Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 8, to delete lines 13 to 19 and substitute the following:

"6.—A credit guarantee scheme shall be debated by both Houses of the Oireachtas prior to sanction by the Minister.".

We are basically dealing with an enabling Bill which provides that the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, introduce a scheme whereby the system will operate. When the scheme is ready, there is provision in the Bill so that it will be published and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. I presume that will be in the Library. If a motion annulling the scheme is not introduced within 21 days, the scheme takes effect.

The scheme is the very basis of how the system will operate. This is a very important scheme. It enables businesses that are starved of credit to access credit and to help get the economy going. We have a situation in this country where the banks have been literally stuffed with capital - the Minister for Finance admitted this - not because they are venerable institutions or because we want to preserve them for their own sake, but to enable them to lend into the business community so we can get growth and employment going again in Ireland. The banks have not adhered to their side of the bargain. By and large, lending from the established banking system to small businesses has been abysmal. The Minister of State need not take my word for that. As recently as three days ago, the CEO of the Credit Review Office essentially confirmed that.

The scheme, which this Bill enables the Minister to introduce, is all important. It will contain all the fundamental details that people are asking us about in our clinics, such as the kind of businesses that will be covered and the position on personal guarantees. If lending is 75% guaranteed by the State, will the lender still be entitled to ask for a personal guarantee? What about the situation concerning the private residence of the person from whom that personal guarantee is extracted? These are pretty fundamental details which should be debated by both Houses or at a minimum, be debated in the separate committee on enterprise. I am sure this will be done, but it would provide a good signal if it was written into the legislation that it shall be done. These are the questions people are asking.

Even though it is only an enabling Bill, it has been a very long time in gestation. This scheme has been promised on numerous occasions for the past 15 or 16 months. I appreciate that at the time of the change of Government, insufficient work had been done in the Department. Judging from the Department brief that was handed to me, some work had been done on looking at such a scheme, but the work was in its infancy. I appreciate that it takes some time, but we are 15 months down the road and we only have the enabling Bill. It only provides that the Minister may make the scheme. There are only some general provisions in the Bill.

I put down an amendment to ensure the scheme would be in place within 60 days of the passage of this Bill through both Houses. It was deemed to be out of order because allegedly it was a charge on the Exchequer. I have racked what is left of my brain to see how this could possibly be a charge on the Exchequer. I know this is not the responsibility of the Minister as it is the responsibility of the Bills Office, so I hope they are listening. The only way what is proposed could represent a charge on the Exchequer would be if the scheme were not to come into operation within 60 days of the passage of the Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas. Is the Government really saying to people who have been crying out for credit, who are hanging on by their fingertips and who have been promised this scheme for the past 15 months that it will not be in operation two months after the Bill has been passed by both Houses and signed by the President? The latter will happen by the end of the current session. Is the Government not giving a guarantee to the effect that the scheme will be in operation by September or October? How much longer will we be obliged to wait? What I have outlined is the only logic I can detect with regard to the position of the Bills Office.

I am aware the Minister of State cannot accept amendment No. 1 because the Bills Office, in its wisdom, has deemed it to be out of order. However, I ask him to provide a firm commitment to the House that the scheme will be in operation within 60 days of the passage of the legislation before us through both Houses of the Oireachtas. I am not seeking to make a political point or to be politically confrontational. I am seeking the commitment to which I refer in the interests of every small business owner and sole proprietor in the country. These people are crying out for extra credit and this scheme means a great deal to them. I am of the view that the scheme is overblown and that it will not have the desired impact. The cap that is envisaged is too tight and the types of loans that will be allowed under the scheme are far too restrictive in nature. To some degree it pales in comparison with the British scheme on which, in many respects, it is modelled. The fact that it is modelled on the British scheme makes the delay in implementing it even more inexplicable.

The least those in the credit-starved business community deserve is for the Minister of State to provide an assurance such as that to which I refer. He must give a firm commitment that the scheme will be in place within 60 days of the passage of the Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas. If he does not want to accept amendment No. 2, I ask the Minister of State to provide another firm commitment that, at a very minimum, the Select Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation will be given the opportunity to discuss the scheme in some detail before the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation finally signs off on it. I am also seeking a commitment to the effect that the Minister of State and his senior colleague, Deputy Bruton, will be open to suggestions on how the scheme might be improved and that the committee will not be expected to discuss it in an academic way or to simply rubber-stamp it. The committee should be given the right to have an input into how the scheme will work. The scheme is vital and relates to saving businesses and creating jobs. In that context, we all have contribution to make.

See this speech in context