Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is a strange debate around this Estimates procedure. Basically, it is a historical procedure that we have here. None of the payments is current or anything like that. This debate goes on.

However, it does point to a couple of matters and these have been touched on by other Members as well here. It does refer to the changes that will take place in the next couple of weeks to the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, and the temporary wage subsidy scheme, TWSS. Maybe, because of the current climate that the Minister is in a difficult position in that she will not be the Minister, she does not want to budget for spending that would allow it to happen, but I cannot understand this. If the Minister put in an Estimate here that had realistic figures for the second half of the year, if they were not used they could be taken back.

As the Minister says, we are going to have another supplementary budget, probably in July or perhaps September. It will be historic given that it is to deal with all the figures that are going to be announced in the next couple of weeks. Through no fault of the Minister, the figures will probably be announced at a press conference to RTÉ. They will not be announced here in the House and we will not have any input. The media and everybody else will talk about them, however. The debate will have happened before we have the historic debate in here on the figures. The situation today is strange.

It was interesting to hear the debate that has built up over recent weeks on people milking the system and making false claims. Mr. Pat McDonagh, head of Supermac's, was mentioned in it. He is probably one of the main beneficiaries of social welfare in this country because the profits he makes are made on the backs of the very low-paid. The State, by giving people social welfare, justifies his giving of low pay, thus helping him to make more profit. It is interesting that the main beneficiaries of social welfare and other State benefits in this country are employers. The social welfare payment facilitates a worker to work in a low-paid job, which allows the employer to make big profits. We should change the argument around and this would change the whole narrative. We should say that employers are benefiting and are going to benefit. This would change everything. If we changed the narrative, we would not be attacking individuals on the jobseeker's allowance, for example. The employers benefit.

A couple of years ago, we heard a presentation in the audiovisual room from small business owners who came in crying about social welfare payments and so on. I asked them about the family income supplement. I said that the State, by paying the supplement, makes up for the low pay offered by the businesses. They were shocked and stunned and said it has nothing to do with them. They said it does not benefit them. It does benefit them. The State is allowing them to give low pay. This happens right across the board. Despite this, we are supposed to bend over backwards for all the employers and say they are the best people and that only for them, nobody would be employment. Actually, only for the State they would not exist. That is the reality of the situation. Accepting my perspective would change the whole argument in the discussions we are having in here.

It is clear from what the Minister proposes in the Estimates that the pandemic unemployment payment scheme and the temporary Covid-19 wage subsidy scheme are going to end or be changed significantly and that the benefits are to be made up through stamps and unemployment benefit. That may be so, or there may be another supplementary budget that we will discuss after the event.

See this speech in context