David Norris (Independent)

Senator O'Malley has raised a significant point. This is a question of indebtedness and people who have provided materials or services losing money. There was a very interesting television programme on this precise point. A number of people who had incurred losses were interviewed. The principal person who contacted Senator Quinn to discuss this matter, which interaction led to the Bill, was certainly involved in the programme, but so also were those who had provided goods in addition to services.

I know what is involved from having been involved in businesses in Temple Bar. On one occasion, we had to install air conditioning. Air conditioning units are enormously expensive and can cost from €20,000 to €100,000 depending on the complexity and scale of the building in which they are to be installed. This matter really needs to be considered.

The political question concerns whether, by considering these matters now, we will hold the Bill back from a possible speedy passage that would rescue certain people in difficulty or people who are about to get into difficulty. Will the Bill be delayed by the Government in the other House? Perhaps we could have an indication of the attitude of the incoming Government towards this Bill and whether it will be regarded as a priority. These are decisions we have got to make.

Senator Quinn makes the valid point that this legislation is not perfect, but very little in this life is perfect. It may be as well to opt for legislation that does not cover every situation. That entails a political judgment and we should know the timescale if the corrections proposed are to be made. We need to know the attitude of the incoming Government thereto before these decisions are made.

I would feel a little aggrieved if I were the supplier of goods of very significant value, whose value had been added to the payment made to somebody. It would be wrong if one were allowed to hang onto the value that the supply of my goods or materials had contributed. Those concerned would have been paid for me and, therefore, should pass the value down the chain. That is the principle of the Bill. It is a good principle and it should be extended. I am not certain why there should be a specific exclusion. Not including a provision is one matter but specifically excluding it is another. I have not heard sufficient argument to justify a specific exclusion. Perhaps not including a measure is one argument. Senator Quinn has been closer to this matter than I have been and he has dealt with it in a most detailed and interesting way. Perhaps he will return to some of these questions in a subsequent contribution.