Dáil debates

Wednesday, 21 October 2009

Government Charges on Businesses: Motion

 

7:00 pm

Photo of Mattie McGrathMattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

I support the Government amendment. As other speakers have said, it is all about restoring our competitiveness. It is important that we remain competitive and return to where we used to be. I acknowledge the measures taken by the Government to help enterprises, especially in the SME sector. We are currently acting at too slow a pace and I urge the Minister and his colleagues to do more to speed up the process. Access to funds is a major problem for small businesses. I know many small business owners - indeed, I am one myself. They are the backbone of our communities and provide great employment. Many were set up in other recessionary times.

It behoves all of us to ensure that our banking system, especially the banks which have been subject to our so-called bailout - I will call it support - release funds to these businesses because they are clearly not doing so. Business people need overdrafts to survive. I know of a couple of cases in which people were expecting cheques and had themselves written cheques to other suppliers and service providers, but when they received the cheques and lodged them to their banks, instead of going into their current accounts, the money was put in against their overdrafts. This is not acceptable and it must change.

We all understand that local authorities cannot survive without funding, and they probably should receive better funding than they do currently. However, I recently took the unusual step of writing to the county and town managers to ask them to consider a moratorium on rates. It is not that ratepayers do not want to pay; they have always paid and will pay again. However, they are so hard-pressed at the moment, with so little business, that they need a moratorium not so that they do not have to pay the rates, but to give them some space. That is badly needed. I am also concerned about some of the other charges, such as water charges and planning fees. We will need to consider this and be reasonable about payments, perhaps by spreading them over a period or providing a flexible system of payment.

We are badly served in the area of energy costs. While the ESB provided a good service for many years, it is now a monopoly, especially in the provision of services and lights to local authorities. We must open this up to competition. It is not good enough for the ESB to charge what it likes and give an appalling service, which it does, and sometimes no service. This issue must be addressed. I also ask local authorities to encourage their staff to take simple measures to cut down on energy costs, such as switching off equipment, lights and so on.

There is a range of other costs, such as labour costs. I too condemn the board of AIB for granting pay rises to some of its staff. The debate on NAMA that will take place tomorrow and next week is timely. AIB is giving two fingers to those of us who are trying to drive down costs. I am not criticising the bank officials at the desks, who are doing a good job under tough conditions and are getting a lot of stick from a frustrated public, but this contractual arrangement flies in the face of what we need to achieve.

There is a whole plethora of quangos, from that which implements HACCP to the National Employment Rights Authority to those dealing with health and safety, and back to the Revenue Commissioners and the sheriffs, which are now operating. This is akin to State terrorism. It is terrorising small business people who want to pay their money. They have always paid their bills and intend to pay them, but they need space and to be treated kindly and sensitively. This must be taken into account by our public service and those who are in positions of trust. They are respected, but people are frightened and intimidated by them and this is not acceptable.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.