Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for his questions. I am not passing anything off. I am introducing an economy-wide scheme. What is implicit in bringing in an economy-wide scheme is that I am not at this point proposing to bring in anything that is different sector by sector. I think it is clear in this legislation that we are looking to introduce a scheme that benefits as many people as possible. I would have thought that would have been welcomed. I think the Deputy has welcomed it in the contributions he has made.

Even his own address on the issue highlighted the difficulty with this approach. He started off with one group in the country, artists, who do need support. He then went group by group through many others who also need support. When we are in the level of economic shock we are now, the best way to respond is to help everybody equally by the same amount, which is what this scheme does. Everybody is being treated the same way. They are principles of equality that I would have thought the Deputy would recognise and welcome. Everybody is being treated equally by this scheme, which gives everybody the same rate provided that the company employing them meets the criteria.

Before I come to the points Deputy Shortall made, I know some people who are very worried about their future are watching tonight's debate. I know many workers are concerned about where they will be going in the future and they are tuning in to listen to my words. Again, I say this to those who are looking at the debate on this important legislation. The reason €2.25 billion is being invested in this programme is to help them at a time of such great need. With respect to what Deputy Nash said earlier, the conditionality of this scheme can in no way be compared to the bank guarantee. We helped banks and God knows we have had many debates about that in this House and elsewhere. This is about helping people to keep their jobs and about helping small employers to keep going.

Deputy Shortall questioned whether this should be referenced on an employee's payslip. I think there are two reasons for doing so. First, employees should know the level of subsidy that is being made available to them by the State through the taxes they have paid in more normal times. It allows them to check that versus the wages their employer is paying them. It is important to know that. The other reason it is appropriate to know is that it is an appropriate signal to send to citizens that the State stood by them at this time of need. The wage subsidy scheme, which is enabled by the way we ran our economy for many years, even though Deputy Shortall did not have much good to say about at that time, is now funding a programme of more than €2 billion to help people at a time of need. It is appropriate that they know that contribution is there. It is also appropriate that they can compare that contribution with the wages they have.

The Deputy made a point about the assessment for mortgages and other loans. I reiterate that this must be done on a case-by-case basis. We have a shared interest in ensuring that mortgages are not issued only to find out later that they are not affordable. I have experienced at first hand the enormous strain and stress caused by that. We do not want that to happen again. The Central Bank has been very clear about the implementation of proper lending across the period. It is in the long-term interest of all.

I am not aware of the issues she mentioned on behalf of the PSDA.

As I have said, the scheme has been implemented really well by the Revenue Commissioners. The challenges we have had along the way have not been related to the system. That is due to the expertise of the Revenue Commissioners and the amazing ingenuity and technical ability of the software designers and payroll designers who worked with them in implementing this scheme.

See this speech in context