Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Moran and his colleagues. All present agree on the need to inject money into the economy, SMEs and the pockets of workers in order to get the economy moving again. It would be useful, particularly in light of the worrying indicators from around the world and possibly even in Ireland in the context of the pandemic, for those representing the business sector to clearly acknowledge that although all of that is true, public health must come first. Mr. Moran and other business representatives should make that statement. That is particularly important given that although many, if not most, SMEs are compliant with the public health guidelines, there may be, for obvious economic reasons, pressure on them to cut corners on public health guidelines or, indeed, to accelerate the lifting of restrictions to the detriment of protecting public health. It is important that Mr. Moran address that issue.

I hope Mr. Moran will agree that the wage subsidy scheme and income supports such as the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, should be maintained for as long as is necessary and until we see recoveries in the affected sectors where people are facing mass lay-offs and unemployment. That may be the case in several sectors for the foreseeable future. The supports are necessary for the sake of the workers, but also in order to keep money flowing through the system. I ask Mr. Moran to make a clear statement on that issue.

I wish to tease out something I thought I heard Mr. Moran state earlier. He made an argument for grants rather than loans because he does not wish for companies to be indebted. That is a reasonable point, but do we not have to be careful to ensure that it is directed at those who really need it, rather than having those who do not need it profit from it? There are probably not many SMEs registered offshore. I do not think offshore companies should get grant supports. Rather, they should have to repay any support they receive. I acknowledge that many businesses are in real trouble, fighting for their lives and in need of support, but should there not be a clawback mechanism for the State when it comes to companies benefitting from State support that are profitable or using the money for non-essential expenditure?

Should there be a quid pro quosuch that if we give a company money, we can be sure that the chief executive of that company is not paying himself an extortionate pay rate or salary and those payments would be capped? Can we ensure they are not abusing schemes in terms of laying workers off or making them work longer hours and so on? There have been a number of reports along those lines, where people at the top are benefiting from the schemes and doing very well, while workers they employ are often not being treated so well. We need to be sure the supports are going to the people who need them. I ask the witnesses to comment.