John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

To reflect the comments of previous speakers, I acknowledge that the Finance Bill and budget contain measures which will positively impact on small business. I also acknowledge the change in respect of diesel rebates introduced in the Bill. As someone with a background in haulage and transport, I appreciate the necessity for a diesel rebate.

It will impact down the line in terms of the cost of delivering services to customers across the country. I welcome the diesel rebate's extension to bus and tour operators, those who are central to transport operations. Undoubtedly, they will feel the benefit.

Consider what occurred in the lead up to the budget and what is occurring now. In a debate on the Finance Bill, one cannot but help highlight the fact that finance through the banks is not being made available. As I have stated time and again - the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, was present in the Chamber one such time - small businesses are not receiving the type of support one would expect from the banks, particularly given that the latter have been allocated so much money year on year to support the SME sector. To date what is happening in the banks is nothing short of restructuring. They are restructuring term loans and overdrafts and in some instances are withdrawing overdraft facilities.

There are conflicting views on this, but if it was not the case we would not need the Credit Review Office, CRO. The banks would be functioning and everything would be grand. The business person, the young entrepreneur, would be getting the money he or she requires. However, that is not the case.

The Government must tell the banks to do much more for enterprises and to focus on family businesses and small employers in every parish, which is currently not the case. We are giving banks taxpayers' money, but it is going directly to their bottom lines to correct their balance sheets. They are not interested in helping enterprises to correct their own balance sheets despite this being what they are meant to do. It is disgraceful that they ignore the representative bodies of businesses as well as the Government while reconstructing themselves so they can step out from under the Government's control at some stage in the game. For one or two banks, this will not be for a long time yet, but it will be business as usual once they are out of Government control. They must meet businesses' needs.

I ask the Government to listen carefully to the SME sector. Consider what it is doing. We have listed the benefits to haulage and transport operators. If one tries to renew a haulage licence or to have another truck added to it because of a new job or contract or an improvement in business, it will not be done overnight. It will be put into a pile that will be dealt with, to cite departmental officials, in due course. Will the Minister of State find out from them what they mean by this? Have they no respect for the fact that, in due course, that contract may no longer be available to the haulier and the renewal or addition - perhaps a new job or two - might no longer be required? Perhaps "in due course" could be granted a different urgency and officials should be told to review such applications urgently. Jobs depend on it, but they are ignoring the pleas of enterprises to deal with applications expeditiously. Will the Minister of State take note of this fact? Perhaps someone in the Department will bring about a change in how it handles applications.

For the Government, its commitment on upward-only rent reviews was a major issue. I am a landlord and I understand how difficult it is to legislate in this regard, but there is not a single landlord in the country who has not been approached by tenants on long or medium-term leases about reducing their rents. The collapse began in 2006. Anyone who examined his or her costs, including rent obligations under leases, would have appealed to his or her landlord. Most sensible landlords set aside their upward-only rent review clauses and reduced their rents.

Many significant companies are locked into upward-only rent reviews and have failed to get their landlords to see common sense. I appeal to the Department to establish a means, where necessary, of forcing landlords into reviews of their upward-only clauses.

I ask the Government to lead by example. I have been told that Shannon Development holds 43 leases with upward-only rent review clauses; the IDA holds 74 leases, of which 63 have upward-only rent review clauses; the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has 70 leases, 90% of which have upward-only rent review clauses; and Údarás na Gaeltachta has hundreds of leases, a significant number of which surely have upward-only rent review clauses.

I draw the Minister's attention to an individual in Donegal who sent the keys to his premises back to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, in an envelope because he could not negotiate new terms that reflected the true value of rents in the marketplace. The man wrote to the Taoiseach asking him to intervene because jobs, a mortgage and a business were at stake. Since then, the man has closed his business and he has gone on the dole. A young entrepreneur, he was finished by the Government and its attitude to its own properties and upward-only rent reviews.

There is a case to be answered. It is not pie in the sky. I am reading from a letter to the Taoiseach, citing the example of a small, true businessman who was trying to make ends meet. He is one example of many. Many of the units in most of the ports controlled by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine have been closed, some for up to ten years. Will the State get off its behind and try to solve these problems for enterprises so that people can stay in employment? They are willing to pay rents, but not the daft rents of many years ago. The old levels need to be reviewed. The State should lead the way.

I will cite a further example of how the SME sector is treated. Highbank Organic Orchards in Kilkenny is a craft cider maker. The budget increased excise duty from 47 cent to 57 cent, representing a 22% increase. In 2002, the last time there was a substantial increase in excise duty, the sale of cider fell by 11.3%. Why can we not redefine what this business is so that it equates to the definition of a micro-brewery? This would provide the business with reliefs similar to those seen in that industry. It employs 30 people. All of the apples are grown in Ireland, supporting a further 200 jobs. Surely we must consider these people and understand that other concessions, tax reliefs and so on sometimes only apply to exporting companies or niche markets, such as research and development.

We completely forget the indigenous sector that is creating and sustaining jobs in this country at huge effort to family-run businesses that are run on an individual basis that create sustainable jobs. The Government thinks that without a whisper one can increase such a person’s problem by 22%. It is a disgrace. It should have been challenged in the Finance Bill. The Bill should contain a provision to give such a person and the industry some relief. After all, they are Irish businesses creating Irish jobs and they export if possible. It is not too late for the Government to introduce an amendment. Regardless of what kind of circuits we go through in this House or in the committees, the Government has a substantial majority and it can if it wants introduce the appropriate amendment to deal with what is a simple issue. The Government should do so. It affects small jobs in this country and we must indicate our absolute support for them.

Vintners are another group that exists in every single parish in the country. They made representations to Deputies and Senators across all political parties because their business is dying on its feet. The Minister of State, Deputy Perry, is aware of that. If one calls to any establishment in the country one will find that they are not doing the same turnover as previously. They are paying for water at the rate of €3 per cu. m. They contribute substantially to the local economy. They made recommendations because their trade is affected by off-licences. One suggestion is to introduce a system whereby one’s turnover for off-licence activity would form the basis of one’s tax liability and licence renewal fee. The vintners made simple, sound suggestions. I do not back up any single industry; it just happens that they are small businesses that are good examples of how Government policy can affect business in a negative way. Each and every one of them pays rates to local authorities. Rates are another Government-imposed tax that could have been addressed in the context of the budget. Why does the Government not introduce a Bill that would allow each and every one of those businesses to have a self-assessment system whereby following an assessment their rates might come down. The rateable valuation system will not affect any such businesses for another five or six years. Vintners do not have that much time yet the cost imposed on them by local authorities continues at a level that is unbearable for small enterprises around the country. Why does the Government not do something for them? Why does it not introduce the simple system I suggested with appropriate guidelines and penalties if someone decides to take advantage of it? The Government must ensure rates for vintners are revalued and that the contribution continues but at a lower level. That could be done without a problem yet there is no response from the Government on it.

I wish to refer to PRSI contributions that will be taken from rental income in the future. All of the tax initiatives have now been withdrawn and those who were involved in developing properties from a pension perspective rather than for the sake of development are the ones who are being penalised. Now they will be taxed further through a new initiative from the Government. They will pay their property tax and rates where they apply instead of property tax. Anyone who is making an effort and attempting to do business is being penalised left, right and centre. The Government boasts about its support for the SME sector. I do not know many SMEs that have felt the benefit of any measures introduced by the Government in the budget or through the Finance Bill. They have not benefited. Even the concession on cashing in one’s pension will not apply to the self-employed yet they are the very people the Government is expecting to grow the economy. Speaker after speaker has said we rely on the SME sector. In its day the sector created up to 900,000 jobs. In the United States one hears talk about the single entrepreneur as the person who will lead the way out of its economic difficulties. We are exactly the same in a much smaller way. We heap praise on them every single day yet we do nothing to help them. I acknowledged previously the business initiatives the Government took in the budget but when one comes down to the level of families working in their petrol station, pub, off-licence, haulage company, cleaning service or other small business that is supportive of jobs within a local area, they will not feel one single benefit from the Bill except that the Government will take more money from their employees and from them as employers.

The Minister of State, Deputy Perry, is familiar with business. I appeal to him to reconsider some aspects of the Finance Bill and to give people such as those to whom I have referred a break. It is necessary to understand what is happening in the wider economy. What seems to happen in this House is that when we arrive on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays we are in a bubble and we forget the real dilemma in which people find themselves. People face problems such as mortgage arrears, mortgage debt, personal debt, negative equity. One hears about it every single week at one’s clinic. One hears businesses complain every single week at one’s clinic. They are not feeling any relief from the budget. The introduction of the property tax is another example of the disconnect that exists between the Oireachtas and the people we represent.

One could argue about whether Fianna Fáil had an agreement with the troika and that the Government is left to implement it. That is a political argument. Let us look at the reality. People cannot afford to pay the septic tank charge and they cannot afford the household charge yet the Government intends introducing a property tax which Revenue will require another 100 staff to administer. It is the wrong tax at the wrong time. People do not have the money to pay it. The imposition of a tax at this rate is a further nail in the coffin of some people in terms of their finances. There is still time to review the Bill in terms of the supports that are necessary for the SME sector. There is still time to address the issues I have raised based on the examples I outlined.

I urge the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, to ask the Taoiseach to look at the letter from the man in Donegal. It is a complaint and a suggestion but it is a true story similar to the experience of those involved in cider manufacturing or the haulage sector. For the past 20 years the Government has said it has reduced the burden of bureaucracy and red tape, in addition to the cost of business. If one asks anyone in business he or she would say that it costs a considerable amount for administration to keep the show on the road. The smaller the business, the more difficult it is. In the case of each small business one will find a family member is working double the normal hours every week in order to provide employment in a local area.

See this speech in context