it on board. We should amend the Act relating to An Bord Pleanála in order that all decisions would have to be taken within four months unless a specific time extension was given by the Minister. The Minister would have no say in the planning decision but he would have a say in permitting the extension of time, for which there must be a justification. If there was a complex development with a lot of EIS material, the Minister could give the extension but if An Bord Pleanála came back after four months seeking an extension for consideration of a simple one off house, the Minister could instruct it to make a decision.

I am convinced that if that was introduced, like in all deadlines situations, the number of extensions being sought from the Minister would be minimal because it would mean work for An Bord Pleanála and 90% of ordinary planning appeals would be decided within four months. Local authorities do it within eight weeks and, in most cases, they do a fine job in making planning decisions. I would argue their planning decisions are no more flawed in terms of county plans than those of An Bord Pleanála. I ask the Minister to consider this because this Government should look at every timeframe for decision making within our system. For so many people, no matter if it is an application for a social welfare benefit or something to do with the courts, the systems are gummed down completely by delay.

Construction has become a dirty word in Irish society. At times we go from one extreme to the other, we go from an extreme where we see an industry as being the answer to all problems to a point where we think that everything the industry does is wrong. We certainly had too much construction in this country, it was unsustainable, but at present we are at the other extreme. I am a great believer in the mathematical statement that to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction or, as I call it, "the bungee jump effect". We were way too high in the beginning but when the line tautened, it went too low. Eventually it will wind up somewhere in the middle. The sector is important in terms of employment because the unemployment figures are to a great degree made up of people who worked in the services and construction sectors. We must get construction back to the long-term sustainable level. I looked recently at house building numbers. For a long time we could build and needed 30,000 houses per year. The figure at the top of the boom of 90,000 was way too much. There are areas of the country, however, that will run short of houses in the near future. It is important we create a sustainable construction industry as quickly as possible.

It is important the industry is reformed and this is part of the reform process. There will now be an implicit contract between every contractor and subcontractor and the subcontractors will have certain rights no matter if the contract is verbal or written. There will be strict rules on when a contractor can withhold payment and he must give notice to ensure there can be no excuses for non-payment.

There is great talk about a major investment package. I hope it comes, I look forward to it. I hope President Hollande manages to get this investment package but we must have a debate on how we would spend €3 billion tomorrow. Would we spend it, as everyone says, on schools and hospitals, where there is a 100% State spend and once the money is spent there would be important social infrastructure but its effect in stimulating the economy would be limited? If, however, we invest by leveraging other money, the money becomes self-sustaining. A common phenomenon when I was a Minister was there would a list of investments but when they were added together, the Exchequer provided all the money. I calculate that if the State offers a 35% to 40% grant for any investment, and if the rest comes from private sources, not the State matching the State, financing becomes sustainable within its own terms. The 40% the State puts in will be returned in savings in social welfare, and in income from VAT, PRSI payments and income tax. Having spent the money, it has all come back and can be spent again. When it has been spent again and returned, it can be spent again. When we look at capital investment we must decide what will be the mix. Will it be 100% State spending? If so, the money is gone. Will we look at more constructive and innovative ways of investing money to ensure it does what it is meant to do - stimulate the economy to the maximum extent and create a return to the Exchequer.

One thing is certain; we need to invest. I have said again and again, and if one rubs a stone for long enough it becomes shiny, that an obvious area for investment is in the improvement of the thermal quality of our buildings. The last shock we suffered was a banking shock and the next shock could easily come in the form of hikes in energy prices. If we want to reduce our vulnerability to energy shocks, we must get ahead of the game and ensure all of our buildings have good thermal qualities. We must try to reduce this huge import bill for gas, oil and hydrocarbons in general that costs us so much. It is a huge drain on the economy and leaves us vulnerable to a sudden rise in the cost of hydrocarbons. I am convinced we have only scratched the surface of BER and investment. A 35% grant would be sufficient and should not be limited to the small cash amount the State is spending at present. It would be enough to get people to do the necessary work on their houses while we could also look at public buildings and commercial properties. The State would get 100% of its investment back through reductions in the numbers unemployed, lower social welfare payments and increased tax.

This is an important element. There are practices in the construction industry that had probably existed for a long time that must change dramatically. It is important we see this as one small step in reforming the sector and that we look at the entire industry to find out how we can have a good, efficient and high quality construction industry. It is something we need and a good employer that will deliver quality buildings. We must learn from the mistakes of the past and get ourselves into a better space.

We are often great at pointing out the mistakes, which is important.

There is no point, however, in pointing out mistakes if one is not going to do anything about them and ensure they are not repeated. There is a huge onus on the Government to continue with the reform started by the previous Government and Senator Quinn to deal with it.

I refer to the retention of title issue. Many suppliers of goods retain title in order that if they do not get paid, they still legally own the goods and can get them back. The cement industry has made strong representations in this regard. When cement is laid in a foundation, one cannot get it back. Whatever chance one might have of getting a window or door back or the tiles off a roof, there is no point in delivering the cement back to the manufacturer.

See this speech in context