Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 14, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “(22) The Minister may make an order under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (21) that pertains to a certain class or sector of business of employers.”.

This amendment deals with the employment wage supports. I agree with the principle of what Deputy McNamara was trying to achieve with the previous amendment, but based on our reading of it, it would have made the situation worse. As he pointed out, certain constitutional requirements are imposed on the Opposition so the amendment had to be worded in a certain way to be voted upon.

This amendment addresses the fact that not all employment, employers or businesses are the same. There is provision within the legislation allowing the Minister to amend certain aspects of it, including how long the wage supports continue, the 30% rate and the rates of payments, through an order or resolution of the Houses. We would like the Minister to be able to make such an order under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of section 2(21), which are the parts of the Bill that pertain to a certain class or sector of businesses and employers. For example, he could stipulate that the downturn for businesses in the arts sector does not need to be 30%, but could be 20% or even higher. Conversely, we may find out later in the year that things are going better than hoped in the retail sector and that there is a pent-up demand there. We do not want legislation that applies the 30% rate across the board because not all sectors will function in exactly the same way. That is the type of proposal we are making in this amendment.

I will raise a number of issues regarding the section now, as we are pushed for time.

8 o’clock

I am one of the Deputies who have acknowledged the importance of the TWSS. I wrote to the Minister about bringing in an income support scheme before one was brought forward and it has played a vital part in supporting jobs and keeping businesses afloat. I am, however, concerned that this scheme is being tapered too early and too quickly. One of our amendments, which has been ruled out of order, sought to extend it.

It will end now, but it will be replaced with a new employment wage scheme. One concern we have is that the new scheme will have a lower rate of support for employers, but I also want to raise other issues. On page 6, for example, in section 28B(1)(b)(i), the case is made that a proprietary director would not be entitled to this support. That is relevant to somebody who has ordinary shares of 15%, or more, in the company, but that would be the normal case for many small businesses. They would have been able to benefit from the current scheme, but they will not be able to benefit from this one. The question is how that will impact on those businesses. Other provisions are fair, such as that which states that someone who is a related person should not be able to avail of this scheme unless they were working beforehand. Those types of protections are important, but let us look again at the proprietary director in this instance to ensure this is not unfair to them.

I am very concerned that there is now no support whatsoever for employees who earn less than €151.50. Some 153,000 workers are in that position in the State, and while some of their employers are availing of the TWSS, that will end in a few weeks. Some of the workers concerned are on the minimum wage and working less than 15 hours a week. If an employer has to make tough decisions about letting employees go, then obviously that employer will now decide that it will be these lowest-paid employees who will be let go because there will be no subsidy from the State to keep these people in employment.

There is a way to deal with this issue. In an amendment that was ruled out of order, we proposed that a support of 85% for these low-paid employees should continue. Consideration should be given to that proposal so that we will not have any perverse incentives. It is possible that the opposite situation could also occur, where employers would increase the hours of those employees and bring them up to the requirement. In this constrained environment, however, there is a disincentive at work here. A proportional wage support, a percentage as opposed to a flat rate, for these individuals would be worthy of consideration. I would love to touch on other issues regarding section 2, but we are pushed for time, so I am going to leave it at that.

See this speech in context