Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Bill is part of the overall package, including the Microenterprise Loan Fund (Amendment) Bill 2020 from last week, to support businesses during the Covid crisis. This Bill relates to European funding that needs to be drawn down. I am slightly concerned that all EU member states have to pass similar legislation before next week to allow this fund to be established. The Minister of State is only bringing it forward now, which has reduced the time we have to discuss it and consider its implications. That discussion should be allowed and we should not pass Bills up against a European deadline. As I understand it, if we did not pass this Bill, the entire European Covid-19 response would collapse. That is not something any of us would want to happen, but we should have proper time to consider and discuss the implications of a Bill when it comes before us. That is something we need to look at for the future. The excuse will be used that we did not have a Government and that, therefore, it could not be discussed before now. Many discussions took place while we were on hiatus and this Bill could have been discussed then as well. The Minister of State said there is an urgent need to introduce this legislation and in light of that, I do not think anyone will oppose it as it stands.

The legislation establishes a number of different funds throughout the EU, which would levy a potential contribution of €650 million on Ireland should everything be called in. While I understand such guarantees are required to enable these funds to be drawn down, if they fall due or we default, a liability of €650 million could be laid on us. That is not an insubstantial amount. While signing up to these guarantees allows us to draw down approximately €2 billion from the fund, meaning there is a multiplier effect of 3:1 that may make it more attractive to us, we cannot underestimate the risk involved. The Minister of State said that if these funds were called in he would lay a report before the House and we could discuss it after the fact. Discussing something after it has happened seems a bizarre way of doing business. Surely the State would want to discuss it beforehand and decide whether we should do it or needed to do it. It is a bit like the recent Estimates, which were all retrospective and related to money that had been spent. When the then Taoiseach was asked about them, he said there would be Supplementary Estimates later in the year to cover the money that would be spent between these Estimates. Maybe that is just the way we do business and thinking we should discuss these measures before we pay the money rather than after is naïveté on my part. In reality it is retrospective and there is little we can we do about it. When we pass this Bill our liability will be cast in stone so having to pay the money will be a moot point at that stage.

The Bill leverages funding from a few different areas. I welcome the fact that we are not going to use the Commission fund. We have a sad history in that regard because of the bailout and doing so would bring home too many bad memories. Approximately 200 companies around the country would benefit from this fund. It seems a lot of money but in reality that €2 billion would only benefit 200 companies. That is a lot of money for a small number of companies. There are also larger employers and SMEs in Ireland. A medium-sized enterprise is one that has up to 250 employees. Many of us think of small businesses as being much smaller than that but that is the measure used. If the State draws down €2 billion to benefit 200 companies, we should get a guarantee from them rather than just hoping they might stay open. We have to ensure workers are protected within those companies and the funding should be linked to employment and wages, which are vitally important. I brought this up last week during the debate on the Microenterprise Loan Fund (Amendment) Bill 2020. The Tánaiste said that it would not be a problem because companies would only reduce wages if they were in bother. The problem is that we do not know whether that will be the case. We are paying companies the Covid payment to keep people in employment and they cut their wages and their own contributions as well. How much are we really contributing to them? There has to be a quid pro quo. Companies have an obligations to the State, as citizens within this country, to say why they are reducing wages. I have no doubt that employees would be reasonable if they were spoken to and what was required was laid out in front of them. They might then accept a wage cut but some employers are cutting their wages by 10% or 15% regardless, while also getting the Covid payment from the State to supplement those wages and reducing the contribution they are paying. That is a bit much and is too much for us to accept. We should put measures in place to ensure employers maintain the wages of employees because no matter who the employees are, it was hard enough for them to survive on the wages they had before this crisis. Having their wages cut despite them being supplemented by the State makes it more than difficult for them to survive. We need to have those protections in place. While protecting and saving companies is well and good, this money should also save employees and the people of the State. That is vitally important. Everything we do should be about making sure that is happening. Unfortunately, I do not think that is the case for this Bill and it was not the case for the Bill last week either. That is a worrying trend because we have to ensure we look after workers and people in the State.

There is a great deal in the Bill, including how the drawdowns will work and so on, but that will come in time. I have mentioned the possibility of the €650 million being called in. There has been much criticism at European level that this Bill does not go far enough and is not enough for what is required at European level. What are the Government's views on that? Will this fund be enough to manage the bailout required across the board? There has been much talk about Europe being collegiate, looking after everybody and coming together. However, that was not evident in the development of this fund. Will that be the case in the future? How much are we going to take? Are we just going to go along with everything others say or do we have any input into these decisions and what is happening?

Looking in from the outside, it always seems to be France and Germany that decide everything and we just go along with it and say "nice work boys". It does not seem to be a collegiate response or one in which everyone speaks and is listened to. It just seems to be that France and Germany decide and that is it. Every so often, the Netherlands or one or two other countries - the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria on this fund, for example - might oppose something but it is really and truly the big two countries that decide everything. They even go to the extent of having bilateral meetings themselves before the meetings of the Council of Ministers and then tell us what we are going to accept. Is that acceptable to the Irish Government? Perhaps that question might be addressed at the later Stages.

See this speech in context