Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 23 April 2013
89. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the initiatives taken by his Department to address the market failure of bank lending to small and medium enterprises; and the cost to date of these initiatives. [18627/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy Department has introduced a range of targeted initiatives to support an additional flow of credit into the economy by filling gaps where specific market failures exist. The credit guarantee scheme and the microenterprise loan fund are among those initiatives.
The credit guarantee scheme has been live since 24 October and is intended to address market failure affecting commercially viable businesses. It provides a 75% State guarantee to banks against losses on qualifying loans to firms with growth and job creation potential.
A total of €299,981, including VAT, has been paid to the operator of the scheme. The cost of the scheme will be partially offset by receipts from the 2% premium paid by borrowers. To date, loans of over €3 million have been issued under the scheme, as a result of which over 200 jobs are expected to be created or maintained.
The second initiative is the microenterprise loan fund which was established by Government and began operating at the beginning of October to improve access to credit for entrepreneurs and micro-enterprises and to facilitate the growth and expansion of viable businesses.
The State provided a grant of €10 million in 2012 to Microfinance Ireland, the company established to administer this scheme. I can report that the cost for 2012 was €461,000, which includes once-off set up costs of €278,000. To date, applications of over €2.5 million have been made under the scheme and €700,000 has been approved, as a result of which over 110,000 jobs are expected to be created or maintained.
In relation to the cost of both schemes, Exchequer gains in terms of employment sustained and created, savings on welfare payments and increased direct and indirect taxes have been calculated at over €20,000 per job. On this basis I am satisfied that both schemes are more than balanced by the potential benefits.
In addition to these initiatives, the seed and venture capital scheme, the Innovation Fund Ireland and the development capital scheme are helping Irish companies, including SMEs, access funding in the current difficult environment.
It might be noted that I tabled a number of questions to the Minister on the stimulus package and the jobs likely to be created from it. I also tabled questions on legacy debt for small businesses but his Department decided not to answer those and they were forwarded to the Department of Finance. I ask the Minister to request that these job-centric questions be answered properly by the Department in future.
I am in the same boat, so to speak. We tabled questions about legacy debt for the Department of Finance also. They are specifically tailored for this Minister.
One of the major breaks on this economy is debt overhang and the ability to access credit. It is one of the reasons we in Sinn Féin have insisted time and again that stimulus by the Government is necessary. In other words, when private investment is paralysed, the State must invest. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government will come around to that view but the issue is how long it will take it to do that and the damage that will be done in the interim.
It is important to state that the Government has given a number of responses with regard to credit but we should examine the size of the problem. The Minister has put €64 billion of our money into the banks. Fiona Muldoon from the Central Bank of Ireland has stated that 50% of €58 billion of impaired debt is due to the small and medium enterprise, SME, sector. If construction is taken out of that, we are talking about at least €8 billion, or 35%, of SME debt which is impaired. It is impossible for those healthy businesses to survive. Spicers in Navan, for example, had a functioning business, a product that would sell and a customer base but, unfortunately, it had diversified into property and the entire business was sunk.
We have asked the Government time and again to deal with this issue through the banks, the organisations that got the money, but it has refused to do that. It has brought forward a number of smaller projects and funds which make up €200,000 here and €2 million there but do not come near the billions of euro hampering this economy. What has the Minister done to get the Economic Management Group to go to the banks to get this issue resolved?
I understand the Deputy's frustration but there are issues that are not dealt with by my Department. The presentation of a stimulus package, whether it be PPPs, infrastructure funds or whatever, is not the responsibility of my Department.
The Deputy could table a question and receive a response from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The situation is similar with regard to impaired loans. I know the Financial Regulator is talking about setting targets for the small business sector in the same way as targets have been set for mortgage holders in terms of dealing with problem loans. However, responsibility for that lies with the Minister for Finance. I am not being obstructive; that is just the situation.
I agree we must be innovative in the way we create a stimulus. If we tot up all the access to funding schemes for SMEs the Government has put in place, that will amount to €2.5 billion. Much of that is now funded from the NPRF. In addition, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has a €2.25 billion stimulus scheme in place, through PPPs and other capital programmes and NAMA has indicated that it is investing €2 billion in its property folio. These are ways - off the balance sheet - for providing a stimulus and the Government is committed to creating opportunities for job creation.
The questions tabled, which I answered, related to the cost of schemes our Department has sponsored and I dealt with that.
May I put another supplementary question?
Sorry, we have run out of time. I remind the House that the time for supplementary questions and answers is limited to four minutes. The reason I announce there are two minutes remaining is to provide a guideline on the remaining time available.
