Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

I thank my colleagues in Fine Gael for the strong support they have given to this Bill. I thank the Labour Party Members for their support also.

The purpose of the Bill is twofold: first, to raise the threshold for the Small Claims Court procedure to €3,000; and, second, to allow small businesses to use the procedure. The particular beneficiaries in that regard would be professional sole traders, tradesmen and people who are not getting paid for the services they provide and the goods they sell. The Bill is further evidence of Fine Gael's strength as a pro-enterprise party and one that recognises that jobs will not be created by some Government scheme. Jobs are created by business and by enterprise.

We have heard many statements and had many publications from the Government in recent years about the green economy, the smart economy and the knowledge economy. There is much merit in the documents put forward but we must not forget the real economy and the businesses already in existence, operating and in trouble. If we help these, make them competitive again and reduce their costs it is the best way to sustain jobs and promote future jobs growth. Not everyone can have a PhD or work on a wind farm. We must not forget the sizable economy already in existence which must be supported.

The Government proposes that we postpone the Second Reading for six months. Often the House is accused of engaging in a Punch and Judy show, but I respect that on this occasion the Government has attempted to meet us part of the way. Among the reasons given for the delay, I find one difficult to accept, that is, the matter of raising the threshold. This can be done immediately, but I accept that it can also be done by statutory instrument and I encourage the Government to do so.

Following advice from the Attorney General, the Government will find that it will require primary legislation, that it will not simply be able to change the rules of the court by statutory instrument, that if it is to give a limited company the power to use this procedure, primary legislation will be required. I trust the Government will receive the appropriate advice from the Attorney General as soon as possible.

In terms of changing the ethos of the Small Claims Court I understand the Minister of State's position, but this is not necessarily about consumers versus small business versus big business. This concerns on the one hand people, businesses and sole traders who pay their bills, and on the other, consumers, small businesses, large businesses and Government agencies which do not. That is the dichotomy which must be examined. We wish to support consumers who have been ripped off or discommoded, companies to which money is owed and professionals and sole traders to whom money is owed. The fact that it is a case of a business versus a consumer or a small business against a large business is not really relevant. This is about allowing people and companies which are owed money to receive what they are due for work done and services provided without having to go through an expensive court process.

In many ways I would have preferred to bring the matter to a vote tonight but inevitably, given the breakdown of the House, it would have been defeated. I am prepared to take the Government at its word and to accept the proposed Government amendment. I fully expect, having taken the Government at its word, that we will see the Bill on Committee Stage in six months time or, alternatively, to vote on corresponding Government legislation should it be introduced in the mean time.

See this speech in context