Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

That is good to know. The sum involved is €2 billion and liability to the State is to be capped at €1.6 billion. I will not get into the detail, particularly as it has been mentioned by many speakers before me. We do not know the interest rate. We have been told it is expected to be low and the rate will be reduced because the cap on the portfolio is gone. The Government seems to be anticipating this but there is no guarantee at all that the interest rate will go down.

We have all received letters from the bus and coach operators. Among many points and recommendations these people tell us that the existing credit guarantee scheme needs to be altered in order to address the needs of small business because interest rates are too high. The same points apply to this. We know the uptake on the current scheme has been very low. I am looking at the Covid-19 business supports tracker from 3 July. The existing scheme was set up in 2012 and only 867 approvals had been made by this year. I am not sure if these materialised into loans. Different figures have been used tonight but what is absolutely clear is that the scheme was underutilised from 2012. The value of total approvals made in eight years was €152.56 million, while there was authorisation to go to €150 million every year.

We can consider the review, which was, unfortunately, carried out in 2013. I would have thought the scheme could have been reviewed more frequently. A second process was carried out by Indecon in 2019 but the credit guarantee scheme was only a small part of that analysis. These analyses indicate that the existing scheme is too cumbersome and restricted, with too narrow a time span and many other weaknesses.

It has taken a pandemic for the Government to put legislation before us to change the existing scheme. I would have thought that a scheme which has been in place since 2012 and which was, given the importance of SMEs to the economy, under-functioning should have been reviewed and changed. I know that legislation was brought forward in 2016 with some limited changes but that did not alter the level of uptake relating to the scheme. The latter went up only slightly. If we look at figures in isolation, we see that the sanctions went up, and that is welcome, but we have to put it in context of the number of enterprises in Ireland. The Minister of State quoted the numbers, and they are staggering. SMEs alone account for 99.8% or 255,000 of active enterprises in Ireland, representing 70.1% of all employment and generating 41.5% of the gross value added in the economy. The Minister of State knows that, and he has quoted the figures. We all know the position but it is worth focusing on those figures.

Until the past few weeks when I took a particular interest in the legislation before us, I had not realised the importance of SMEs and microenterprises to the country and in the context of employment. When we look at the figures and see that the existing scheme is not being used, I have worries that this scheme will not be used or that businesses will not draw down the loans being provided because of the interest rates involved and their experiences to date. As other speakers stated, it is also adding to their indebtedness.

There is a lack of clarity regarding the criteria that will be used. I understand that a statutory instrument will bring in the fishermen, the farmers and other mid-caps, if that is the correct reference. Again, there is lack of clarity on that or on when it will happen.

In the context of the speed with which this measure is being dealt- this has been commented on by other Deputies - I realise that there is urgency required. However, we have been aware for months - and we certainly know from the report produced by the Central Bank in April - that liquidity is a big problem for businesses. It is now July and, as Deputy Boyd Barrett indicated, we are again rushing legislation through the Dáil. As with the legislation last week, which I spent a lot of time trying to get my head around, I have a difficulty. I will support the Bill but I am supporting something that I am not entirely happy with. I am supporting legislation in respect of which a regulatory impact analysis has not been carried out because of the speed with which we are being asked to put the legislation through the Dáil.

I look again at what the Oireachtas Library & Research Service has told us, which is that a short regulatory impact analysis was produced for this Bill by the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation. The key points are included in table 4, which outlines the costs and the competitiveness. The benefits are then considered and the analysis concludes: "North-South, East-West Relations, Gender Equality Benefits - None." and "Poverty Proofing, Industry Costs, Quality Regulation Benefits - None." I am not sure how to interpret that but Social Justice Ireland, and I quoted it last week, tells us that, prior to the pandemic, rural areas generally had older populations, higher rates of part-time employment, lower medium incomes, higher dependency ratios and higher poverty ratios than the national average. The Library & Research Service's material goes on to quote from a report I have previously used from the regional assemblies which looked at the impact of Covid-19 on a regional basis. Their finding that the regions and the rural areas - and they mention Donegal, Kerry, Galway, Clare, Cavan and a number of other counties - are all suffering much more than other places because of Covid-19 is not surprising, yet there is no impact analysis as part of this legislation, which is very difficult to accept and to vote for.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the new green way in Europe, and I welcome that. I am looking forward to seeing the details of it but none of this legislation so far has mentioned climate change or our obligations in that regard. We have stated on the one hand that we cannot go back to the way things were and that we have to learn from the Covid-19 pandemic and go forward. On the other hand, we are actually making things worse in my opinion. To take one example in Galway, we decided to run a cycle route out in Salthill on a pilot basis. It worked a treat. Under pressure, I understand, the local authority has stopped that. It is gone. The local authority bent to pressure and the traffic on the road is almost back to the way it was previously, at the same time that the Government is giving out a daily message that we should not use public transport. The Minister of State should reflect on that message. He should make public transport ready to use during the Covid pandemic.

I am an example of someone who used public transport and I am now putting a car on the road, much to my shame. I am part of a message going out to say do not use public transport, at a time when we have declared a climate emergency. The Minister of State has got to reflect on that message and on what needs to be done to get public transport back in full use. He has to tell us what he is doing for those in the bus and coach industry. They have written to the Minister and to the Government on many occasions with very practical suggestions. We cannot say that we are serious about climate change and the biodiversity crisis we have and that we will never go back to the way we were when we are doing that with every measure we are taking. I have repeatedly stated that I represent Galway West and south Mayo, taking in the Aran Islands, Inisboffin and all of the rural areas in Connemara and beyond, namely, Kilmaine, Shrule, Cong and Galway city. I stand here for sustainable development for my city and my county, not on a parochial level but because we need to do it for every county.

We are getting a fund of €2 billion. We are guaranteeing it. We are letting the banks set the interest rate, and we see nothing wrong with that. I am a party to the debate on this legislation, which is giving the thumbs up to the banks to set whatever interest rate they want when struggling businesses want to access funds that we are getting at a zero rate. That does not make sense to me. What also makes no sense to me is that we are not looking at the sustainability of businesses, certainly from a financial and a business point of view but also in terms of the environment, climate change and energy. We should be looking at all of that in regard to funds.

Finally, we are not looking at grants at all. We are giving out loans to companies and small businesses that are already indebted and that, according to the Central Bank's report, have liquidity problems. Surely grants would make much more sense in view of the fact that we are accessing money at a very cheap rate.

I intend to reflect on whether I will support this legislation. I am inclined to support it because the concept behind it is very good. We already covered small businesses and microbusinesses in other recent legislation. The fishermen and farmers need our help but they do not need it in circumstances where they are going to be further indebted and in more trouble. We need to look at sustainability on more than a financial level.

See this speech in context