Deputy Michael McDowell had concluded his contribution. As no Member is offering, I ask the Minister to reply.
Prompt Payment of Accounts Bill, 1997: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate on this important legislation. It is appropriate that we devote most of our time to Committee Stage so I will be brief in my response to the issues raised on Second Stage.
Deputy O'Rourke asked if it was correct to proceed with this Bill rather than with her Bill. I accept her concern about this legislation. I examined her Bill to see if it would be more effective and speedy to conduct the detailed amendment it required to convert it into workable legislation or proceed with the drafting of this Bill, which had already been put in train when the Deputy introduced her Bill. I decided it would be preferable to proceed with a Bill, the heads of which were already drafted, than to accept a Bill which would have required far-reaching amendment.
The cost of the Goodbody's survey was just over £20,000. It is a very important survey because we had no information previously on payment experience in the public sector. The only previous survey was carried out by the Society of Chartered Surveyors. This was a very small survey dealing with only 11 companies, and the payment period it turned up was untypical of payment periods in the sector generally.
I am pleased to assure the Deputy that I have tabled amendments to provide that Telecom Éireann, Bus Éireann and Aer Lingus will be treated in the same way as any other body.
The Deputy raised the possibility of using the Ombudsman as a vehicle for dealing with issues under this Bill. I considered this but have been wholly persuaded by the arguments advanced, by the Ombudsman among others, that it would be quite inappropriate to deal with this prompt payments legislation, which deals with commercial relations, through the Ombudsman service. There are a number of reasons, technical as well as otherwise, for not using the Ombudsman service. Essentially it would involve the Ombudsman in commercial contract disputes, interpretation of terms of contract and issues of private law which are matters for the courts or special arbitration procedures and not for the Ombudsman who deals with the way in which members of the public are dealt with. The Ombudsman also makes recommendations rather than binding arbitration as required in this area. There are other reasons which the Ombudsman outlined and which I articulated in response to the Private Members' Bill, including the fact that it would not be in the interests of the long-term development of the Ombudsman to move into the commercial area. I am satisfied that the alternative vehicle we have provided whereby the supplier can go to arbitration at his own discretion is a satisfactory way to deal with this problem.
Deputy McDowell raised the possibility of spurious querying of invoicing to interfere with the workings of this Bill. However, if this is not done within ten days the clock goes back. Therefore, the concern on that front is not valid.
Deputy McDowell also suggested that the Bill might apply to goods after the passing of the Act rather than after the commencement of the Act, but this would not be workable in practice. It would be unfair to impose interest penalties and other provisions of the Bill in relation to transactions taking place during the preparatory period. It is sensible to indicate a commencement date as we are doing in this Bill and ensure that public bodies are prepared for that.
Deputy McDowell also raised the issue of whether there should be positive affirmation in the House of, for example, changes in the Schedule or the list of bodies. That would not be practical. There will be a need to delete or add bodies to the list from time to time and it would not be practical to have to look for time in the House on every occasion. I have included a safeguard against ill-conceived removal of bodies by requiring the Minister to specify in the order the reasons for any such deletion. Deputy McDowell also raised questions surrounding the taxability of interest under the Bill. I am satisfied with the existing provisions and do not propose to make taxation proposals in the Bill.
I thank Deputies for their contributions on Second Stage. I am sure better use of the House's time would be made by proceeding to Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.