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
Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source
I want to make several points on the section. On Second Stage, I raised section 26(8), which concerns the publication by Revenue online of the details of the employers who are going to avail of the wage subsidy scheme. I do not see the necessity for that and think it should be removed. When I looked at the Revenue's "frequently asked questions" tonight, one of the questions asked is why the details of the employers are to be published online, and the answer is that it is because it is stated in the legislation. We are in charge of the legislation and I have yet to hear an explanation as to why the details of those firms need to be published. I do not believe it relates to state aid because those requirements have essentially been set aside at European level in the context of the response to the Covid-19 emergency. I think it will become something of a blacklist or could be viewed as such. For example, competitors or firms which are considering credit terms subsequently, when we all get back up on our feet as an economy, will say that firm was not in as strong a position as was thought.
I do not think it is necessary, it is unfair and the Minister should remove that subsection. I do not see how it impacts on any other aspect of the Bill.
Turning briefly to some other points, regarding one of the other qualifying criteria for employers, the one requiring the 25% reduction, either in turnover or in customer orders, it is for a defined period from mid March to the end of June. What is the reference period? To what is that period being compared? We need to be crystal clear regarding that issue.
On the question of taxation treatment, I said earlier that I thought it was very clear. It is based on net wages and therefore the subsidy element is not taxable. There is, however, that statement in the earlier Revenue publication which referred to the subsidy being liable to income tax and USC on review at the end of the year. That appears to be contradictory.
No comments