Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

When the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, was here the last day she said:

Access to a more affordable mechanism for restructuring makes it more likely that more small companies will avail of examinership, thus providing them with a greater chance of economic survival. In particular, businesses with potential for growth and job creation, which are being held back by legacy debt problems, are expected to benefit. This, in turn, should feed into an improvement in the general employment and economic situation within the State.

That is what we are trying to do. The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch also said: "This means, for example, that companies based outside Dublin will be able to apply for examinership to their local Circuit Court, thus reducing costs and travel time." The very helpful briefing note we were given the last day stated that going to the Circuit Court would lower costs and provide greater accessibility for small private companies by eliminating the need for High Court involvement. All of those are very desirable as the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, said. The very helpful briefing note we got was over and above what we expect, on which I commend the Department. However, in policy making we need to be more precise than we have been. There is too much wooliness throughout the public sector which gets us into so much trouble. It would be much better to have an estimate and we could then assess whether we got the 25% or 30%.

I do not know why it requires more auditors. There are X cases and a saving of Y percentage. They need to be multiplied together which could be done on the back of an envelope and given to the next Minister to come in.

When we are asked to change policy, in this case, a change from the High Court to the Circuit Court, it would help if the Department had some idea what the savings would be. I am surprised the Department of Finance and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform have not asked the Department.

We need regulatory impact assessments when we make these types of changes. The Parliament is here to assist in rescuing the country from the situation it found itself in after 2008. We would like to help and the amendment was tabled to assist in that regard. The Minister of State could use it to explain to meetings of the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association or whoever that the Government has saved that sector X amount in legal costs. I believe ISME would welcome that, as would I. I am unsure why the Minister of State is running into obstacles within the Department.

I am not going to push it but the Minister of State or the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, might consider the matter before they come back on Report Stage which, I understand, is due this week. Anyway, it seems to me that the case for the Bill would be substantially improved by an estimate of the savings. The savings are the reason we made the change in the first instance, and to make the change without any knowledge of what the savings would be is hardly the way to proceed.

I believe the Minister of State is correct but it would be reassuring to have the assessment. In another context we discuss the problems with mathematics in the country. If we put some mathematics in here it would make it far more precise, rather than simply an aspiration that we believe we will save money but with no idea how much. For a country with a debt to GDP ratio of 125% we do not need it, but we need more information supplied to the Oireachtas, especially when the Oireachtas has been on the side of the Minister of State in this matter both the last day and today. I will not push it any further but I appeal for information to be supplied to the House on Report Stage.