Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Many of us warned from the get-go that there were design difficulties with the TBESS. We did not believe that all of the businesses would end up drawing money down from it. Unfortunately and sadly, that has proven to be the case. I take no pleasure in saying that. Ultimately, the objectives of the scheme were to ensure businesses could continue to operate at an unprecedentedly difficult time and, fundamentally, to save jobs that might be at risk because of the increasing cost challenges placed on enterprise across the country. To be fair to the Minister and his officials, he has listened and has redesigned the scheme to make it more applicable, generally speaking, to the kinds of businesses which need the support we all know they require.

I have been speaking for some time about the threat that indigenous manufacturing businesses are under. We know the very significant cost consequences for them being intensive energy users, in respect of the increased energy costs over the past year to 18 months. I will give an example of a company which I have mentioned on the floor of the House before. To the credit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and of Enterprise Ireland, in July and August of last year, when the company was under particular pressure, we were advised that this strand 2 scheme had been approved by the European Commission - this happened in August - and, to the best of my recollection, was directed at heavily intensive energy users. A company in my own constituency, Premier Periclase, shed 50 staff members in August. This is a manufacturing industry which has been located in Drogheda for a great number of years.

I have not seen the figures in respect of drawdown but I believe the figures for strand 2 were alluded to by Deputy O’Reilly. Can the Minister clarify whether, in fact, there has been a very limited drawdown and a limited number of applications under strand 2? That would be appreciated because hardly a week goes by when I am not contacted by someone from a manufacturing business in my own constituency, or elsewhere, who talks me through their energy bills and the difficulties they are having. They appear to be falling between a couple of stools. The TBESS, as it was constructed, was difficult to access and they may not have qualified for it. As Deputy O’Reilly correctly pointed out, it is quite cumbersome with regard to the administrative burden. Equally, these companies may not be of the scale to enable them to qualify for strand 2 supports. I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s response to that in his reply.

I did not have the opportunity to hear the earlier part of the Minister’s contribution. The inability of commercial landlords to access the TBESS has been raised consistently with me. It was raised with the Committee on Budgetary Oversight two weeks ago when IBEC presented there. The Minister will be familiar with the argument and with the situation that some businesses find themselves in. There may be three or four businesses operating from same premises. They will be paying rent to the landlord. Due to the manner in which the TBESS is currently constructed, the landlord cannot access the support and this is causing some difficulties because the energy bills may be wrapped into the overall rent. Is it the case that landlords, on that basis and in that situation, would be in a position to apply for the redesigned TBESS?

See this speech in context