Tom Shehan (Fine Gael)

I agree wholeheartedly with what my colleague, Senator O'Donovan, stated with regard to the banks. From my experience I have no respect for banks and have not had for a long time. In 2000 I bought a business and I wanted an overdraft facility of £15,000 but the banks would not give it to me. Three days prior to opening the business, 30 miles away from where I was born and bred, I did not have an overdraft facility. However, when push came to shove we opened and worked away. Several years later, when business was going very well, I purchased a site where I wanted to build something like the Minister of State has, namely, a bigger supermarket than I had. When I asked the bank for €500,000 a manager and two members of staff came out to me with two laptop computers and before they left they were offering me €3 million that I did not ask for. I then lost much more respect for bankers. Recently, they took an overdraft facility and rolled it into a personal loan. One can imagine my esteem and respect for banks. I will have to be restrained in what I state about them.

I concur with what Senator O'Donovan stated about rates. Businesses had no problems paying rates when things were going well. On an annual basis we had an approximately 3% top-up on the rateable valuation. However, businesses paid this because they had the footfall and turnover and things were going well. Now, we have the reverse situation. In fairness, the majority of local authorities are retaining rates at current levels. However, they were good enough to increase them by 3% per annum while providing no extra service and they should now roll them back when the footfall, turnover and margin is not there for businesses.

An issue that gets lost in the debate about self-employed people and small businesses is that nobody takes into consideration the self-employed person who works 100 hours a week. Nobody in small businesses works 39 or 40 hours a week; the minimum any of them work is 80 hours a week but now they work up to 100 hours a week. In many cases, they do not take a wage or salary from the business. They are living from it but they do not take a wage or salary, and this is lost in the debate.

One of my constituents established three businesses in 2011 and employs 300 part-time and full-time people. When he established those businesses he did not receive even €5 of an overdraft or stocking loan from his bank. He received no assistance. The problem is very acute in certain industries. My family is involved in butchering where the price of stock has increased by 100% over the past two years. Sheep now cost €150 per head and animals cost up to €1,200 per head, but people cannot get an increase in their stocking loans and banks have withdrawn overdrafts. How can a businesses continue when the cost of the stock in which it trades has increased by between 50% and 100% but it has no stocking loan or overdraft facility to carry it? It cannot do so.

With regard to receivership and insolvency which was mentioned earlier, Revenue must be paid, banks must be paid and the last people to be paid are the creditors. What happens then? The creditors' businesses close because they cannot pay Revenue, the banks or their creditors. It has a domino effect down the line. There should be a more equitable manner of dealing with insolvency and receivership whereby creditors receive something. In the vast majority of cases they do not receive anything but there should be a pro rata payment system to Revenue, the banks and creditors.

Former trading records and business records mean nothing to banks any more. It means nothing to banks that a family business has been trading for 100, 120, 50 or 60 years.

We must also be very careful about the following issue. I know of companies that let go staff prior to Christmas to avail of the 60% redundancy rebate rather than the 15% redundancy rebate. It was a bad move and we must be careful-----