Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I wish to respond to some of the Minister of State's points. I do not mean this in a disrespectful way given that he is in attendance, but we raised the issue last night of the relevant senior Minister not being in the Chamber. The Minister of State advised that was because there was a Cabinet meeting. I do not believe it was ongoing at the time, but I appreciate that he may have been busy. However, this legislation is before us again and, once more, the Minister is not present. The Government scheduled the time for this Bill and it knows when its own meetings will be. It is not beyond reason to expect that the relevant Minister - to stress, I do not mean this disrespectfully to the Minister of State who has turned up - should be in attendance to take legislation. This is not good practice. I appreciate that people are busy and we are approaching the end of the Dáil term, but the Government schedules business with the Business Committee. At the next Business Committee meeting, perhaps the Government representative could have a chat with the relevant line Ministers to ensure that they make themselves available when their own legislation is being debated. What is happening is not acceptable and is bad practice and I do not want to see it creeping in. We are on Committee Stage and it would be preferable were the Minister present. This is something that we cannot allow to become a pattern.

Notwithstanding that, I wish to respond to some of the points the Minister of State made. He mentioned that the Tánaiste had received positive indications from the banks. Could he give us anything more concrete than that? I would appreciate a briefing on the Government's meetings with the banks to date and what they are saying. They will be administering the scheme. Once the legislation is passed, the Government has made it clear that it will be up to the mostly for-profit banks to administer the scheme. The Government stated that it will have a hands-off approach. There are different rates for different financial products, but if a struggling small family business is trying to get back up on its feet and hears a Minister saying that there will be different rates for different products, that just means the rates could be higher. There is a possibility that they could be lower, but the possibility also exists that they could be higher. These are people who are in very desperate situations.

According to the Minister of State, a moratorium will be permitted under the scheme. I am relieved, as I am sure others are, that the Government will not outlaw such a prospect, but that does not mean that there will be moratoriums. It just means that moratoriums will be allowed. In the course of the Government's deliberations with the for-profit banks, what have they been saying about a moratorium? Are they minded to give people a moratorium? Are they minded to realise the sort of pressure these people are under? We should bear in mind that many of these small businesses are only just emerging from the debts they incurred because of the last recession. The prospect of more debt and dealings with the banks will not fill them with any kind of hope. Will the Minister of State give us more detail about what the Government has been saying to the banks and what they have been saying in response?

See this speech in context