Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I thank the Minister of State for his comments. It does not seem like tautology for me to say his contribution and the others we heard have been very constructive - a good word to use on the Construction Contracts Bill. I have been very impressed by the contributions and found them useful. Senator Boyle said there is a need for this Bill and I believe there is.

The Minister of State said his comments were not intended as a criticism and I understand that. He also said he was sympathetic to the aims of the Bill. Everybody who spoke has been sympathetic to it. Senator MacSharry said he did not disagree with any of it, but felt some additions would benefit the Bill and make it more effective. I accept improvements can be made to any legislation and I hope this legislation will be improved. Senator Alex White said the problem was not confined to the construction industry. However, it is pertinent to the construction industry. In any other business, if someone sells somebody something and payment is not made, the person can go and repossess the item. However, that cannot be done if a person has supplied piping or wiring that has already been embedded in the product. Senator White also spoke about the adjudication and dispute resolution and Senator O'Toole mentioned the experience in France. Senators Norris and MacSharry spoke about the British experience of adjudication, where there have been 18,000 cases, only 300 of which ended up in court. What a success that is. We can do more in that regard.

One of the difficulties I had with introducing this Bill was the concern that it would create more red tape for Irish business and industry. More red tape inhibits entrepreneurship, which is something on which we will have to rely to a large extent in the future. Hopefully, this will not happen. I was impressed by Senator Corrigan's contribution. She suggested that when people buy a house, the house should have a clean bill of health and should come with some sort of bond that would guarantee all bills had been paid, including construction bills. We should look at that issue.

I have a concern with regard to the five-month period mentioned by the Minister of State. I have introduced two Bills in the past, one of which was accepted, the passports for sale Bill. The Minister at the time, not unlike today, said he could not vote against it because he could not disagree with anything in it. The Bill was not amended, but the Minister later introduced his own Bill and improved on mine. I would like to think this Bill will be retained and that a new one will not be created. Another concern relates to the second Bill I introduced, which had to do with presumed consent for organ transplants. The Minister said at the time that he thought he agreed with most of it, but would like to consult on it. That was in September 2008, which is the reason for my concern. I have found that the difference between my experience in business and in the public sector is the lack of urgency. I am concerned by the lack of urgency. I am concerned that the period of time between now and 19 October could develop into a talking shop.

I urge the Minister of State to ensure that does not happen. The Bill should not become a discussion issue but become something that will achieve what we set out to do. I understand that Committee Stage for this Bill will take place on Tuesday, 19 October. I want to ensure this House holds to that. I understand that is the case and hope it happens. In the meantime, the Department officials will consult with the various bodies. I know that consultation will include the Construction Industry Federation, which has 37 separate association members. The federation has been very helpful to me in drawing up this Bill. Mr. Patrick McGovern of Arthur Cox and company has also helped me a great deal and so too has my assistant Anne O Broin. I mentioned earlier that Seán Gallagher initiated this idea and had the experience to contact us to suggest it should be done.

I appreciate the efforts of all of those who have been involved in this work. I particularly appreciate the involvement and contributions of Members here. I appreciate their input and the thought put into their contributions with the clear aim of improving the Bill. The Bill can and will be improved over the next few months. We need to keep up the sense of urgency because the Bill will not be retrospective. We will not be able to go back and do anything about anything that goes wrong during the next five months waiting period. The Bill will only apply in the future. Therefore, let us ensure we do not delay it. I am happy to accept the amendment and appreciate the work that has been put into the debate.