Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this. I do so in the context of 2.46 million cases of Covid-19 in Europe alone as of 2 April. Businesses are going under on a daily basis. I support the Bill. It is a positive Bill, but the amendment from Sinn Féin has great merit. The points made previously by Deputy Tóibín on credit unions and a public banking system must be considered by any Government that considers itself progressive. By way of background I note that in the last Dáil we utterly failed to convince the Minister of the relevance and importance of a public banking system.

I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for its excellent Bills digest. I have also looked at the Microfinance Ireland report examining the fund over the seven-year period from when it was started in 2012 to 2019. It is worth looking at. There have been many good initiatives from the Government to assist businesses. The failure is in analysing the difficulties in accessing them. There is a lack of evidence and data on how these initiatives succeed. Small businesses account for well over 1 million employees. Most of this funding will go to small employers with fewer than three employees.

This report is very interesting. The lack of proper analysis jumps out. For example, on page 11 the report states that three complaints were received by the business in the fourth quarter of 2019. That seems very small. Moreover, the number of complaints received since 2012 is 46. There are only two lines on this. The report does not tell us the nature of these complaints, the reason the number is so small or what Microfinance Ireland has learned from them. That seems crucial to me.

I refer also to appeals. There have only been 48 successful appeals out of 297. Again, we do not know what was learned from those appeals, why such a small number of appeals was lodged or why so few were successful. I say that in the context of other facts that jump out of the report. There is a gender issue. Of those accessing support under this scheme since it was introduced, 74% have been men and 26% have been women. Regarding the self-employed, I note that people on the back to work enterprise allowance accounted for only 290 applications in seven years. There is no analysis of what led to that. Some 346 businesses out of 2,085 failed, a failure rate of one in six. There is no analysis of why they failed, what the problems were, the total cost to the Exchequer or the loss of employment. The figures seem to show an extremely high refusal rate. Some 2,102 were declined. A certain number of applications were withdrawn and 2,403 were approved. Almost half were refused.

The Tánaiste made an interesting point, noting that there was a wide geographical spread. On the face of it that is true. Only 21% of approved loans were in Dublin and the rest were in other parts the country. However, the west of Ireland only got an 11% share. Other trends emerge when one looks at the figures. Throughout the seven years, only 128 applications from Galway were approved out of 275. It is worth looking at that trend to see how the scheme can be improved. Who are we meeting? What is the target group and are we reaching them? It seems that we are not.

The purpose for which the loans are given is also interesting. For example the arts sector accounts for just 7% of loans. The breakdown by sector shows that manufacturing accounts for 10% of loans and construction is at 9%. Wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles account for 22% of loans. However, arts, entertainment and recreation account for just 7%. Education is at 3%. There is a huge imbalance in the figures. I do not have enough information to examine that.

8 o’clock

I can only look at the information that is there and it seems to me that it really needs further examination so that we can learn from it.

The interest being charged is totally unacceptable. I know there is a moratorium for a certain period, but rates of 4.5% and 5.5% are simply unacceptable. It is important to look at the background to what is happening here. The recent report by the regional assemblies highlighted that the west and the north west will come worst out of the Covid crisis. Furthermore, of the five cities the report looked at, it found Galway to be the most exposed. The report states: "Galway city and its suburbs have an exposure rate of 46.1%." That is higher - not by much, but still higher - than the rate for Waterford, Limerick, Cork and Dublin. In total, 1,532 businesses in Galway are in sectors that are faring the worst in the Covid crisis. That is just the cities. Social Justice Ireland has pointed out that rural areas have an older population, higher rates of part-time employment, lower medium incomes, higher dependency ratios and higher poverty rates than the national average. There are many more bullet points of information. An interesting one is that the driver of the rural economy has moved from the primarily agricultural to a more diverse space involving services, manufacturing, tourism and others. The document goes on to show that incomes for workers in these sectors are much lower than in others. I am sure the Minister of State is well aware of these facts. If the evidence is all there and the various organisations are telling us this, then we must tailor the supports we are giving to ensure they are picked up by those businesses that need them and where they will be most effective.

Finally, this scheme goes back to 2012. It seems to me that if we are going to learn anything from Covid, it is that we cannot go backwards. Urgent and short-term help must be aligned with long-term sustainable goals. However, it is not coming across in any speech by any member of the Government that there is a recognition that our efforts must be aligned with the reality that we have declared a climate emergency and that it is always the most vulnerable who suffer in a crisis. If we really are interested in justice and equality, now is the time to achieve it. We have the money and we are giving it out. Let us give it out in a way that leads to a better, more sustainable life, rather than giving money for the sake of money. I am 100% behind rural areas and small industries but the figures speak for themselves that the money is not getting to them and, when it does, there is a high failure rate and we are not learning from it. I see no evidence that we are aligning our financial assistance to the goal of a sustainable economy. Instead of growth for growth's sake, we should be aiming for growth for all and a much fairer and more just economy.

See this speech in context