Dáil debates

Wednesday, 10 June 2009

Small Claims (Protection of Small Businesses) Bill 2009: Second Stage

 

6:00 am

Photo of Michael D'ArcyMichael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael)

Like Deputy Varadkar, I welcome the Government's support in principle for this Bill. Too many Private Members' Bills have been voted down for the sake of politics. This legislation will greatly benefit businesses. I have long noted that the Cabinet is lacking people with backgrounds in business. It has been decades since Ministers have pulled a pint, sold a newspaper, milked a cow, ran an office or traded in any form. They do not understand what it means to be a sole trader or to go for weeks without receiving payment while having to pay wages and rates.

Deputy Varadkar spoke about the Government's commitment to paying bills within 15 days. This is the first opportunity I have had in the House to raise an issue involving a State contract for a school building project on which payment remains outstanding. The company which won the tender gave part of the work to a subcontractor that subsequently went out of business. When a State contract is awarded, people should be paid. As the service has been provided, the State is liable for payment. It is unfair of the State to claim it is a matter for another Department or the subcontractor. I have put down several parliamentary questions on this matter. If the State asks somebody to construct a building, it should pay for the work.

It is important that businesses are paid because the banks are closed to them in terms of cashflow and overdrafts. I have been approached by a number of good businesses which have found that their overdraft facilities have been reduced to 10% of their original limits of €15,000 or €20,000. That is destroying businesses and putting people out of work. Not only are they out of work but they are seeking social welfare benefits and not contributing to taxation. They are dominos being removed from the chain and when removed, it is very difficult to get them back into employment when they will be of benefit to the State rather than costing it moneys in unemployment benefits.

Small and medium enterprises are a huge cog in employment provision in the State. I agree that ISME should be considered a pillar of partnership. IBEC no longer represents small businesses; it represents enormous State companies such as the ESB and private companies such as Google. It does not represent small employers such as small book shops and newsagents who provide hundreds of thousands of jobs that are vital to the economy. We must get them involved in partnership.

We must stop enacting legislation that impacts on jobs. This time last year we wrapped up the debate on the Intoxicating Liquor Act. When it was being discussed, nightclub owners said that if it was passed, they would close. In recent days we heard that Reynard's - not a place I frequent - would close. They told Members of the House that if we passed the Bill, they would go out of business. The Bill was passed and while it has made no difference to the impact of excessive drinking, we have put people out of business. For too long I have been stating we cannot ignore what businesses say to us. Yes, they are vested interests but on this occasion they have been proved correct. We cannot continue to ignore the likes of nightclub owners who stated that if we acted in a certain way, they would go out of business. There are more people unemployed and more families being impacted upon.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.