Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 15 June 2021

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation

General Scheme of the Companies (Small Company Administrative Rescue Process) Bill 2021: Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment

Photo of Damien EnglishDamien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Shanahan. There are two issues. Leasing, I believe, is dealt with under head 48 in relation to contracts. There is a process to have a conversation with the landlord. There are two issues. Separate from this legislation, we have had an ongoing conversation with the business community on potential legacy debts from rent and arrears. Since the start of the pandemic, the Government, through the Minister for Finance, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, and many others have requested that all landlords and others involved in leasing, be they institutional landlords or private landlords, engage with their tenants to try to find a way through this. We have put in place a voluntary code of conduct to try to enable this process. It has been of assistance in many cases. My Department is doing work on this in conjunction with the Department of Finance to determine whether we need to assist more. An arbitration model that has worked well in other countries is being suggested by some but, in the majority of leasing contracts here, an arbitration process is already identified. Therefore, we are not convinced about what the State could add to the process.

Under the process in the proposed legislation, there is an opportunity for the process adviser to work with all creditors, engage and put in place a rescue plan, which would involve dealing with rents, leases and ongoing costs. There is an opportunity to repudiate contracts and to try to deal with this issue. What the Deputy is talking about is a rescue plan in this regard. As he knows, various supports have been provided by the State on behalf of the taxpayer to the businesses in question. We did not stipulate which costs or bills businesses would pay. That is a decision every business has to make for itself. In most cases of which we are aware, people have sat down with all their providers of services, including in respect of properties, and worked out a payment plan. That is what we would encourage in this regard. Those conversations have gone on. Admittedly, there are still some cases that are not dealt with. Naturally, we do not want legacy debts to drag a business down. We will continue to engage and work on this.

The supports announced under the economic recovery plan will assist businesses with their ongoing costs, certainly their wage costs. The Covid restrictions support scheme, CRSS, is continuing. The new business resumption support scheme, BRSS, payment, to be introduced in September, will assist companies that have still not reached a turnover allowing them to pay their bills. The small business assistance scheme for Covid, SBASC, is in operation and there are various other arrangements. I accept they are not all sufficient to replace lost turnover and profits but they are certainly of assistance in paying some of the bills.

With regard to Revenue, warehousing was mentioned specifically. As the Deputy knows, the option to warehouse debts in this regard was extended beyond August of this year until the end of this year. For all of 2022, there will be no interest charged on the warehouse debt but the charge will kick in thereafter, in 2023. Therefore, one has a full 12 months, after which Revenue will engage on plans for repayment over a suitable period. Revenue has been asked to engage in a pro-business manner. It is engaging in this way and has responded quite well over the past year.

With regard to this legislation, both the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection are excludable in respect of the start of this process. In most cases, the Revenue Commissioners have engaged in the examinership process and have been supportive of plans but in some cases, based on historical dealings with a company or some of its directors, they may opt not to do so to protect the State. That is their job. In general, however, the Revenue Commissioners have been quite supportive of the process. Our indications are that they and the Department of Social Protection will continue to be supportive under the legislation under discussion.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.