Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Doherty for raising this very important issue. It is clear from listening to the Senator that she has immense knowledge on this particular issue and first-hand experience of same. I, too, in my constituency clinic have had employees of Aer Lingus bringing precisely the issues that the Senator has raised. The travel industry was very seriously affected by the Covid-19 situation and continues to be so. Aer Lingus has also been very seriously affected, as has all its staff.

The temporary wage subsidy scheme, TWSS, was in place for the 22 weeks between 26 March and 31 August 2020. It was introduced only as an emergency income support for employees of vulnerable firms where turnover had declined by at least 25%, which was the case with Aer Lingus. Under the TWSS, income support was paid via the employer, as Senator Doherty stated, to maintain the link between the employee and the employer insofar as was possible, and the amounts were refunded to the employer by the Revenue Commissioners, who administered the scheme on behalf of the State. I know, generally, once a claim was submitted to Revenue, within 48 hours a refund tended to be paid.

I want to advise the Senator that under section 851(a) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, Revenue is precluded, by reason of its taxpayer confidentiality obligations, from providing any details on individual taxpayers, including the company in question. I will return to that matter specifically, because the Senator has asked for a review to be published on that matter. I will, therefore, be speaking generally on the issues that relate to workers who were paid via the TWSS

. It is my understanding that concerns have been raised that employers may not have passed on to their workers the full value of the subsidy that they claimed. I assure the Senator that, by design, it is not possible for an employer to claim more of the subsidy than was paid to the employees. That is the nature of the actual scheme, and it is because the system that was used to make the payment was built using the employer payroll returns to Revenue from earlier in the year. It is not possible, therefore, that an employer could have withheld the subsidy from their workers. The employer was required to include the amount of the subsidy on the employees' payslips. I will return to the question of whether that issue did arise, but that is the general rule that Revenue will clearly look at. Employers were required to download the information provided by Revenue.

It is important to state that there was no obligation on any employer in the country, under the TWSS, to claim the maximum amount of the subsidy for an individual employee.It is important that they would all be encouraged to do so but an employer could have a particular reason not to claim the entire allowable amount. That would be a difficult issue for the employees concerned but there is not a legal obligation to claim the maximum subsidy. Under section 28 of the emergency measures legislation, the employer was expected to make the best effort to maintain the employee's net income. We will come to the issue of deductions from net income separately. This could have an impingement in respect of employment rights and entitlements. If an employee has a particular issue, such matters are more appropriate for the Workplace Relations Commission. It is important that where there are issues between an employer and an employee, Revenue is not a substitute for the Workplace Relations Commission. The Revenue Commissioners cannot be expected to adjudicate on those issues. They do a great job and have a big job to do. The issue of employees' rights is a matter between the employer, the employee and the Workplace Relations Commission. I am advised by Revenue that where a business was clearly not eligible for the scheme or failed to pay the correct level of subsidy, that amount can be fully reclaimed from that employer. While I am not specifically referring to this company, Revenue is carrying out an in-depth review of all companies for a more in-depth examination. If there is abuse of the system there will be very serious consequences for the employer concerned.