Dáil debates

Thursday, 26 March 2020

An Bille um Bearta Éigeandála ar mhaithe le Leas an Phobail (Covid-19), 2020: Céim an Choiste agus na Céimeanna a bheidh Fágtha - Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Bill 2020: Committee and Remaining Stages

 

11:55 pm

Photo of Pearse DohertyPearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I want to echo the comments made by Deputy Michael McGrath on the guidance Revenue needs to provide. I am very concerned that the way this legislation is drafted means it could be open to abuse or misinterpretation by employers who would be entitled to it. Some of the amendments I am putting forward are done in the spirit of strengthening a scheme which I support and which I called for before.

Amendment No. 60 deals with the case that this should not be available to a class of employer that has been requested to close by the Minister as a result of the Covid-19 crisis. This has to be looked at in the context of amendment No. 70, where we propose to increase the pandemic unemployment payment to meet 100% of the net weekly pay of individuals up to €525. This wage subsidy should only apply to those who need to be in work at this point in time and who work in essential services. As the Minister knows, Sinn Féin's position is that non-essential services should be closed down and therefore, the pandemic unemployment payment should be available at a rate of 100% of wages, up to a weekly limit of €525.

Amendment No. 62 deals with the fact that we have conditions for eligibility for a company that has, for example, a 25% reduction in the number of orders. Yet many of these companies are able to pay 80%, 90% and close to 100% of their wage bills.

What we are now finding out - this is widespread - is that employees are being asked to go back to work. They are being told that they will get the 70% that the State will pay them but no more. This could be open to abuse. We have included a different threshold.

Amendment No. 66 is simply to ensure that this period would not be considered a break of employee service for the entitlement of redundancy further down the line.

Amendment No. 67 is about ensuring that any employer who uses the scheme to mass-produce during this period and then, after this period, lays off employees would be subject to an audit by the Revenue and would have the wage subsidy scheme and all the payments recouped by the Revenue. This is an example of where the State is subsidising nearly the entire wage bill of a company that could mass-produce during the coming 12 weeks. Then, when the demand is in the market after the crisis, it could temporarily lay off the workers because it has mass-produced. The workers would be in the same position they are in today. Yet, the company could make sizable profits as a result of the scheme. This should not be allowed. We should send out a clear direction to companies not to abuse something that we are trying to do in the common good. The idea is to support employers and workers at a time of mass crisis and a major health crisis.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.