Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate Deputy Stephen Donnelly on introducing this Bill which is so constructive and unprovocative that it is very strange that it has not received a welcome and applause from the Government benches. It is far better thought out than many Bills that have been put before the House and the result, if implemented, could be nothing but good. There would be very few losers under the Bill - perhaps there might be a few lawyers or other professionals for whom nobody in this House would have a great deal of sympathy who would would lose - and the reasons for its refusal are somewhat puzzling. It is a pity the Government did not take it on board and implement it in its entirety, rather than putting up such flimsy arguments against it. A particular example is the argument that it would be unconstitutional. If the Government cannot provide the detail of how it would be unconstitutional, we should not take it on trust.

I was in the other House over 20 years ago when examinership was introduced by former Deputy Des O'Malley when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce. It was introduced in an emergency as a method of saving a very large company, the Goodman Group. Goodman International was apparently so important and powerful, providing so much employment and had so much political clout that examinership could be introduced overnight. I recall that in the middle of the summer we were brought back to put it in practice. A big business could be rescued, although it was a big business of very dubious repute at the time. Examinership was successfully introduced and it rescued the Goodman Group and Goodman International before it came back to flourish. Whether that was good or bad is a debate for another day.

Examinership was introduced because it was suitable for a very large company and it was necessary to save one such company. One of the points being made implicitly by Deputy Stephen Donnelly in his Bill is that examinership in its present form is not suitable for small companies. He has introduced two areas very well which would benefit under the Bill - debt reduction and the saving of jobs.

The Government is concentrating successfully on creating jobs and the multinational sector. I applaud it for its persistence in this area. The sector is one in which we can create jobs and improve conditions for much of the workforce. I applaud the Government for retaining the corporation tax rate of 12.5% as this has been successful. There is not very much to doubt about that. There are arguments about whether it could be more or less successful and result in more revenue if it were changed but, in effect, the policy has been successful because jobs have been created and sustained. However, Government policy on small business has been an abject failure. This is the sector where so many of the jobs are. Policy on creating jobs in the sector has been a failure. There is an opportunity to save jobs, however. Members of the House will know that so many jobs have been lost as small businesses closed overnight willy-nilly. Therefore, a strategy for saving jobs is crucial. The key is not in incentives and tinkering around the edges, as the Government did in the budget, but in tackling the debt problem. The key lies in tackling the banks and tiding over some of the viable companies to ensure they can survive the bad times, not by putting them into liquidation but by putting them into examinership. I would have believed that one of the best and most aggressive ways in which the Government could have approached this would not just have been by accepting Deputy Donnelly's Bill but by taking responsibility for and not conniving in the fact that the banks have not been lending money to small businesses. By pretending otherwise, one turns a blind eye to the crisis that faces small businesses, just as one does so by creating fig leaves such as the Credit Review Office, which was established to review loans that small businesses have tried to obtain from banks only to have been refused.

This Bill proposes putting in place an examiner with new powers and lower costs. This attacks the problem at the root. It makes it possible for small businesses to go into examinership without incurring the sorts of costs that large businesses can afford. It would allow the examiner to impose conditions on the lenders. These are absolutely essential. The Bill would reduce legal fees and impose conditions on landlords, as referred to by Deputy Pringle.

See this speech in context