Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will speak directly to the Bill. Section 30 provides for a scheme of accelerated industrial buildings allowances for the construction or refurbishment of certain buildings or structures used in connection with certain activities pertaining to the aviation sector and, in particular, buildings that accommodate activities such as maintenance, repair or overhaul of commercial aircraft. I ask that the dismantling of aircraft also be included in paragraph (b) of section 31. It is not referred to in the body of the Bill but this is also a distinct activity which can be a very lucrative business for airports. It is an up and coming area and has been identified as a growth area. I welcome the fact that this provision is applicable to all our airports. I look forward to seeing the benefits of this. This particular accelerated capital allowance encourages investors to get involved in construction of these aviation specific facilities. Anything that stimulates such investment and the development of a potential and market for jobs and business activity, which has been identified, is very welcome. I commend the Minister and his officials on this initiative.

I wish to refer to the abolition of the employers' rebate in respect of statutory redundancy lump sum payments. Since it has been announced and in the run-up to this, there has been a good deal of campaigning that this might not happen. From the experience on the ground, I believe that this measure in the budget is having a devastating effect on sole traders, whether they are renting or they are owner-occupiers. They could be downsizing, winding down their businesses either because of current economic climate or for health or retirement reasons, and would need to come up with a lump sum for employees, and they would now have to pay 100% of it. The way these small businesses are going, they do not have the money. They will be in position where they will become personally liable. Their personal assets become liable for a redundancy debt which could see them having to mortgage or sell their own homes to pay a debt of a redundancy lump sum to an employee.

I know a business person in the process of downsizing their small business who had to pay redundancy of €40,000 to an employee. That individual cannot get €10,000 to pay the tax man to get a tax clearance certificate to allow them conduct their business. The vulnerable are the sole traders like the owners of shops, pubs and restaurants who do not have the protection of the corporate veil, which means their personal assets, including a family home, could be required to discharge a redundancy payment.

We know many small businesses are not making a profit and many men, women and couples engaged in them are barely earning what we would call a living to support themselves or their families. These are small businesses, and if they go to the wall, these people are not even entitled to mainstream social welfare payments. This is a desperate situation for many and it is biting on the ground. People are trapped. Not only have they got a dead business in some cases but they find that if they wind it up, they are personally liable to pay employees who obviously need a redundancy payment.

It must be pointed out, however, that during the boom times when there was money in this country, 60% of the cost of the redundancy payment was covered by the Government. Now, with these businesses on their knees and on the back of TalkTalk going bust when it did, which heaped the cost of those redundancies on the State, small businesses are being asked to pay 100% of the redundancy. That is manifestly unfair. The evidence for that is manifesting itself. These sole traders should not be treated the same as large multinational corporations which in many cases were incentivised to come to this country at a cost to the Exchequer when businesses are struggling and feeling very hard-pressed. An exceptional case must be made for people who are not trading under the corporate veil. That issue must be seriously examined.

It is a very repressive regime, especially for those at a later stage in their lives who may not have much in their businesses. They may have a small lump sum and they are being asked to pay that for redundancy. I do not believe that is fair.

See this speech in context