Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment debate -
Wednesday, 8 May 2024

Small Companies Administrative Rescue Process: Discussion

We are now in public session. Any member who is joining us remotely must do so from within the Leinster House complex.

Today we will have a discussion on the small companies administrative rescue process, SCARP. The Companies (Rescue Process for Small and Micro Companies) Act 2021, which was commenced on 8 December 2021, provides for a new, dedicated rescue process for small and micro companies known as SCARP. The committee is pleased to have the opportunity to consider these matters further with representatives from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. I am pleased to welcome from the Department Dr. Dermot Coates, principal officer at the economic and tax policy unit, Ms Fiona O'Dea, principal officer at the company law review unit, and Ms Tara Keane, principal officer at the company law accounting and auditing unit. I also welcome from the Revenue Commissioners Mr. Paddy Purtill and Ms Maureen Marray, both of whom are principal officers at the Collector General's division.

I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practices of the Houses with regard to references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. Witnesses are again reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed by me to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such directives.

The opening statements have been circulated to all members. To commence our consideration of this matter, I invite Ms O'Dea to make her opening remarks on behalf of the Department.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

I thank the Chair and the committee for the opportunity to discuss the small companies administrative rescue process, otherwise known as SCARP. It is a bespoke rescue process for viable small and micro companies experiencing temporary financial problems. I am accompanied by my colleague, Ms Tara Keane, who was also involved in the development of the process, and Dr. Dermot Coates from the Department's economic and tax policy unit.

SCARP, as a unique process, was developed in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, specifically to alleviate the impact on small and micro companies which demonstrated the largest declines. Some 78% of that cohort operated in sectors that were particularly challenged by the pandemic. With such a rapid response required, there was a risk that any short-term, reactive response would result in a frenzy of sticking plasters that would prop up economically unviable companies and would have far-reaching consequences beyond the distressed company itself. Thus, the challenge was to deliver a sustainable regulatory rescue framework that would provide an effective lifeline to small companies, affording them an opportunity to restructure their debts and continue trading but which would also incorporate robust safeguards and balance the needs of all stakeholders affected by corporate rescue.

A comprehensive review of the State's existing corporate rescue framework and an assessment of available policy options was commenced in June 2020 when the Company Law Review Group, CLRG, a statutory advisory body, was requested to examine the issue. The CLRG's report advising on a legal structure for the rescue of small companies was submitted to the then Tánaiste in October 2020. This report informed the policy and operational approach the Department took in devising a process that would allow viable small and micro enterprises experiencing temporary financial problems to restructure with the agreement of creditors and avoid liquidation, thereby ensuring the long-term viability of those companies and preserving employment.

The Department quickly developed the CLRG's recommendations from both operational and policy perspectives. The defining features of the SCARP project were to, first, reduce court involvement, speed up the restructuring process and lower costs; second, ensure the process was underpinned by a robust legal framework; and, third, amid a global health crisis, establish the process quickly but carefully.

Developing a new rescue process over a compressed period during a public health crisis was challenging. Nonetheless, the Department engaged in an undertaking that was thorough, transparent and accessible, and which included a month-long public consultation on the proposed measures.

Given the significance of SCARP to saving companies and jobs, the Department developed an integrated communications strategy to prepare companies, employees and creditors and professional advisers for its commencement. The comprehensive approach included a media campaign, a dedicated web page and booklet providing practical information on the new process, stakeholder engagement and direct communications with small and micro companies.

SCARP was initially designed to respond to the immediate impact of Covid-19 on small companies. However, it is now positioned to provide for a long-term solution to the economic impacts of the pandemic and the significant challenges that have faced small companies on foot of multiple external and geopolitical crises and the costs associated with them. As such, the process has been broadly welcomed as a valuable addition to the State's insolvency toolkit for our small and micro enterprise sector, which accounts for more than 98% of companies and employs in the region of 900,000 people.

The decision to enter SCARP is a matter for individual companies and their respective advisers. The Department continues to monitor the use of SCARP and, as of 24 April, 62 small companies had availed of it, resulting in a significant number of jobs being saved thus far. It is also important to note that the availability of SCARP as a means to restructure can also encourage creditors to engage informally in a constructive manner with viable companies in distress, diminishing the necessity to enter into a formal process. This important and beneficial aspect of the process obviously cannot be quantified. The context is also important. Insolvency and restructuring activities are, as a whole, rising but remain below pre-pandemic levels.

In tandem with this upward trend, 2023 saw a 50% rise in SCARP notifications over the first year of operation. It is also interesting to note that SCARP, which incorporates key elements of the examinership model, outnumbered examinerships in 2022 and 2023.

Company law is dynamic and the legislative framework provided for by the Companies Act 2014 is regularly reviewed to ensure that the original objectives remain valid and are being achieved, as well as to consider developments arising from stakeholder engagement, developments in case law and the work of the Company Law Review Group, CLRG. Given the necessary pace at which the process itself was developed and the 2021 Act which underpinned it was drafted, a number of technical matters which require refinement and further improvements to the operation of SCARP are proposed in the companies (corporate governance, enforcement and regulatory provisions) Bill 2024. External experts, insolvency practitioners and the public were consulted in the preparation of amendments to ensure all voices were heard in examining its operation thus far. The Bill recently completed prelegislative scrutiny.

The State recognises that fundamentally viable companies can go through difficult times and so its primary focus is on preventive solutions rather than imposing an absolute duty on an otherwise viable company to wind up. Accordingly, Ireland already has well-established processes and procedures to facilitate timely debt restructuring. The design of SCARP was predicated on the need to reduce costs by streamlining and simplifying existing examinership procedures while also balancing the constitutionally protected property rights of creditors, the existing successful and well-tested examinership framework and the need to address the specific requirements of small businesses.

Expanding the State's corporate rescue framework to provide a strong and innovative restructuring procedure in SCARP has met with broad support from industry practitioners, small business representatives and experts in the field of insolvency. The IMF, in its assessment of Ireland’s insolvency regime observed that the process is a welcome addition to Ireland's insolvency toolkit. All this positive feedback suggests that SCARP is well positioned to assist small and micro companies in the period ahead.

We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the committee's discussion of the process and to assist in any way we can. I thank the Chair.

Mr. Paddy Purtill

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to make my opening statement. I understand that this meeting is to discuss the small companies administrative rescue process, or SCARP as it is more commonly known. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the process from a Revenue perspective as a creditor and tax administration.

Revenue has well-developed and long-established procedures in place to deal with companies which do not, or cannot, meet their tax liabilities. These procedures include assigning designated caseworkers to individual cases with tax debt and applying escalatory interventions where necessary to ensure compliance. These interventions include putting in place phased payment arrangements, charging interest on late payment and, where necessary, debt recovery through enforcement. The application of the various strategies is deployed depending on the level of engagement by the taxpayer and the level of tax debt at risk.

While Revenue must be mindful of its core function to serve the community by fairly and efficiently collecting taxes and duties, it is committed to being a constructive participant in SCARP and has shown the maximum amount of flexibility possible when considering applications under the scheme. This is reflected in the strong opt-in rate to the scheme in relation to Revenue debt.

To ensure clear and streamlined engagement between Revenue and key stakeholders operating in the SCARP environment, a dedicated team in Revenue's Collector General's division acts as the first point of contact for all SCARP-related queries. Contact details and initial requirements for Revenue debt to be included in the process are outlined on a designated SCARP information hub on the Revenue website.

Revenue debt is classed as excludable debt under section 558L(4) of the Companies (Rescue Process for Small and Micro Companies) Act 2021. This means that Revenue may opt out of an arrangement on the following grounds: that the eligible company has failed, at any time, to comply with a requirement relating to tax imposed, examples of which include outstanding returns or a poor tax compliance history; there is an open Revenue audit or intervention into the eligible company; or the eligible company is party to an appeal in respect of a requirement relating to tax.

As part of SCARP, a company is required to appoint a process adviser. The process adviser is then obliged to work with the company's creditors to formulate a rescue plan that can work for both the company and its creditors. Revenue encourages process advisers to engage as early as possible during the preparatory stage of the process and visit the designated area on Revenue's website. Such engagement will assist in clarifying Revenue's requirements and help increase the possibility of Revenue consenting to the inclusion of its debt in the process.

While some of the information required is straightforward, for example, that all tax returns are up-to-date and appropriate consents and a statement of affairs are submitted, further supporting documentation may be requested on a case-by-case basis.

It is important to note that where there is failure by the process adviser to provide the required level of information and the company is non-compliant with its tax obligations, Revenue will have no option but to opt out of the arrangement.

It is also important that the process adviser consider all tax implications when entering SCARP. These include: that the company files and pays its current taxes as they fall due following the commencement of the SCARP arrangement, as failure to file and pay current taxes is a clear indication that the company does not have a reasonable prospect of survival; that Revenue will recoup any VAT input credit that has been claimed on expenditure that has not been honoured, as covered by section 62A of the Value-Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010; that company directors may become personally liable for their own unpaid PAYE and PRSI, as per section 997A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997; and that there is a need to account for exceptional income gains arising through the write-off of amounts owing to creditors. If the company fails to file returns and make the necessary payments in respect of current taxes, Revenue will notify the process adviser. If the non-compliance is not addressed in a timely manner, Revenue may apply to the court to challenge the continuation of the process or to place the company into liquidation or receivership.

Since the introduction of SCARP, Revenue has worked with the insolvency practitioners to best achieve positive outcomes for all involved. This has included a presentation to Restructuring and Insolvency Ireland members, a webinar to Irish Tax Institute members and the publication of clear guidance on Revenue requirements in respect of SCARP on its website.

There have been 62 SCARP applications to date. In the main, these have been made by taxpayers in the hospitality, retail and construction sectors. Of those, 60 have been reviewed with two opt-in decisions pending. Of the 60 cases reviewed, three had no Revenue debt. Of the remainder, Revenue opted in to 48 cases and opted out of nine, giving an opt-in rate of 84%. The key reason for opting out of the nine cases was a significant history of non-compliance with tax obligations. Where rescue plans have been finalised, Revenue has agreed dividends of approximately €5.3 million from a total tax debt of €21.5 million. Revenue will continue its process of reviewing and monitoring all applications on a case-by-case basis and being a constructive participant in SCARP.

To conclude, I draw the committee’s attention to section 851A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 and my obligation to uphold taxpayer confidentiality. Subject to this constraint, I am happy to answer members' questions.

Thank you, Mr. Purtill. I invite members to discuss the issues with the representatives before us. We have a rota in place and the first person indicated to speak is Deputy O'Reilly.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and sharing the information with us. It is an issue we have discussed. Even when we are not directly discussing it, it comes up a lot, so the presentation has been useful.

I have a couple of questions and if follow-up is needed, we can engage again afterwards. The first relates to the number of businesses that are failing. Deloitte insolvency and restructuring statistics show there were 663 corporate insolvencies in 2023, up 25% on 2022. Some of that might be Covid-related, and I suspect it is, but we can tease that out. In addition, 2023 saw a 50% rise in SCARP notifications. PwC and Deloitte both forecast more businesses will fail in 2024 than in any year since 2016. In the first quarter of 2024, 214 firms became insolvent, an increase of nearly 50%.

Do the Department and Revenue Commissioners have concerns about this increasing trend? If so, what can be done? We are here to discuss what has been done to date but what more could be done to help viable but vulnerable businesses, while separating them from businesses that cannot remain a going concern? At both extremes, it is easy to see which business is viable and which is not but there is a grey area. I use the expression "viable but vulnerable" but I would be caught if someone asked for a definition of that, because it is quite individual. What concerns do the witnesses have? What more could be done, separate from what is being done already?

Ms Fiona O'Dea

I thank the Deputy. She makes the point that insolvency rates are rising; however, they are below pre-pandemic levels.

The Deputy mentioned the PwC insolvency barometer. It reveals that the current annual failure rate is 29 companies per 10,000 which is below pre-pandemic levels of 36 companies per 10,000 in 2019. Obviously, there has been an increase but it still remains at historically low levels. As the Deputy mentioned, the gradual return to pre-pandemic levels of insolvency is seeing a parallel upward trend in the number of companies availing of SCARP and examinership. The use of SCARP increased by 50% in 2023, from 22 to 33 cases.

We do not believe there is any clear evidence to support the proposition that we are facing in to a serious insolvency situation or a tsunami. The Central Bank's financial stability review of 2023 did not raise alarm bells regarding insolvency spikes or SME impacts. That review notes that corporate insolvency has continued to rise from historical lows but that this trend appears to relate primarily to firms that exited the pandemic in weak financial condition. It also reports that most companies entering insolvent liquidation in 2023 claimed wage subsidies during the pandemic.

Previous analysis by the World Bank indicates that it took 13 quarters for the impact of the financial crisis in 2007 to be felt before there was a peak of insolvent liquidations. We are now in that time lag, three years on from the pandemic, and we are not seeing that tsunami coming at us. Even if there is a spike, it is worth noting that the IMF ranks Ireland 14 out of 60 countries in its indicator for crisis preparedness of insolvency systems. This is in large part due to our insolvency regime which rests on an established framework in which there are a number of factors at work. We have a greater use of technology in our insolvency processes which increases efficiency. There are virtual meetings, remote voting systems and electronic communications. We also have professionals. We have insolvency practitioners who are appropriately regulated and support various aspects of the insolvency process. We also collect and analyse insolvency data to help assess the performance of the system and to support the design of inner reform. It is evidence based.

As we mentioned, we have extended our insolvency toolkit to include SCARP, reducing court involvement in solvency cases and allowing for the restructuring of viable firms within a limited period. We have well-established liquidation proceedings which provide for a clear exit mechanism for non-viable companies and facilitate the redeployment of assets to more productive uses. In addition, a complete set of targeted supports has been deployed to address distressed situations in firms.

I should point out that I did not use the term "tsunami".

Ms Fiona O'Dea

That is fine.

I understand other people have used it but it is not one that I would use.

Mr. Paddy Purtill

From a Revenue perspective, we encourage debtors and taxpayers to engage as early as they can if they believe they are in difficulty. The earlier there is an engagement from a taxpayer, the quicker we can try to get to a solution. Revenue has designated caseworkers in place for all businesses with debt and we encourage those businesses to contact them as early as possible. There are flexibilities in place, both within and outside restructuring platforms, for us to work with. It is fundamentally important that they do not take a head in the sand approach and that they engage as early as possible.

That brings me to my next question. It relates to the debt warehousing scheme which, as we know, ended last Wednesday. Some 55,000 companies still owe Revenue a total of €1.65 billion under this scheme. How many companies have not engaged with Revenue in this regard? We know that some are engaging. It is not necessarily that people have their heads in the sand. They may be trying to get their companies into a good position and get everything sorted before they engage with Revenue. I fully appreciate that Mr. Purtill will say they should do so at any time. I get that but it is not necessarily the case that their hands are in the sand. Maybe they know they have to do it. Does Mr. Purtill have an estimate of how many companies have not engaged with Revenue and have been issued with a full bill for their tax liabilities? Will all of these businesses now, as a matter of course, be excluded from the SCARP process?

Ms Maureen Marray

I will answer this question. Overall, Revenue has been very pleased with the level of engagement it saw last week from its customers.

Businesses had until last Wednesday to put a plan in place to address the debt but there was never any expectation that they had to pay the debt in full. They had to engage with Revenue to put a payment plan in place. We wrote to customers with warehoused debt in March and set out those key actions and messages. It is very evident that many have listened to those messages. We acknowledge the efforts they have made. On foot of that strong engagement, I will give a quick update on the statistics at the close of business on 3 May.

I specifically want to know the number who have not, to get a view of what is out there as regards people who have not.

Ms Maureen Marray

On the number who have not engaged, there is about €200 million of debt not yet covered by a phased payment arrangement or paid in full. We also know that the number will probably decrease further this week because a number of customers last week engaged with us on the phone and through our online MyEnquiries system and, for technical and other reasons, could not submit their payment plan applications. We are finalising and supporting those customers this week.

Is it a large number?

Ms Maureen Marray

It is not a large number but we are just supporting. The figure I will give is still dynamic and will change. For those who have not engaged, they risk losing the 0% rate and access to the flexible payments arrangement. The latest statistic is that 11,000 customers have not yet put a payment plan in place. As we would have advised in all of our communications to date, that debt, which covers 11,000 customers and €200 million - coming down to less than €200 million - will lose that 0%. They will be subject to the standard collection procedure. Today's committee meeting is timely as today we wrote to those customers using our standard collection process and have issued a seven-day demand notice. That is a standard notification we send to any customer with debt. Those customers have seven days and one final opportunity to engage and put a payment plan in place. If they do not, after seven days, they lose the 0%. We will then proceed to the next stage of our collection process, which is final demand, possible enforcement and that debt will be subject to the 8% and 10% rates, which are standard for standard debt.

Will they then necessarily be excluded from the SCARP process?

Mr. Paddy Purtill

No.

They will not be excluded. They will be included.

Mr. Paddy Purtill

Any business that finds itself in difficulty can avail of SCARP.

What if they do not engage after the letter Revenue sent out today?

I suppose they have to engage to be part of it.

Ms Maureen Marray

There will be a number of notifications and a number of opportunities to engage.

They will still have a chance. That is what I wanted to get to. On those with whom Revenues is engaging, that number is small but likely to increase off the back of the letters that will go out today.

Ms Maureen Marray

I refer to the number of cases that have not engaged, and relative to the peak in January 2022, when there was €3.2 billion in the warehouse and more than 105,000 customers. As of close of business on 3 May, there are 10,000 customers with whom we are still waiting to engage. It is a positive story and there is a bit to run in it as yet. We sent out our letters this week and we will probably see that number coming down.

My figures state that there was €75 million in warehoused tax liabilities lost due to insolvency last year. Do the witnesses have any idea what the likely figure for this year will be?

Ms Maureen Marray

I do not have an up-to-date figure.

Mr. Paddy Purtill

I know that the vast majority of that €75 million is for liquidated companies, as against SCARP or examinership.

I understand that.

Mr. Paddy Purtill

Unfortunately, no, we would not have any idea of what lies ahead.

On companies that have only recently engaged, do they have a caseworker appointed directly to them? Clearly, there is an issue if somebody has not engaged or they are only picking up the phone or sending an e-mail at this stage.

What kind of supports are there for each individual business? How is that structured?

Ms Maureen Marray

Our debt collection function within the collector general includes over 25 debt management teams. Every customer will be assigned to a debt management team. When they engage with us, they will be channelled to their relevant case worker on that team. Once they continue with that engagement, we will work with them to agree a plan. A dedicated caseworker will work with the customer.

Okay. Today, or in the coming days, 11,000 customers will receive letters. As a general rule of thumb, what is the rate of return from those letters when they go out? What kind of engagement would Revenue expect?

Ms Maureen Marray

Usually, it is the prompt for many to engage with us at the demand stage. On the debt breakdown of those cases, we know almost 60% have balances of less than €5,000. There is no reason for those customers not to have engaged with us because we have a very flexible phased payment facility available to them. Many customers with similar types of debt have engaged. It is crucial for those businesses who receive letters to respond to the demand notices they receive from us and engage with us. We cannot assist them until we get that engagement.

Ms Marray said 11,000 customers have not engaged. She also referred to those customers whose debt is less than €5,000. Was the figure 60,000 or 6,000?

Ms Maureen Marray

The figure is 60% of those customers.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presentation and forwarding on their notes in advance of the meeting. Following on from the comments of Deputy O'Reilly, I note there have been 62 SCARP applications to date. Obviously, some small companies have availed of that, as stated in the notes. Revenue said it is still working on some of those cases. Have the 62 cases been finalised at this stage? What is meant by the statement that 62 customers have availed of the scheme?

Ms Fiona O'Dea

The 62 concerned are those who have entered the process. I am not sure of the position regarding the 62 cases in terms of Revenue.

Mr. Paddy Purtill

Of the 62 cases, approximately ten have failed the process. We believe that is a good sign and shows that the process is working. Not all companies who enter the process are fully eligible to tick all the boxes. Some 40 of the 62 cases have now completed the exercise. From a Revenue perspective, there were three which had no Revenue debt.

A figure of €5.3 million was mentioned in respect of dividends, as against €21.5 million. Where have those figures come from?

Mr. Paddy Purtill

Of the 40 cases, there was debt on record of €21.5 million. We accepted dividends in those cases of €5.3 million, which is approximately 25%.

What is happening with the balance of the 62 cases?

Mr. Paddy Purtill

There is a 70-day process for the rescue plan to be put in place.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

Not all rescue plans or those who enter SCARP will be successful. There are a variety of reasons the process might not be successful. My understanding is that in some instances no external investment could be sourced, the directors might disagree with the conditions for the external investment or the creditor threshold for voting in favour of the plan was not met.

We found out that 663 corporate insolvencies were recorded in Ireland in 2023, according to a report from, I understand, Deloitte. I have a note that there have been 214 so far this year. Those numbers seem quite large compared with the number of companies entering SCARP.

Is it Ms O'Dea's view that more companies should avail of SCARP, looking at the large number of insolvencies? Does Ms O'Dea have any knowledge as to whether any of these companies that enter insolvency could have gone down the road of SCARP?

Ms Fiona O'Dea

SCARP is doing what it set out to do. It is saving viable companies that would have otherwise gone into liquidation; therefore, it is saving jobs. There are reports of more than 600 jobs being saved at the end of last year. It is maximising the total value for creditors who in many instances may be employers themselves. There may be a number of factors that influence the take-up rate. One might be entry requirements for SCARP. SCARP is there but it is not to be used to prop up economically unviable companies. It must be used for viable companies. Not all companies experiencing financial difficulties are viable. It may be the impact of the extension of the Revenue's debt warehousing scheme where companies might decide not to enter into SCARP. What is also important and what cannot be quantified, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, is that SCARP can encourage creditors to engage constructively with viable companies in distress, so they may not need to enter a formal process and can restructure outside the process. Therefore, there is a value in having SCARP.

The Department's role was to provide a sustainable regulatory framework. We did that at the height of Covid to respond to the immediate impacts of that. SCARP is now a valuable part of our insolvency toolkit. The Department does not promote it; it is not our role to promote and encourage it. Our role is more one of raising awareness that this process exists. That is the role the Department plays. When we commenced the process, Ms Keane and her team were very much involved in putting an integrated communications strategy in place using print media and social media and a really good information leaflet which is available on the Department's website. It is very easy to read and understand. We continue with those communication campaigns on an ongoing basis, largely through social media.

It is not the Department's role to push companies into SCARP. It is a process that is available and the Department has made that available.

Maybe as awareness grows more companies will avail of SCARP. Are there many people who inquire about SCARP and then do not go forward with it?

Ms Fiona O'Dea

They would not be coming to the Department. They may approach insolvency practitioners or the process advisers. People may communicate with them directly but they would not come to the Department. We established the policy, we set it out and we provided the framework.

I thank Ms O'Dea. Will Mr. Purtill outline the policy of the Revenue Commissioners with respect to when it agrees to write down debt? Is there a clear set of guidelines companies can go to?

Mr. Paddy Purtill

The Revenue Commissioner's main policy is to maximise the collection with any particular business. If a business goes into a SCARP process we will go through all of the records on a case-by-case basis. A process adviser has to satisfy himself or herself that the company is insolvent and do his or her own audit of that business in order to ensure that. The Revenue Commissioners would ask a lot of questions based on the accounts of that business, the activity of the business and whether there were difficulties how they happened. We would satisfy ourselves as to where that business is at with regard to that restructuring and based on that business we would then make a decision on whether we believe we are getting the maximum we would get. We cannot be prejudiced in a SCARP in comparison to a liquidation, so we should be getting more than we would get in a liquidation for the Revenue Commissioners to agree to a SCARP. That does not mean we should just get a euro more. We should maximise as much as we can from the SCARP process and once we are satisfied with that, the Revenue Commissioners will opt in and vote in favour of a SCARP.

There is no template or policy people can go to and get some guidance as to whether or not they would be-----

Mr. Paddy Purtill

It is on a case-by-case basis because, as the Deputy will understand, there could be two similar businesses with very different financing.

I have a question about habitual liquidations and examinerships.

Is that an issue we should be concerned about? Is it something the witnesses have come across frequently in their work? I mean people repeating or the frequency.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

I am sorry. We would not necessarily have that data. For example, there is no limit to the number of times a company can go into examinership but a court would obviously have serious concerns if the same company is continually going into examinership.

Companies are allowed to enter the SCARP process once every five years, again, for the same reason. A company should not be able to repeatedly avail of SCARP. Because it is not a court process, we did put a limit of once every five years. Ms Keane might come in on liquidations.

Ms Tara Keane

Apart from the five-year limit, the other protection that we have in SCARP to prevent habitual use is the early creditor engagement. As soon as a process adviser is appointed, he or she must engage with all the creditors, so there is that self-policing. If there are creditors or employees, they are not going to stand for a consistent in-and-out process, no more than I am sure Revenue would.

I thank the witnesses.

I would like to get some details. Could Ms O'Dea give us the sectors involved in the 62 cases, and the costs in terms of the completed process compared with, let us say, an examinership? Is it too early to know the survival rate of the 40 companies that have completed the process? Do we know how many, if any, were contested and had to go to court before they were confirmed? I would like to get those details to have an understanding of the process.

Revenue recovered roughly 25% of the debt. Is that the same as everyone else recovered or does Revenue get a better recovery than other creditors? Do we know that sort of detail in terms of how that works out?

What is the strategy in terms of the 11,000 companies that have warehoused debt but have not entered into any arrangement? I know there is engagement but is there a process involving insolvency practitioners for companies, whereby some of them would be supported or have engagement with someone who might see whether there are prospects for recovery? Is it just the case that they will go on to the 10% and it does not look too good after that?

It is striking that there is a fall-off in examinership as a share. That gives an indication that there was a gap. That was a notoriously expensive option. It does look like the Department has hit a spot. Like others, I just wonder about there being only 62 or 63 companies to date. Does that indicate there are barriers to engagement with this process for a lot more companies or that in some way they are put off? Perhaps there are not enough lower-cost accountants who are engaging and offering the service. Do we know whether it is just the very big four players that are involved or if the process is accessible?

Ms Fiona O'Dea

I will try to answer those questions as best I can. On the costs of SCARP versus examinership, we understand the cost can range from €15,000 to about €70,000, with the average coming in at about €40,000. Our understanding is that this is substantially lower than the average examinership, which typically ranges from about €80,000 to €120,000.

In terms of the cost of the process itself, the costs are largely determined by the legal and administrative costs. SCARP is as cost-efficient as possible, bearing in mind the safeguards that must be put in place and the possibility of recourse to the courts. In terms of the fees that are charged by the process advisers, it is the company itself that decides to appoint an insolvency practitioner. Before an insolvency practitioner is appointed, he or she is required to be upfront about the costs that are going to be incurred. The company can shop around. It does not have to go to the big firms: it can be the local accountant or solicitor. A company does have the option to shop around.

As to whether it is a barrier to entry, we had a public consultation on the miscellaneous provisions Bill that has completed pre-legislative scrutiny here and the issue of costs is not something that has been brought to our attention. It has not been raised with the Department or identified as a blocking feature to entry to SCARP. As I mentioned, the existence of SCARP itself can allow for people to engage constructively outside the process.

In terms of the survival rate, it is too early to say and I do not have any data on that but it is something that will be watched. In terms of the sectors that have availed of SCARP, last year the top three, according to the data I have here, were construction, manufacturing and technology. Retail is also featuring, as are the accommodation and food sectors.

What of recourse to the courts?

Ms Fiona O'Dea

Sorry, but what was the question?

One can refuse it and then this-----

Ms Fiona O'Dea

We are not aware of any objections that have gone to court.

Would someone from Revenue like to comment on the recovery rate for Revenue versus the rest?

Mr. Paddy Purtill

Deputy Bruton asked whether Revenue is getting more than the general creditors. The 25% figure is our recovery rate. It is about 40% for our preferential debt and it is lower for the unsecured. Again, it is on a case-by-case basis. There are some cases where we do not have any preferential debt and in other cases, we do. In the cases where we do have preferential debt, we are getting a higher percentage based on the priority of that preferential debt. It is probably in two of every three cases that we have some sort of preferential debt versus the unsecured.

I thank the witnesses for attending, and well done to them because it seems like a good process overall. The feedback from companies on it is good. I am interested in getting a breakdown of the size of the 62 companies that have availed of SCARP to date. I presume it is mainly bigger companies if the amount involved is €200 million. What was the biggest challenge? Do the witnesses have data on why these companies had to access SCARP and what the biggest challenge was for them? Was it specifically their energy costs or a lack of customers, for example? That would be very useful information to have and I am interested to know whether that data is being gathered from the companies that are engaging with SCARP. Was there anything glaringly obvious like energy bills or some other issue that was the biggest challenge for them?

As we heard in the opening statement, prevention is better than cure. With that in mind, has there been engagement with the local enterprise offices, LEOs, to highlight the biggest issues and challenges for SMEs? LEOs have been given substantial funding to help small businesses with things like energy costs but I understand that the uptake of audits under the green for micro programme is very low. Is that something we need to look at? It would appear that nobody seems to know about those supports. I am always telling businesspeople about them and as soon as I do, they tell me they will apply. I would like to know a bit more about whether the Department is engaging with the people running the LEOs. We got lots of the money for the LEOs two years ago from the Minister but the uptake has been minimal. In County Clare, for example, the target for the year was 17 but only five micro for green audits were done. It is an ongoing concern of mine that the Government has made money available to the LEOs but it is not getting to the businesses. Ms O'Dea said earlier that there was a media campaign, a dedicated web page and a booklet. Did that media campaign include Instagram and other places where small businesses hang out all of the time, a lot more than on email or websites? Government websites are like interesting mazes. I would like to know more about the public relations, PR, side of things. I often see things in local newspapers and more traditional media but I do not see them in the arenas where small businesses operate, which include Instagram and other platforms like LinkedIn.

Finally, has the Department reflected on SCARP as a whole? It seems to have come from a very good place and to be based on very good research. Is there room for improvement? How does the Department view the process at the moment, bearing in mind what it has learned so far?

Ms Fiona O'Dea

I thank the Senator. With regard to the data and breakdown she is looking for and the reasons companies have gone into SCARP, we do not have that data. On the point the Senator made with regard to LEOs, we would have to come back to her but we can certainly follow up on it.

Is the Department gathering that data?

Ms Fiona O'Dea

Dr. Coates might be able to speak to that a bit more.

Dr. Dermot Coates

The Senator is correct. There have been quite a lot of additional resources channelled through the LEOs in the form of the green for micro schemes and additional energy efficiency grants, etc. For instance, on 5 March last, the Government made a decision to provide an additional €15 million to enable top-ups-----

I know. I put it in the budget.

Dr. Dermot Coates

That was just last March. It was an additional decision to increase the amount from €5,000 to €8,000.

The money is there. That is not the issue.

Dr. Dermot Coates

The money is there but some of these schemes are quite new. Getting traction with the sector can sometimes be a challenge, particularly-----

I want to ask about PR.

Dr. Dermot Coates

-----for the smaller firms, where someone is HR manager, van driver and chief tea maker.

Yes, my sisters run two small businesses. I know all about it. That is why I am asking about the PR and the supports.

Dr. Dermot Coates

These are exactly the cases, and it is for that reason that the Department engages through social media. That PR and outreach go beyond simply publishing something to the Government's web pages.

With regard to take-up and throughput for those, I do not have the statistics with me. We can come back to the Senator with detail on that.

I know the take-up is low.

Dr. Dermot Coates

Yes. I can also come back with additional written detail on the social media outreach and the various PR campaigns.

Yes, I would love that. I will follow up with Dr. Coates directly, or will he follow up with me?

Dr. Dermot Coates

I will come back through the secretariat.

That is fantastic.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

In response to the Senator's query around reflecting on SCARP and any improvements we might make, SCARP and the legislation that underpinned it were necessarily developed at speed. I think it took about six months. Ms Keane will remember those days, and the sleepless nights and so forth. It was done carefully but nonetheless, there were a few technical matters that require refinement and will be addressed in the miscellaneous provisions Bill. We have identified some gaps in the process. If we plug those gaps, it will allow us to collate a bit more data, which obviously underpins any policy decisions we make in terms of any future changes to the process. Most of the changes are to plug gaps in the process.

Two more fundamental changes are in response to requests for amendments made by Deputy O'Reilly during the passage of the Bill. One was for the process adviser, when bearing in minding the factors around making a decision as to whether the company should enter SCARP, and whether it is potentially viable, to extend the factors out to consider the social and cultural importance of the company. Another is on the issue of the fees of the process adviser because a creditor can go to court if it has a concern around the fees of the process adviser. Where it is being considered by the court, the court could ask the process adviser why they may not have used the services of the company and the staff facilities as they were conducting their work and putting the plan together.

Company law is dynamic and we always keep it under review. Nearly every year, a miscellaneous provisions Bill comes out of the 2014 Act, so we do respond to public consultation.

In the short time remaining, I would like to clarify that Dr. Coates is going to email the secretariat information on the size of the 62 companies; whether data is being gathered on the biggest challenges facing those companies; what specific PR work has been done; the take-up from the LEOs; and what the Department's engagement is with the LEOs in general to make sure preventative work is done. Is that correct?

Ms Fiona O'Dea

With regard to the size of the 62 companies, they are small and micro companies.

I know that but it can be five employees or it can be 50. I mean the breakdown of the size.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

Micro companies are those with up to ten employees and small companies are those with up to 50 employees. The turnover is a maximum of €6 million, I think, and the balance sheet is €12 million. It could be the other way around.

Ms O'Dea does not have the breakdown.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

In respect of individual companies-----

There could be two people or 50 people in a company.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

I am not sure if we have that data. We would have to check.

Okay. I am just curious as to whether there is any prevalent size.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

We will see if we can get that data for the Senator to clarify that.

Is it clear what follow-up information the Department will get? It includes the PR that is being done and the take-up from the LEOs.

Dr. Dermot Coates

We will get information on the LEOs, the various energy efficiency measures and also some background information with regard to PR and the general awareness-raising measures on those two. That is no problem.

We will circulate the information to members when we get it.

I thank the witnesses. I will address the Department first on SCARP. The committee looked for such a process and it is good to see it up and running and obviously rescuing companies. As for the survival rate, it is important that the Department collate data to show how companies are performing on the other side of this process.

The Department and Revenue are very close to and understand the individual business sectors and the major challenges that are going to come up. The same challenges are going to come up in the same sectors by and large because many of them relate to the kind of industry profiling that is going on. When looking at the viability of the business, I contend that bad debt is one of the ways to put a business out of business. A business may be viable but unable to carry the debt loss. As regards those companies that have failed the SCARP process, does the Department have an understanding of whether they had a viability problem caused by the amount of debt they were carrying as a result of a debtor account not being paid? I refer to businesses that have suffered a bad debt and writing it off would not help them because it is part of their cash flow. That is just one area I am wondering about.

It is important, going forward, that the Department tries to provide more information to understand business viability challenges because those business sectors will come in here next year to lobby us for grants, tax breaks and employee supports because of the problems they are having. It is important the Department has an understanding of that. I ask the Department to address that, after which I will move to Revenue. Have I confused the witnesses?

Deputy David Stanton took the Chair.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

I am not in a position to be able to give the Deputy the reasons businesses have entered SCARP. I have no information in this regard. An insolvency practitioner is called in who makes a determination. The Act sets out the bar companies must reach in order to be able to enter into SCARP. We do not collate data as to why businesses have entered SCARP in the first place or why they have been successful or not successful in terms of the SCARP process, if that is the question the Deputy is asking.

The reason I asked the question is that I have a perception, let us say, that the Department at times does not sufficiently understand what is going on in small and micro-businesses in terms of the challenges. If it does not understand why a company is coming into SCARP, I suggest that is something it needs to understand. It is not enough to say that a practitioner has brought the case to the Department and it will adjudicate on it. The Department should fundamentally understand the challenges that have brought that business to the SCARP process.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

Dr. Coates will speak to that.

Dr. Dermot Coates

I thank Deputy for his question. In March last, the Department, in conjunction with the Department of Social Protection, published a report on the cost of doing business in Ireland. That was done following a direction from the Government last year. As part of the methodology for that, we conducted workshops with businesses, which included small businesses, hotels, restaurants, coffee shops, etc., and also case studies where we went out, met firms and went through the details of the issues they faced. I can re-circulate a copy of the report and a note on the key findings. There are a variety of issues buffering businesses, particularly smaller businesses. They include staff recruitment and retention, the expansion of the retail sector, in particular to provincial Ireland, which puts pressure on firms, and rising energy costs and interest rates. Firms being required to purchase housing has increasingly become an issue. Much of the feedback, as reflected in the report, is around the difficulty firms are having trying to grapple with multiple issues at one time. As regards capacity, as I informed Senator Garvey earlier, someone in a company may be a van driver, a stock manager, etc. There is that confluence of different issues but it is fair to say that the Department spent a lot of time doing that work to try to document exactly for policymakers the types of issues that micro and small businesses face, as opposed to talking about medium-sized businesses, which, in an Irish context, are very large firms and have much more market power to control their own costs.

My point is that it is important the Department has a good handle on that because it generally liaises with the local enterprise offices.

If I am coming to a LEO with a business plan and talking to a LEO adviser, it would be helpful if the LEO adviser had some publication or otherwise from the Department, which said it was seeing significant challenges in the sector that were sector wide as these problems tend to be. Leaving aside interest rates, recruitment and all of that, many challenges in sectors tend to be the same for all businesses in the sector. That was what I was saying.

It is probably the same side of the coin for Revenue. Revenue gets to see returns in real time and understands how companies are doing. It sees their VAT, PAYE, PRSI and corporation tax. Every year, it has a good healthy look. It sees the balance sheet if it needs to and so on. If it wants to get a handle on it, it can nearly work it out based on what is happening in the accounts. It is in a good position when profiling sectors to know the sectors that are running into trouble. If Revenue moves on the businesses mentioned, which owe €5,000 or less and which they cannot pay, it is fair to deduce they will go out of business. I would assume there are also one or two staff members around those businesses who are in employment and the question is whether they will be re-employed. I am wondering about the value of going into the Revenue process. Say I owe Revenue €5,000 and have not made a payment or entered the plan with it yet and Revenue tells me it is sending it off to the sheriff or my fees will be doubled, and I will have to pay the sheriff's fees, that would definitely put someone under who cannot already pay €5,000. Is that something Revenue needs to look at? Bearing in mind, these are probably sole traders and very small businesses. Are the companies that owe €5,000 all limited companies?

Ms Maureen Marray

Some would be corporates and some would-----

They have all availed of the warehouse scheme and have not come to Revenue yet, so it is obvious they are in trouble if they cannot engage on €5,000. The next question is around what do you do. If Revenue puts them out of business, there is a cost, potentially, in employment.

There is also the question of understanding. The non-payment of debt is a big problem in the small business sector. It puts people out of business and Revenue does not take any account of that. If I go to Revenue and say someone owes me €50,000 and they have stuck me for it, Revenue will say, "Sorry, you still need to pay us whatever VAT is owed as well as PRSI and PAYE." I might have been trading at a loss and expecting that €50,000 to come in and put me back in profit but now I would be told Revenue was expecting fees, charges and all the rest.

I would plead with Revenue to have concern for small businesses as there are people behind them. They are stuck for that amount of money, but they have generally invested much more than that themselves and that has gone with the business. I would ask Revenue to look at that rather than simply going along and instructing normal procedure because being on the sharp end of that procedure is not a very nice place to be. Revenue should remember that. I know plenty of people who have gone through the process. It is very difficult. These are people who are challenged for money. Again, I would say Revenue is in a position to collate that data and provide further reports to the Government.

The Deputy's time is up. We can get a final response if anyone wants to respond to those points.

Ms Maureen Marray

On small business, we do have that phased payment arrangement for those which owe less than €5,000. If a small café or restaurant, which owes us €5,000 in warehoused debt, €100 a month over four years would address that debt once we get that engagement from them. Many payment arrangements have been put in place. There is no reason for that business to bury its head in the sand and not come to us. The question was asked earlier about the viability of a business. For Revenue, being able to meet current taxes as they fall due is a key indicator for us of viability. Where we cannot agree a payment arrangement with a business, it is usually because it has problems with current debt and it is calling into question its viability. It is for the business itself to consider what options are available, consult the professionals and consider what is available to it. There are many businesses out there which we have supported. We have a very good track record of supporting businesses right through the last financial crisis, when we kept them afloat. Warehousing was all about maintaining and protecting cash flow and protecting viable businesses. Revenue is in the business of supporting viable businesses once we get that engagement.

I am confident we can support businesses that are worried about their debt and we have to do that. Regarding the 11,000 that have not engaged, we have to do that out of fairness for all the others that have engaged with us in the past week. We have seen strong engagement. We have shown maximum flexibility around the debt warehousing scheme and those that have availed of it. There were a number of extensions as well as a number of communications where businesses encountered current tax compliance issues, which was a key condition of the scheme. We worked with them, they addressed the issues and they remained in the scheme, retaining the benefit. We have done our utmost in keeping businesses in the scheme and keeping that 0% on debt, which is very attractive compared to 10%. The key message is to engage. We cannot say often enough that a business has to engage with us. We have enough flexibility available.

I have two remaining questions. There is much chat in the media now and two very contrasting and contradictory views, some coming from business representatives and some coming from the trade unions. The trade unions have published a document attempting to bust the myths. There is much talk about the impact of Government policy. The changes are positive and I do not think anyone on either of the debate is saying the changes should not be made. I ask about the impact that Government policy on entitlements for workers is having on businesses. I ask for the witnesses’ opinion with regard to those companies that have availed of SCARP. Is it their impression that Government policy interventions are having a detrimental impact? If that is the case, do they feel a bespoke and time-limited support could be put in place for those sectors? I note hospitality, construction and retail were specifically mentioned in the submission, which are areas where traditionally there is much precarious work and low pay. They are not famous for being high-paying industries. Are the witnesses seeing a link between the Government policy interventions and companies entering the SCARP process? What is their impression of it? I understand this is not recorded in fine detail. I would welcome hearing the witnesses’ impression of what happening there.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

I would love to be able to answer that question but I am afraid we do not know what is driving SCARP and the numbers.

Is there any mechanism by which that can be accessed? I say this in the context of a debate - raging might be overstating it - that this is having a detrimental impact. Who should be collecting that information if the Department is not? It should be available.

Ms Tara Keane

It is difficult for us to collect the data because some of it is commercially sensitive. When you engage with a company, they do not necessarily want to wave the flag and say what their particular weakness or vulnerability is and why they have to enter a rescue process. The Department does excellent work with our retail and hospitality sectors through the enterprise forum, trying to get that anecdotal base around the challenges their membership and sectors are facing. That would then feed to us in company law and our policy responses. In company law, we try to tap into those forums within the Department to make sure our policy is informed by the challenges we hear they are facing on the ground. However, actually collating the data is difficult. I would love to hear ideas but I am not sure how we could do that without potentially having commercially sensitive-----

It could be done if you could do it without identifying-----

Ms Tara Keane

Yes, potentially.

It would be very useful information to have. I will not labour the point.

I have one more question, which relates to employee-owned businesses or workers’ co-ops, depending on how you want to phrase it. Right across Europe, the European Union and Britain, EOBs or workers’ co-ops offer a solution to businesses and companies that are in trouble, particularly financial trouble. The EOBs have been found to be more productive, more resilient and to provide greater benefits.

It is just an extra option when a company is in financial distress. Do the witnesses believe that if we strengthen the position of employee-owned businesses and workers' co-operatives, it would create another avenue for companies in financial distress to get back to viability, rather than see them go down the road of insolvency?

Ms Tara Keane

We can fight over it.

Do the witnesses want to come back to us on it?

Ms Tara Keane

Co-operatives are not necessarily our policy area.

Ms Tara Keane

I do not want to-----

It is in the context of insolvency.

Ms Tara Keane

I know. I am just conscious of perhaps providing an opinion that might be at odds with colleagues when I get back to the Department.

Ms Tara Keane

I do not want to do that.

We do not want Ms Keane to do that, but perhaps she could provide something in writing. It is an area in which I have a particular interest. It is something that works in other jurisdictions both within and outside of the European Union. My party believes there is great scope to expand and develop the capacity in that space. I appreciate the witnesses might not be able to answer it now but the committee would be very grateful if they could follow up with any thoughts they might have on it because it is something that, unfortunately, does not often get discussed, and it possibly should. I refer specifically to the context of a mechanism to avoid insolvency.

For my part, I would like to see it on the agenda as a potential option given that the international evidence suggests that what comes in the aftermath of the EOB, or the establishment of the workers co-op, is more resilient, stronger and more viable on the other side of it. I appreciate the position of the witnesses but we would welcome any follow-up they could provide for us.

Ms Tara Keane

That is no problem. We will bring it back to our colleagues.

I thank Ms Keane.

We have the Bill on co-operatives going through as well, which gives us an opportunity to discuss that issue. I agree that there is scope there. Does anyone else wish to come in with another question?

I will ask a question very quickly. Does Dr. Coates have the overall figures for the number of businesses that are born and die each year? I think it runs to several thousand, if not tens of thousands. Against that background, while SCARP has clearly hit an excellent point in that it is much cheaper than an examinership and it is working well, are there other international examples of things that ought to be done or is it the case that some of these companies flourish for a day but there was not a long-term prospect for them?

Given that the Department is considering legislative changes, is it undergoing a consultation with various interests at the moment? Is there a timescale for the consultation and any prospective amendments?

Dr. Dermot Coates

I thank Deputy Bruton for the questions. We are doing a piece of work at the moment on the ratio of corporate births and deaths, which is effectively incorporations versus corporate insolvencies. I can certainly come back to him on that. From memory, the figure still runs at about 10:1. For every firm we see becoming insolvent, whether it is receivership, examinership, liquidation, etc., there are ten firms born in the same time period. That is subject to a degree of seasonality across the year, as one would expect, but if the figure is 10:1, as of last month, that is not particularly different from what it would have been four or five years ago. Again, that is from memory.

There is a particular piece of work there to drill into, because we want to understand more. This comes back to Deputy O'Reilly's earlier comments and questions on whether there is a sectoral pattern or dynamic emerging that looks different to the pre-Covid era when a lot of firms acquired a lot of the debt they are currently carrying, and following some of the new measures the Government introduced in recent months. We have some data, which I am happy to share, through the secretariat, but that gives a general flavour. In spite of the talk about the difficulties businesses face, we still see more firms coming on stream than are closing.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

In terms of looking at other options outside Ireland, when we were considering SCARP we did look at other jurisdictions. We looked at New Zealand, the United States and the Netherlands. Each jurisdiction has its own unique characteristics.

Interestingly, the World Bank has indicated there is no consensus on an optimum insolvency model. We felt that the small company administrative rescue process, SCARP, was the best model for Ireland.

The Deputy asked about the public consultation on the miscellaneous provisions Bill. I will give the Bill its proper title if I can find it. It is quite a long one anyway. The Bill went through public consultation as part of the development of its general scheme from 8 May to 9 June, so it was a four-week public consultation. The general scheme was published subsequent to that in March of this year. It is on the priority list for drafting in this session. The Bill will cover four areas of law, including corporate governance, company law enforcement, company law administration and some aspects of insolvency. As I mentioned, we are looking at making some amendments to SCARP. As part of any process of drafting legislation, we always engage with various stakeholders and stakeholders were given an opportunity through the public consultation to submit their views.

Interestingly, SCARP did not attract a huge amount. We did not see too much coming through about fundamental problems with the process, just some gaps that might be in the process or some adjustments that might be made to it. However, we have not seen anything fundamental so far.

I am not surprised the World Bank has no great insights. I do not know how concerned the World Bank has ever been about keeping small businesses afloat. I do not know if it is the best place to go. I imagine other departments of enterprise, trade and employment might have better insights into how successful their SCARP-type schemes might be. I would not go to the World Bank for that kind of advice, from my experience of it.

One issue is that SCARP is only relevant if the amount that can be paid exceeds the liquidation value. If you owe €1 million and the breakup value is €1.2 million when everything is liquidated and sold off, creditors do not have to accept SCARP. If SCARP could lose that aspect, it would be brilliant. The Government could stop companies being liquidated. If the Government did so, jobs would be saved and future tax receipts would be guaranteed to the Government. Perhaps a scheme to cover the SCARP and liquidation value would be an emergency measure.

Also, SCARP requires a component of new investment. If the Government made this possible via a type of business expansion scheme, BES, it would allow people to get in tax-free outside investment to allow SCARP to go ahead, or if the Government had a scheme to put in equity that could be bought out later, that would be the best option.

Keeping a company going is a lot cheaper than trying to start up a company. My sister has been in business for 25 years. The energy it takes to develop or duplicate a company in comparison with keeping it going is a life's work. It is another life's work to replicate that, so that is an interesting thing to look at with regard to SCARP. The Department said it reflects every year. A fund to support SCARP and cover the new investment is key, but there would have to be an exit for the Government down the road. A company would buy the Government out with profits in time. The Government could also bridge the gap between liquidation and SCARP to avoid wholesale liquidations.

Not every company is viable. I understand that. However, there are plenty of viable companies and if creditors are not obliged to engage with SCARP, I can see how it is an issue. Do the witnesses have any thoughts on that? Have they looked at it at all?

Ms Tara Keane

I will respond on liquidation first. In the design of SCARP, one of the fundamental tests of the process is the best interest of creditors test. It has to be proved that creditors will receive more through SCARP than they will through liquidation. I appreciate that for the business that is going through SCARP, it would be an attractive proposition to say it does not need that test. However, the Department is conscious of the fact that when we talk about creditors we are often talking about other small and micro companies. We did not want to put in place a process that protected the viability of a vulnerable firm, potentially at the expense of one that was not experiencing difficulties. In company law, we are always looking at a delicate balance of stakeholders. Everything we do on one side has a trickle down effect. I totally appreciate from the perspective of the business in SCARP that it might make sense, but the Department would be concerned about unintended consequences if we were to take on a measure like that - potentially we could put more firms at risk in the long run - and the fairness underpinning the process.

If it is better for the creditors for the company to be wound up, that company is not really viable. If it cannot even meet that, should we be giving these people another chance? It could potentially create that sort of zombie company effect, where artificially propped-up companies prohibit other actors from getting in and participating.

When the break-up value exceeds the liquidation value, it makes it inequitable for the company itself and it makes it less attractive for the creditors. It is a tricky one.

Ms Tara Keane

It is difficult but, fundamentally, you would potentially be risking the viability of other small and micro companies. That is the balance we grappled with when we were developing the process. We had significant engagement through the Company Law Review Group with the likes of ISME and other business representatives, and the consensus was that retaining the best interest of creditors test that applies in examinership was a fundamental element that should be retained in SCARP.

I thank Ms Keane. I appreciate that.

I have one last question. I still struggle with how the whole Department works. There are many different facets to it. Does the Department engage directly with LEOs? I do not mean individual LEOs. I know there is a president of the LEOs. I am not sure how LEOs are engaged with the Department. They seem to be working in silos, many of them under local authorities. Is there a system? They have such an important role with small and micro businesses. Is there a proper system in place where there are regular meetings or input and the Department is checking up? Do the witnesses know anything about that or is that a different thing?

Ms Fiona O'Dea

This is not our area of responsibility. Obviously, we do not want to speak to something we are not familiar with but we can come back to the Senator with some information on the structures that exist and how the Department engages with the LEOs.

I suppose the witnesses’ jobs will be easier if more businesses are getting more support from LEOs and they do not have to worry as much about liquidation.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

We still need to have the policy.

Dr. Dermot Coates

As Ms O’Dea said, we will come back with more detail on that. It is important to bear in mind that at a central level, there is a central liaison unit within our Department that does outreach to the various LEOs. As we do regional events, the LEO network is of fundamental importance to us. For instance, last week, the National Competitiveness and Productivity Council partnered with Limerick Chamber and the University of Limerick to do a seminar on regional competitiveness for the mid-west. As part of that, representatives of the LEOs from Clare, Limerick and Tipperary county councils will have attended. We would not go ahead and do those type of events where we meet with businesses and discuss their concerns without having the LEOs there. They are also a key motivator to be able to ensure that businesses will attend and speak with policymakers. They are effectively the footprint on the ground and are increasingly implementing many of these schemes as the remit of the LEOs is expanded.

The LEOs definitely run many events and attend many events. I am interested in finding out about that liaison group, if the witnesses can send me some information on that. I met the president of the LEOs three years ago and I do not think he was even clear on it. There does not seem to be a standard process. I know there are individual LEOs working with regions and chambers but there is definitely a need for an umbrella so we can set targets.

We will get that information. I will now ask one or two more questions. Of the insolvencies that occurred last year – we heard earlier there were roughly 663 and I saw figures in other places suggesting there were more – how many are micro and small businesses that would fit into the SCARP regime? Could we get that information from the witnesses at some stage? I think 62 have engaged in SCARP but I get the impression that because it is such a good scheme, the potential is actually much greater and perhaps more should or could get involved. Would the Department and Revenue consider carrying out some kind of review or audit to see whether there are any blockages and any reasons some companies that should and could get involved are not doing so? The feedback I am getting from some practitioners is that it is easier for companies to go the insolvency route, and they are choosing that route rather than going into SCARP. That would be a shame if the companies could be rescued and the good work that is going on could be replicated and multiplied. Perhaps the Revenue and the Department officials can come back to us on that and look at their processes to see whether there is something stopping people from entering SCARP. I think that would be a useful piece of work to do.

Ms Fiona O'Dea

Regarding the insolvency breakdown data, we do not have that information ready but I will see what information we can get for the Acting Chair.

On the review of SCARP, as I mentioned, company law and our regulatory frameworks are continually kept under review. SCARP has been in existence for two or three years, so there is probably an element of bedding down of the process as well, but it is like anything else. We keep these frameworks under constant review.

Mr. Paddy Purtill

We can have a look at it. However, the statistics show that Revenue has opted into 84%, so we are trying to be constructive.

I agree. I accept that, but I am more interested in the people who do not get involved in the scheme in the first place. They may look at it and say it is too complex or too uncertain and decide to go down the other route and shut up shop rather than get involved in SCARP. That is the question I have. What Revenue is doing is excellent, but beyond that, is there uncertainty or perhaps a lack of information or clarity about the scheme? If people are under pressure, they might say hang it all. They might take down the shingle and forget about it.

Mr. Paddy Purtill

Revenue has to balance. Our objective is to collect as much tax as possible.

Am I correct in saying that the revenue in the UK is on an equal basis with other creditors whereas here, Revenue is a preferred creditor?

Mr. Paddy Purtill

No, that has recently been changed back. UK revenue now has preferential status again.

I thank the witnesses for coming in, giving their time and engaging in such a constructive way on this very important issue.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.02 a.m. and adjourned at 11.11 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 15 May 2024.
Top
Share