Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Covid-19 emergency Bill on behalf of the Labour Party.

It is fair to say that nobody could have predicted this pandemic but we can always predict the response of the Irish people when faced with a crisis of any description. It is only through shared solidarity through community and collective action and a selfless concern for others that we can overcome this challenge.

Our front-line heroes are the embodiment of those values - the healthcare staff who are putting their lives and their health at risk to keep us all well, the workers who have helped to keep Ireland moving and vital supplies on our shelves, and the many thousands of others who have answered Ireland's call. I salute every single one of them and their families. It is important for their sake and for the sake of our loved ones, and for the sake of our own health, that we all adhere to the stated expert public health advice.

This crisis is undoubtedly our country's greatest challenge, and indeed, the European Union's greatest challenge of this age. It is perhaps the biggest challenge the EU will face. It puts Brexit in the ha'penny place but it also has profound implications for the State and for our people. Every crisis, as has been enunciated by colleagues today, is an opportunity for collective action and constructive change and provides the opportunity for all of us to reflect on developing something better to emerge from this crisis. We take for granted many of the social protection schemes, such as illness benefit that the Taoiseach referred to earlier on. They were introduced in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War when we were developing the idea of the welfare state. Likewise our battle against the coronavirus serves as an opportunity to reset the economy globally, on an EU basis and nationally and put it on a more sustainable and fairer footing than before.

EU supports in the form of direct funds or low-interest loans via the ESM will be needed to cushion this unprecedented external shock. However, those supports cannot come with the strings and conditionality attached to those imposed post-2008. This would only lead to prolonged economic and social crisis. Disaster is avoidable but only if the political will is there. Additional measures are also needed and I support the call from my colleagues in the Party of European Socialists for an EU-wide reinsurance scheme. This is particularly relevant to the financing of the temporary wage subsidy scheme contained in this Bill and I hope the Minister will join me in welcoming that call. I am sure he will have more to say on this in his contribution.

I now turn to the contents of the Bill and the wage subsidy scheme. The trade union movement deserves considerable credit for developing this concept, as indeed do employer bodies for the collective action they have taken together in working with Government over the past couple of weeks to develop this scheme. It shows what is achievable when social partners work together. We also need to be mindful of the fact that social partnership is not just for a crisis. Social partnership and social dialogue should be a concept that is maintained in ordinary times. Despite the merits of the principle of the scheme, it is important that the scheme works in practice so that the link between the workers and their employers can be maintained, as intended. To achieve this, we need to make sure all employers see the merits of the scheme because if it is deemed to be more hassle than it is worth, the reality is that employers will move to a default position of laying off workers which, ultimately, defeats the entire purpose of the scheme. I would welcome clarity from the Minister about the specific nuts and bolts of the proposed eligibility requirements for business. I have taken time in the past few days, as have others, to assess the merits of the scheme and to talk to local employers and local accountancy practitioners and auditors to get their sense of it. There is a view that there is insufficient detail from Revenue about how the drop of 25% in turnover will be calculated. Regarding businesses that face seasonal fluctuations in their turnover, how will Revenue factor those exigencies into the calculation in terms of meeting the thresholds for qualification for the scheme? In addition, it should and could be clearer as to how a business can precisely and persuasively demonstrate its inability to make the wages - effectively to pay those salaries. Some key concerns have been expressed and I look forward to teasing out this with the Minister on Committee Stage with regard to that section of the Bill. There is a significant fear that when an employer acknowledges it cannot make the salaries, it then becomes somehow exposed around insolvency. The message needs to be very clear. Companies should use this scheme to protect their business and maintain the relationship with their employees. We do not want the potential for creditors to circle around vulnerable businesses at this point. It is very important that we provide for legal protections for businesses in that regard.

There are many other questions I will raise with the Minister on Committee Stage. I conclude by saying that we need to look very forensically at the Redundancy Payments Act. Some work has been done around this in the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. We will propose an amendment later that seeks to ensure that periods of lay off are included in terms of calculating redundancy entitlements if it is the case that a worker in the future is made redundant. I look forward to looking at that in detail with the Minister on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context