David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin will support amendment No. 30 as well as tabling its own amendment No. 31. These amendments concern the Brexit business supports contained in this Bill. The supports which will come into effect in the event of a hard crash are the absolute bare minimum. In fact, they do not even represent the bare minimum of what is necessary to support many businesses. Exporters are suffering as we speak because of currency fluctuations and due to the strength of the euro against the pound at the moment. There are certain sectors of the economy, including many manufacturing businesses, as well as exporters, which are also suffering as we speak because of the uncertainty of Brexit.

People are concerned about their jobs. The agrifood sector needs support and yet there is very little in the Bill. Rather than tinkering around the edges in respect of research and development, existing supports and increasing the thresholds and the percentages for grants, there is not much by way of real practical additional supports that are necessary for many small and medium-sized businesses.

The Irish economy is the most exposed after Britain if there is a hard crash. However, the so-called additional supports presented here are not what the stakeholders are looking for. We have engaged with IBEC, ISME and the British Irish Chamber of Commerce, all of which have called for a suite of practical measures to be put in place. However, they are not contained in this section.

When we got the briefings from the Minister's office and we had officials from different Departments, we were astounded that some of the provisions of this section relating to grant supports were increasing the thresholds to allow the State to maximise the current state aid rules. We were flabbergasted that for many years, the State was not even availing of the state aid rules that apply. We were not even applying what was allowed in the state aid rules. This was happening throughout the post-Celtic tiger years when many businesses were in very severe difficulty. We were flabbergasted that that was the case.

We had several discussions with the Tánaiste and Taoiseach on state aid rules and the need for greater flexibility from the European Union for Ireland. Nothing in the Bill gives any flexibility from Brussels. We can see no additional flexibility in state aid rules to apply to Ireland that do not apply to countries, such as Hungary and Poland, that will not be as affected by Brexit as Ireland will, which is outrageous. Europe has been very good in supporting Ireland on the backstop but it has not been as good in supporting the Irish economy and the many Irish SMEs that will need a raft of additional supports in the event of a hard Brexit.

We also argue that the provisions of this Bill and the additional supports, limited as they are, should come into play irrespective of whether there is a hard crash. In fact, businesses need them now. Why are we only providing for these additional supports, which are very weak, in the event of a hard crash? It misses the point of the uncertainty for these businesses, which might continue for months if there is an extension of Article 50. Why are these supports not being put in place now? Our amendments to make that happen were ruled out of order possibly because there was a cost to the Exchequer. However, the point stands that they should be in place irrespective of a soft or a hard Brexit. We have consistently made the point that there is no good Brexit, hard or soft. If it is hard and there is a hard crash, the impact on the economy will be more severe. Whatever Brexit we eventually have to deal with will have a chilling effect on the Irish economy and we need to be prepared.

The British Government announced a Brexit stabilisation fund. Our proposals contained a Brexit stabilisation fund that allowed for additional supports in capital investment, and additional supports for business, a job subsidy scheme and a subsidy fund to support the agrifood sector, and yet the Government has not provided for any fund. We tabled an amendment in this area to allow the Minister to set up a €2 billion Brexit stabilisation fund with the money coming from the rainy day fund - in both last year and this year €500 million has been put into that fund - and from the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF. That €2 billion could be put to good use to invest in the economy in terms of capital spend and to give practical supports to businesses.

A small number of multinational companies avail of the existing research and development credit scheme. Many small and medium-sized businesses cannot get a look in and are not properly supported. We have called for that scheme to be streamlined but it is not in the Bill as far as I can see. The provisions for the Brexit loan scheme where there is some additionality is a bit of a joke when many businesses at the moment are not even taking up that scheme. There are obviously issues with it. Has the Minister spoken to the stakeholders such as IBEC, ISME and the businesses which need these supports? We believe that loan scheme needs to be overhauled. Before we start tinkering with this scheme, we need to examine why many of the businesses the scheme was designed to support have not taken up the scheme.

We have also called for an employment subsidy scheme for many micro and small businesses. It is not a provision in the Bill. It was put in place after the economic crash to support vulnerable sections of the economy, which had a long-term viability but in the short term may have had to lay off staff because of difficulties. Many businesses will now experience the same because of Brexit.

The biggest market distortion to affect some sections in the economy in this State will be Brexit. In whatever form it takes, it will be an enormous market distortion for many businesses. The State seems to be taking a minimalist approach in providing state supports and aids. It is almost as if we believe the market will sort out all of these problems. The market will not sort out problems. The Minister is shaking her head, but they are not in the Bill. The provisions in the Bill are very limited and will have little impact on the many businesses that need support. If the Minister listened to the business organisations and engaged with them as we would, she would have put much more on the table.

I again make the point that the British Government made a Brexit stabilisation fund available. The Irish Government made no such fund available. It introduced this omnibus Bill with very limited supports for businesses that are concerned about the uncertainty of Brexit and the impact it will have on their businesses. It is not good enough by any means. We will be supporting the sections of the Bill. We will not oppose any of the measures the Government is putting in place. We would support any additional support, but what the Government has proposed is far too little and far too late.

As I said at the start of my contribution, why are the provisions of the Bill only being introduced in the event of a hard crash? Many businesses need those, irrespective of which Brexit they face. I do not see why these measures are contingent on a hard crash.

See this speech in context