Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 24, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “Review of operation of wage subsidy schemes

11.(1) The Minister shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, cause to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the payment to employers of amounts under the provisions of section 28 or 28B of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 (in this section referred to as the “wage subsidy schemes”).

(2) The report under subsection (1) shall include reports on—

(a) the performance by the Minister of his or her duty under section 28A of the said Act,

(b) any assessment made, data compiled or opinion expressed under or for the purposes of subsection (5) of the said section 28A, and

(c) whether and to what extent employers, which were companies, paid a dividend or made any other distribution out of profits to their members in a year during which they were beneficiaries of either or both of the wage subsidy schemes.”.

The amendment is fairly straightforward. We are looking for a comprehensive report into the operation of the wage subsidy scheme. As we know, the wage subsidy scheme itself was an incredibly significant intervention made in the economy to support jobs and businesses during a very difficult time in our economy and in respect of the significant public health measures that had to be introduced and that disrupted our society and economy. From communications with the Committee of Public Accounts and correspondence it received from, for example, the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Finance and the Department of Social Protection I am aware the latter is undertaking a formal examination into the operation of the wage subsidy scheme. That in itself is to be welcomed but is not what I am looking for with this amendment.

The Minister of State knows the Minister for Finance has particular responsibility for the management of the scheme under the legislation introduced with the support, to the best of my recollection, of everyone in this House just over two years ago. It is important given the enormous level of transfers the wage subsidy schemes represent - billions of euro were transferred to private enterprise and workers by the State - that there is a proper analysis of the operation of the scheme. The Minister of State and everyone in the House know that when we were developing this legislation, which garnered cross-party consensus and support given the nature of the problems we were facing this time two years ago, we insisted there should be forms of conditions attached to the level of expenditure this scheme would involve from the State. There was to be an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the State to private enterprise and workers and it was reasonable to expect there would be some conditions attached. Those might have been conditions around a requirement for decent work, a no lay-offs policy and, significantly, a prohibition of the payment of dividends and distribution to shareholders where companies were benefitting from the wage subsidy scheme. Unfortunately, those appeals fell on deaf ears.

Figures revealed to me through replies from the Minister for Finance to parliamentary questions last week show only 19 companies that paid dividends out to shareholders returned the full amount of the wage subsidy to the Exchequer. The figures from the reply, based on information from the Revenue Commissioners, suggest at last count about 641 companies that benefitted from the wage subsidy scheme paid out dividends or other forms of distribution to shareholders. That is a paltry amount of money paid back by companies that clearly did not require the support and largesse of the taxpayer at what was a difficult time for the economy. I am not suggesting for a minute those companies did anything illegal. They did not do anything unlawful because this House decided not to impose any restrictions in that regard in respect of the legislation governing the temporary wage subsidy scheme, TWSS, and then the employment wage subsidy scheme, EWSS. At the time the argument with the TWSS was this was money we needed to get into the hands of employers and workers very quickly. That is why no consideration was given to the attachment of any strict conditions, outside the 30% threshold and so on, for companies to qualify for the scheme. However, knowing the performance of the TWSS and having knowledge about how it worked, we had time and should have had the space to impose some kind of conditions to drive better outcomes for the taxpayer and our economy more generally when we were awarding such large sums of money to companies. These were companies that needed it to a very large extent. Most companies needed it. Most companies did not pay out dividends to shareholders but we know from Revenue 641 did and only 19 companies returned the full subsidy amount they received thanks to the taxpayer to the Exchequer.

It is in that context I ask the Minister of State to support the amendment. It is reasonable given the sums of money involved that there be clarity and full probity. Not only should the Department of Social Protection, supported by the Department of Finance and Revenue, undertake a formal examination into the operation of this scheme but there should be a full account of how that money was spent and how successful the scheme was. We know it was successful in achieving its aims and everybody understands and recognises that, but we need a full examination of the operation of the scheme and the care and management of it under the auspices of Revenue and the Department in the guise of the Minister for Finance. We need that undertaken. We need it to be done quickly. The scheme itself is coming to an end and it is in the interests of the taxpayer and of transparency and full accountability that an initiative of this nature is undertaken and a report be provided to this House, laid before both Houses and in time debated in the Chamber.

See this speech in context