Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

You are very good. Some really important issues have been raised by Deputies Michael McGrath, Doherty, Cian O'Callaghan, Nash, Rabbitte, O'Donoghue, Cowen, Mattie McGrath, O'Donnell and Troy. I will respond to each of them in turn, but I want to give some context. This was prompted by something Deputy Nash said. He said it would have been very helpful to have this guidance available earlier in the week. The truth of it is that we were moving so quickly in putting all of this together that the legislation itself only took shape over the weekend and as we moved into Monday, let alone moving on to the issue of guidance. The reason this speed was necessary is because I have the highest level of concern that in the absence of an intervention like this being made available by the Dáil and the Government, the unemployment situation our country could face into could be exceptionally grave.

Deputy Doherty has made some points about risk regarding this scheme. He is accurate in calling out that there are risks with an intervention on this scale. I will say a word about each of his amendments in turn. I addressed this issue when I spoke to the Cabinet on Tuesday and when I launched the scheme on Tuesday afternoon. While the risks are great regarding how some of this scheme could be interpreted, two issues are important. The first one is the ability of the Revenue Commissioners to implement this scheme as the Oireachtas intends and as I as Minister for Finance intend. The second point is my very strong judgment that in the absence of the Oireachtas intervening in the income of many workers, a very large number of jobs will be at risk in our country. That is why, as conscious as I am of the risks – I know what they are – I do believe this intervention is needed for an emergency period to ensure that by investing in income we give the greatest number of companies possible the chance of surviving the period ahead. I want to be open with this Dáil and with all the Deputies that have raised this point. Behind each of the points they raise, they are correct in identifying a risk.

Deputy Cowen asked for a breakdown of what was leading to the Exchequer commitments that I outlined earlier in the week. As I said in my Second Stage speech, if the public health crisis is allayed and if the economic effects are not as damaging as we fear, it is entirely possible that the figures I have spoken about could be less. It is equally possible that the figures that I have outlined could be higher. They could be higher because of the public health emergency to which our country could have to respond. I am explicitly saying this to the Dáil because I do not want to be in a position where, having addressed this issue, in a period of time ahead I am either speaking as a member of the Opposition or a member of Government querying the budgetary rationale that underpins this measure. We have used our best judgment to put together the rationale for how much we believe it would cost, but it is based on a time of great uncertainty. It is because of that uncertainty that there is a need to intervene in income.

I will address some of the points that have been put to me in particular questions that have been raised.

The first one regards guidance from the Revenue Commissioners to address many of the questions raised by Deputies O’Donnell, Nash, Jim O'Callaghan, Cowen and others. That detailed guidance was published tonight. There will be a need to revise it. There will be a need to look at how it can be made clearer. Now that this guidance has been published, I encourage those companies contacting Deputies to go directly to the Revenue Commissioners and raise their questions directly with them. In the guidance, the Revenue Commissioners have published and the way they will be addressing this issue in the coming days, they will be saying that they do not believe professional advice is merited to understand this guidance. They will engage with companies directly to reach pragmatic solutions on approaching issues as quickly as they can.

Deputies Michael McGrath and Cowen raised the issue of the flexibility open to the Minister of the day, the interpretation of the scheme, how it can be varied and so forth. In normal times, I would completely agree with the points made by Deputies Michael McGrath and Cowen about the need for the Minister to be continuously accountable to the Oireachtas about the different issues raised. Given the period that we are moving into and the nature of the public health emergency that is under way, it is imperative that the Minister has the ability to vary the scheme. Some of the rationale for that was articulated by Deputy Ó Broin in the debate on earlier amendments. If I was in such a position, I would believe it incumbent upon me to explain my rationale and to engage with Opposition parties during that time to ensure they understood why it was being done. However, because of the public health emergency we are moving into, I believe that kind of flexibility is needed by the Minister.

On the questions put to me by Deputy Doherty, I acknowledge the risks he raised are real. They have been considered by me and the two Departments which have worked on this scheme with great care over the past several days. My recommendation to the House is that, as real as the risks the Deputy has outlined are, the lack of an intervention of this breadth could generate a national risk in terms of the numbers of people who will face a real threat to their jobs beyond the tens of thousands of our citizens who are already reliant on the pandemic payment. I know the Deputy does not want to see that happen. I do not want to see it either. He acknowledged that in his broad support for the Bill, notwithstanding the specific concerns that he has.

The reason for not accepting amendment No. 60, beyond some of the rationale I referred to as Minister for Finance, is that many of the powers that Deputy Ó Broin is asking that I should have, I would not have anyway. They do not sit with me but with other Ministers. It is possible across the coming period that there will be businesses which will be open, although in a limited period, which will be participating in the scheme. That is entirely possible. It would be quite positive if that were to occur because we could have companies which would be open and which may be employing their employees in a different way. They would be open and would be providing a service in a community selling a good. They would be doing so enabled by this scheme. The likelihood is that if the scheme was not available, the company would not be open or, if it was, it would not be employing the number of employees in the way that it otherwise would be.

See this speech in context