Dan Boyle (Green Party)

I welcome this legislation which, in the context of the constraints that exist with regard to the drafting of Private Members' Bills, especially those relating to matters of finance and the imposition of possible costs on the State, is well put together. In that context, what I am stating may address one of the difficulties outlined by Senator Alex White. The Government amendment makes provision for a five-month period of reflection in order that some of those difficulties might be addressed.

One of the groups which tends not to be discussed in the aftermath of the property boom - or property binge as it has been called - is that which comprises subcontractors who have found themselves well down the food chain in respect of the many developments where work has ceased. Many of those to whom I refer are self-employed, do not operate within company structures, do not pay social insurance and cannot claim unemployment benefit, which places them in a particularly invidious position. This highlights the need for legislation in this area. Senator Quinn must be acknowledged for presenting such legislation to the House.

There was an unacceptable practice whereby many building companies used the companies legislation in an extremely reckless way. These companies regularly went into receivership and liquidation to avoid the payment of debts. I recall, as a then member of Cork City Council, being presented with a monthly list of housing estates across the city which remained unfinished and the contractors who were responsible for these developments. On one occasion, I noted that one such estate development had been undertaken by a developer known as O'Sullivan Builders and that the next such development had been undertaken by Navillus Builders. Of course, the name "Navillus" is "Sullivan" spelled backwards. It was obvious the contractor involved had established one company, put it out of business, established the second and also put it out of business.

There are many victims in this area and legislation has either been entirely absent or far too loose in its interpretation to make provision for subcontracted work - in respect of which local government picks up the tab - and consumers. Certain of the latter who were involved in staged payment arrangements found themselves in limbo as a result of the inadequacies of the legislation. Senator Coghlan introduced Private Members' legislation in respect of such arrangements which were, at one time, extremely prevalent in the Cork-Kerry region. Thankfully, the practice of making staged payments is no longer particularly prevalent. The debate on this Bill has highlighted the position from which we have come and the type of legal constraints which must be put in place to avoid a recurrence of the type of situations to which I refer.

I agree with Senator Alex White that we need to look beyond the confines of the Bill and ask what type of social protection we can provide to people involved in this area. Such protection is not on offer at present. In that context, there is a need for a wider debate on the issue of prompt payments. I may be arguing against the intent behind the Bill but the legislation governing such payments that is already in place is relatively strong. We must consider the fact that the 30-day rule that applies does not appear to be adhered to or enforced and that agencies of the State find it difficult to operate within the confines of the legislation to which I refer. As a result, we are in extremely difficult territory. A level of certainty must be provided in respect of individuals, small-scale contractors and subcontractors. The current environment in the area of construction does not allow for such certainty, nor is it underpinned in the context of the provision of protection by the legislation.

I welcome the debate on the Bill. The Minister of State's response to it was sufficiently guarded, especially in the context of the fact that provisions may have to be added and other areas may have to be considered. There is a commitment on the Government's part that this legislation, which will remain on the Order Paper, should be addressed in the wider context to which I refer, strengthened and eventually placed on the Statute Book.

On those grounds, I warmly welcome the Bill. I am encouraged that the Government amendment will allow us to return to deal with the legislation very soon. I am confident that legislative effect will be given to the principles contemplated in it within the shortest possible period.