Tom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this Bill, as it is good to see concern for small and medium enterprises, SMEs, and jobs. I am one of the 15,000 people who runs an SME in the country, as mentioned by Deputy Donnelly. After 20 years running the enterprise, I have come across most of the ups and downs at this stage. In the limited time available, I will discuss some of my reservations about the Bill, although I am glad this important matter is being discussed. There are issues nonetheless.

The Bill would give way too much power to the examiner and it would make me, as a supplier of goods, nervous to see an examiner with that much power. It would be there to be mistreated. I have not seen mentioned any qualifications for the examiner. I spoke with the Director of Corporate Enforcement a while back and the qualifications of people doing this job must be pinned down a little more firmly. We cannot sidestep the oversight of the court, and although I am sure that is not what the Deputy is aiming to do, we must say that quite clearly, as required. I cannot stand the idea of costs going to the creditor. In many cases the creditor may be just surviving, and this is just about adding another cost. We have all spoken about getting rid of the costs to businesses today but this would add such a cost. In business, people are only as good as their next year, so I do not like that extra cost.

I do not see the need to give executive functions to the examiner, and to be blunt, this seems to be a back door Bill for challenging upward-only rents. Why do upward-only rents come about? Both sides in such agreements would have had legal advice, with one side looking to get the best possible deal and the other seeking the best premises. These parties would have signed up to crazy rents that could only go in one direction; in some instances there was an element of greed. I am involved in much renting of land and if I rented half of County Cork at a ridiculous rate, although I would have the land I would not be able to pay for it. That is not the way business works. There is no onus to save people who make terrible business decisions, and we must realise that because business is competitive, those who are successful are usually the people who make good decisions.

With regard to the proposed section 36J(2), I have to ask if the same would apply if the roles were reversed. I am not sure it would. This proposed section would bring about a negative effect if creditors saw how they would be less secure in their supply of goods.

The Deputy mentioned five main points. He argued that examinership is too expensive, which is absolutely true. I am not sure what Deputy Donnelly meant by "abuse by creditors", as most creditors just want to be paid. They do not want anything more than that. The Deputy indicated that refinancing costs are too high, which is true. I am thankful that many of us in business have very good rates if we did well in the good times and still held those rates. That is not only applicable to examinership and would apply if loans were to be rescheduled. Currently, by the time the loans are rescheduled, the interest rates might make them higher than if current lower rates are applied. The Deputy also mentioned upward-only rents being applied by landlords, and I have gone through that. A landlord may get a similar deal with a business that will honour its commitments so if there is a problem, the business owner must sit down with that landlord. The Deputy's last point was that creditors will not trade without guarantees, and who would want to do business and feel they might not be paid?

There is an element of burning the people supplying goods in this. One may argue that a landlord has unearned income but the person supplying goods deserves to be paid. There is nothing worse than supplying goods or services to somebody and not being paid. Any business will go through a creditors' book and aim to pay its bills. I accept this is a serious issue but I have some reservations that must be addressed. We should discuss the matter further.

See this speech in context