Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the new Aire Stáit, my county colleague, Deputy Frank Feighan, on his appointment and I wish him the very best of luck in his new role.

The wording of the statutory instrument before us is, at best, ham-fisted in the approach that has been taken with it. The Government should withdraw it forthwith, redraft it and bring it back before the House because it is important that we have the support of the public and of communities across the country. There is no support for this particular draft of the statutory instrument. However, the reason we had to bring forward legislation last week and this particular statutory instrument was drafted is a small handful of people are trying not just to circumvent the liquor laws in this country as set out to combat Covid-19 but to circumvent the laws to threaten the lives of people in their own communities where these premises operate. Because of a small handful of proprietors we are left in a situation where, unfortunately, we have to bring forward draconian legislation. This statutory instrument needs to be withdrawn forthwith and redrafted.

There has been an approach by this Government in respect of pubs, which in its most benign definition could be described as being hostile. I will give four examples. First, a blind eye has been turned to the issue of house parties. On 19 March I raised that specific issue in the House. I cautioned that there was a serious risk of infection associated with house parties and that it would become a significant problem unless the Garda had the tools to ensure that they could be shut down. I raised that specifically with the then Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris. He assured the House that his officials were satisfied that the Garda had the powers within the legislation that was being provided to it to curb the issue of house parties. That is in black and white on the record. We now find that not only did the force not have the tools to curb house parties, it did not have the tools to curb breaches of the legislation in public houses or in restaurants. According to the latest figures for outbreaks of Covid-19, five are associated with pubs and five with restaurants. Some 1,904 are associated with private homes, some of which, sadly, are associated with house parties. While we are bringing in draconian legislation for public houses, why are we not addressing the issue of house parties which has been a consistent problem for a number of months?

The second reason pubs are being discriminated against is the temporary wage subsidy scheme, which ceased on 31 August. I understand the argument made by the Minister for Finance that we were moving away from that scheme to the employment wage subsidy, which will support employees to the tune of €203 a week. That was based on businesses having an income. Public houses are closed and have no income. The temporary wage subsidy scheme should never have ceased for businesses that were not trading. Now employees of pubs throughout the country, who were in receipt of €412 a week up until now, are only going to receive €203 from now on because publicans do not have the resources to pay them. Why were they discriminated against?

My third example is the restart grant. Businesses that had reopened could apply for the grant. If they had a rates bill of less than €2,000 in 2019, they could draw down a minimum payment of €2,000, which was a welcome development. It incrementally increased whereby if a business had a rates bill of €3,000, it could get a €3,000 grant. Publicans could not apply for a grant because they were not restarting. They were waiting to open up their premises. Now they can apply for the restart plus grant but there is a cap on that. A person who had a rates bill of less than €2,000 and applied for the restart grant can now apply for an additional grant of €4,000, giving to a total grant of €6,000. A publican can only get €4,000; her or she cannot access the initial payment. The same applies to the incremental increases. Publicans are being discriminated against because they were not trading. There should have been a clause to allow them to get the second bite at it, the same as every other business.

My fourth example relates to the trading online voucher scheme. This 90% grant for businesses to start trading online or to enhance their online trading presence, is not available to the hospitality sector. As the Minister of State knows well, many businesses, particularly restaurants, in our county and many others are using online facilities where a table can be booked online through the use of an app, and the same will happening in pubs. Pubs, however, are not eligible for the trading online voucher scheme to develop an app whereas every other business is.

These are four prime examples of schemes that have been brought in, which have not taken into account the businesses that have remained shut because of a Government decision and they are being discriminated against. I ask the Minister of State not only to withdraw the statutory instrument to have it redrafted but also to examine the four other examples where public houses and businesses that are forced to be closed at the moment are being blatantly discriminated against, and overturn those four decisions.

See this speech in context