Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I support this amendment. It is another way to try to address the deficiencies in the Bill and the need for sectoral-specific approaches for those sectors hit harder than others. We have gone through the debate, and I do want to extend it, but I have one additional appeal to make to the Minister. He asserts, and it is a fact, that we cannot further amend this Bill now. In addition to the suggestion that he should talk to the NTA about the taxi drivers and listen to the points made concerning the arts, music and entertainment sectors, will he respond to the request that before the Dáil winds up for the summer there would be a meeting between party groups to look at those sectors? That is what this amendment is trying to do and it is right that we should have that sectoral-specific response.

Even while listening to the debate, some of the people affected have been texting me with heart-breaking stories that I do not even want to read out here because they are so upsetting and personal. Those people are begging and it is a pity they have to do that. It would be very much appreciated, therefore, if the Minister responded positively to the suggestion made by Deputy Doherty earlier that we meet to discuss some of these specific issues before the Dáil recess. These issues are not limited, by way, to the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. They cover several Departments, including the Minister's, as well as the Departments of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and Business, Enterprise and Innovation. I refer to addressing these really difficult concerns.

Turning briefly to this section, all my amendments have been ruled out of order. That is unfortunate and I do not quite know why. It is bad enough that we have had no pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill and that all Stages are being taken together. The Opposition, however, has bent over backwards to be accommodating. Then, our amendments, which I think are reasonable, to attach some conditions regarding workers' rights to the subsidies being given to employers have been ruled out of order. I do not understand why. If the Minister will respond, however, does he not think that there should be conditions applied to those getting substantial subsidies? Those subsidies are important and nobody here is arguing against them. We support them to keep people in employment, but there should also be some responsibility on the employer to recognise trade unions, if people in workplaces are members of trade unions. Certainly, anti-union companies should not get support without being forced to change their attitude towards workers and the right to be in a trade union.

Conditions, therefore, should be attached to these supports to ensure that employers are not engaging in unilateral redundancies, cuts in pay and attacks on working conditions without consulting their employees. The principle of the pandemic is that we are all supposed to be in this together, so employers should sit down with their employees and discuss any proposed changes. A basic condition of these supports should be that no company getting them should be making excessive profits or giving big bonuses or pay increases to CEOs, when other people, including workers and the self-employed, are really suffering. Nobody should be profiteering off the back of this crisis and these public supports, which we must not forget are paid for by all the people.

Finally, in this section we had an amendment regarding the subsidy not applying in cases where people were earning less than €151.50 per week. I would like the Minister to explain that exclusion, because there is a real danger that employers may decide that if they do not get a subsidy for employees, who are often part time and often women, working for only a few days and earning less than €151.50 that they will be the first to be let go. That would be unfair and would hit some of the most vulnerable lowest-paid workers. I do not understand why the Minister inserted that exclusion and I wish he would explain it. I ask him to ensure the scenario I described cannot happen and that those workers do not lose out because of the way the subsidy scheme has been designed.

See this speech in context