Mark Dearey (Green Party)

I listened with great interest to the Minister's speech and, as a relative newcomer, I found it fascinating to see how policy finds its way through the Houses and, eventually, affects the likes of myself in my other life as a small businessman. Various bells went off in my head as I listened to the debate on the Finance Bill and tried to assimilate how it would work in the real economy and among small business people such as myself in the coming year. Overall, I affirm the thrust of the Bill which relates to the control of public finances. That issue has been, is and will remain paramount. This week, we received a serious reminder in this regard from the European Commission. In case it took the view we had done enough, we know we have not and that there is more to come, which is not a very pleasurable thing to say.

My experience of the control of the public finances has been a deflationary one and this has been very difficult to live with. It is one of corroded consumer confidence, a very fragile flower which must be nurtured again now that the difficult first tranche of decisions have been made and enacted. I understand more is to come but I believe the deflationary effect we have experienced to date is about as much as many small businesses, such as my own, can take. There must be further action in the next budget, whatever takes place. It is very important that this takes place in the context of improving consumer confidence and a willingness among the public to begin to spend again.

I am not referring to a bogus stimulus package. I suspect that even if we were to put some notional billions of euro into the economy tomorrow, many people would probably use it to pay off personal debt, a good end in itself but it would not achieve the desired affect of any stimulus such as the injection of cash into the US economy. In fact, it looks likely to cause a double dip. The indications are that in the months ahead there will be further retrenchment on the key indices in the United States economy which is showing some signs of recovery. That is serious for Ireland, but it shows that such packages are not a replacement for a more fundamental realignment of the economy.

NAMA, another theme that has dominated thinking on our financial position since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, needs to begin to do its job quickly. There is a key role in this regard for the regulator. It looks like NAMA will flush out and crystalise the bad debts that the banks, if left to their own devices, would probably spread out over the next decade and more to give us a kind of Japanese experience in terms of economic stagnation. The establishment of NAMA means they cannot do this.

NAMA has often been described as the least worst option and that is what it is. It is not something anyone would choose to do, but given the need for a functioning banking system and the obvious fact that the banks were not going to fess up on their own, NAMA will do what needs to be done in that regard. Next week's results which we are being told will show the worst corporate performance in the history of the State probably will be an indication that NAMA has brought a degree of honesty to reporting, which is good.

On the question of what the banks should do next, the regulator has a key role to play. Taking account of the fact that there will be further bad debts at a much lower, even personal level in the economy, the regulator needs to ensure the capitalising of the banks is sufficient to allow them to attract investment funds which they can then lend on to those operating in the real economy. That is critical. All will have been for nought if we do not ensure that happens. There is a considerable onus or responsibility on the regulator to ensure it happens.

I want to address a few issues in the Bill to which the Minister referred and one or two measures that will stimulate investment in small business and returning a little confidence to that sector. As the Minister indicated, section 44 will extend the accelerated capital allowance scheme to a range of new categories that will help small businesses to invest. It means that the cost of new refrigeration and cooling equipment, electro-mechanical systems, catering and hospitality equipment, as well as the wide range of listed items available for viewing on the website and already in place, can be offset against any corporation tax incurred in the relevant year. For progressive businesses, particularly those in the hospitality sector, this represents a significant opportunity. We have been hearing a great deal about tourism in the past few days. I welcome the provision and say, "More, please". It is useful and practical and will have a great effect on the ground.

I had two hopes for the carbon levy. One was that it would not be a percentage of the cost of a given fuel but a fixed amount per litre or tonne, depending on the relevant measurement, and it is so, which is useful. This means the levy will not amount to an additional burden but will be a fixed cost. My other hope was that it would be ring-fenced. In so far as the key areas in which it will be spent have been identified, it is ring-fenced. This means there is a sure-footed basis in moving forward with the warmer homes scheme, with research and development in renewables and with funding for a fuel allowance which I hope will become less of a burden during the years. As the warmer homes scheme reaches more houses that are performing poorly, obviously, people will need less fuel to heat them post-retrofit. This applies to rural transport also. This area need not be vulnerable any longer because the levy is being directed towards it and the other areas I have indicated. No levy or tax is ever popular, but this one has some merits. That it is being directed strategically towards improving the housing stock which, in turn, will reduce the need for a fuel allowance, as well as the research and development aspect, is extremely welcome.

Another issue which was raised recently by Mr. Mark Fielding relates to State guarantee schemes and whether the Minister would consider an idea to enable small viable businesses to begin borrowing again now, not in the distant future, on the basis that, for instance, businesses in the shellfish industry would be able to ask the banks to lend to them on a sectoral basis. The fact that the businesses had entered into an arrangement with the Government to would guarantee a small portion of the lending should open up the prospect of a greater flow of capital to businesses in the future. I look forward to the Minister's response on the notion of a partial State guarantee for loans, not to an individual business which is always vulnerable to collapse but to a sector when the risk would be spread wide and the prospect of a catastrophic failure across the sector would be extremely remote. Therefore, the State's guarantee would be extremely unlikely ever to be called upon. Will the Minister consider this idea as one that would improve the prospect of sectors such as the shellfish industry which employs well over 1,000 people to help them to begin to borrow from banks which are currently unwilling to lend? Let us face it, although I hope NAMA will do what it needs to do for the country, there is an urgency when it comes to borrowing that I do not think the agency can meet because it will take more time to be really felt as a contributor to the real economy - a phrase I probably have overused at this stage.