Mattie McGrath demands clarity for SMEs over emergency scheme

This is of paramount importance to SMEs and lead sole traders and business people because they have to have some kind of certainty. And I understand, Minister, we all understand the predicament as you're in, but we need to have a review mechanism. We need to have some certainty that, as Deputy Council said, you might be able to clarify in your remarks, but people are concerned and worried. We're all getting lots of phone calls because they do not know where they stand and they do not know the impact that's going to have on their finances. We're going to need to kick-start the economy. And these are the many people that we're hoping that will survive and will put their shoulder to the wheel again and be brave enough. But they need clarity around this. The longer it goes on, the less clarity that's with it. And they need clarity. And I will respond back to each of them in turn. But as I do that, I do want to give some context to the questions I'm going to give. That was actually prompted by something that Deputy Nash said, when he said it would have been very helpful to have this guidance available earlier on in the week. I can tell you the truth of a deputy is we were moving so quickly in putting all of this together that the legislation itself only took shape over the weekend and as we moved into Monday, let alone moving on to the issue of guidance. And the reason why Deputy Nash and other deputies by this speed was underway was because I have the highest level of concern that in the absence of an intervention like this be made available by this Dáil and this government that the unemployment situation that our country could face into could be exceptionally grave. And Deputy Doherty has made some points in relation to risk in relation to this scheme. And he is accurate in calling out that there are risks with an intervention of this scale. And I will say a word about each of his amendments in turn. But as I said, as I addressed this issue when I spoke to Cabinet about this matter on Tuesday and then launched this scheme on Tuesday afternoon, while the risks are great in relation to how some of the scheme could be interpreted, there are two issues that are important. The first one is the ability of the revenue commissioner to implement this scheme as the Oireachtas intends and as I, as Minister for Finance, intends. And the second point is my very strong judgment that in the absence of the Oireachtas intervening in the income of many workers, there is a very large number of jobs that will be at risk in our country. And that is why, as conscious as I am of the risk, and I know what they are, I do believe this intervention is needed for an emergency period to ensure that by investing in income, we give the greatest number of companies possible the chance of surviving the period that is coming up. And I want to be open with this style and open with all the deputies that have raised this point, that behind each of the points that you are raising, you are correct in identifying a risk. And Deputy, I think it was McGrath earlier on today, but to point to me, our Deputy Cowan indeed, asking for a breakdown of what was leading to the Exchequer commitments that I've outlined earlier on in the week. And as I said in my second stage speech back, if the public health crisis allays, if the economic effects are not as damaging as we fear, it is entirely possible that the figures that I have spoken about could be less. It is equally possible that the figures that I have outlined could be higher. And they could be higher because of the public health emergency that our country could have to respond back to. And I'm explicitly saying this to the Dáil, because I don't want to be in a position where having addressed this issue with you In a period of time ahead, I'm either speaking as a member of the opposition or member of government, querying the budgetary rationale that underpins this. We've used our best judgment to put together the rationale for how much we believe it will cost. But it is based at a time of great uncertainty. But it's because of that uncertainty that there's a need to intervene in income. If I address some of the points that have been brought to me particularly in relation to particular questions that have been raised, the first one is in relation to guidance from the Revenue Commissioner to address many of the questions that have been brought by Deputy O'Donald, by Deputy Nash, by Deputy O'Callaghan, Deputy Cowan and other colleagues. That detailed guidance was published tonight. There will be a need to revise it. There will be a need to look at how this can be made even clearer. I would say, though, to the companies that are contacting deputies in the numbers that you are at the moment, I would encourage those companies to go directly to the Revenue Commissioner now that this guidance has been published. And I would encourage them to raise their questions directly with them. And in the guidance that the Revenue Commissioner have published and in the way they will be addressing this issue in the coming days, they will be saying that they do not believe professional advice is merited to understand this guidance. And they will engage with companies directly to reach pragmatic solutions in relation to issues that are quickly approaching as quickly as they can. With that said, to address the different points that have been brought to me by deputies. The point that have been brought to me by Deputy McGrath, picked up again by Deputy Cowan, in relation to the flexibility that is open to the Minister of the Day in relation to the interpretation of this scheme, how it can be varied and so on. In normal times, I would completely agree with the points that have been made by Deputy Cowan and McGrath. about the need for the Minister to be continuously accountable to the Oireachtas about the different issues that are raised. What I would ask the House to consider is, given the period that we are moving into, and the nature of the public health emergency that is underway, is that I do believe it is imperative that the Minister does have the ability to vary the scheme. And some of the rationale for that was articulated by Deputy Owen O'Brien in relation to a debate on earlier amendments. If I was in such a position, I would believe that it is incumbent upon me to explain my rationale and to engage with opposition parties during that time so you understand why that has been done. But because of the public health emergency we are moving into, I believe that kind of flexibility is needed by the Minister. In relation to the questions that have been put to me there by Deputy Doherty and the different points that he has raised. Again, I want to acknowledge Deputy that the risks that you are raising are real. They are real. And they have been considered by myself and the two departments that have worked on this scheme with great care over the last number of days. But my recommendation to the House is that, as real as the risks are that you are outlining, Deputy Doherty, that the lack of an intervention of this breadth could generate a national risk in terms of the numbers of people who would face a real threat to their job beyond the tens of thousands of our citizens who are already reliant on the pandemic payment. Beyond that. And I know you do not want to see that happen. I do not want to see it happen either. And you have acknowledged that in your broad support for the bill, notwithstanding the specific concerns that you have. In relation to the particular amendments that you have put forward there, in relation to amendment number 60 that has been put forward by Deputy O'Brien in your name. The reason for not accepting that amendment beyond some of the rationale that I have referred to is, as Minister for Finance, many of the powers that Deputy O'Brien is asking that I would have, I would not have. They do not sit with me. They sit with other ministers. But it is possible across the coming period that there will be businesses that will be open, albeit in a limited period, that will be participating in this scheme. And that is entirely possible and would actually be quite positive if that were to occur. Because we would have companies that would be open and they may be employing their employees in a different way, but they would be open. They would be providing a service in the community selling a good. Doing so, enabled by this scheme, the likelihood is if the scheme wasn't available, the company would not be open or if it was not employing numbers of employees in the way that otherwise would be. I actually got the dispensation of your predecessor a moment ago. He is gone now. I am here. Well, Count Corlea, I am quite happy to take your guidance, believe me, but I have around 20 questions that have been put to me earlier on. So had other ministers and we were not able to get to all of them. If you could wrap up in reasonable time. Okay. Okay. Well, I will accelerate then Count Corlea and try and get them done. Very quickly then, in relation to amendment 62, the particular requirement that the company does pay and has the ability to add to the subsidy that has been made available to the state. In normal times, Deputy Doherty, I would completely agree with you. I just want to say to you, I think, unfortunately, it could be very possible that there are even more companies in the future that will have a very low level of income coming in because demand for the good of service has evaporated, which means they are not in a position to add to the subsidy. I would ask you not to put in place a requirement that the subsidy has to be added to, because while it is what I want to see happen, my view is if you were to make it as stringent as you have here in your amendment, it could undermine the ability of the scheme to operate. And it's for that reason, I would ask you to consider withdrawing the amendments that you have put forward there in line with amendment number 66 as well. In relation to, very quickly, the questions that were put to me there by Deputy O'Callaghan, we would define Deputy O'Callaghan wages as normal wages, their inability to pay normal wages. And the Revenue Commissioner, in the guidance that they are publishing, will put a time period against which those normal wages would be judged, thereby being able to say, if they are not able to pay normal wages, what do we define normal in the first place? In relation to Deputy Nash, you have been good enough to acknowledge that the guidance does cover off a number of those points. Deputy Rabbis, I would really ask you to consider the issue that you were raising in Deshanod tomorrow morning, and your party is raising. I know it is a very important issue. I know there are many in the childcare sector that want to see this issue clarified. But if that amendment is accepted in Deshanod tomorrow, this bill needs to come back to the Doyle. If the bill comes back to the Doyle, the Revenue Commissioner cannot make payments available as soon as early next week. And I would just ask, as you are weighing up that matter, to consider the real value of this scheme being operational next week. In relation to Deputy O'Donoghue and the points you made there, except to what you were saying, Deputy O'Donoghue, but we are hoping that through the supports that will be available by the Department of Social Protection, that we will be able to support those that are self-employed in a comparable scheme, but it will be administered through Minister Doherty's Department, as opposed to through the Revenue Commissioner. Deputy McGrath, I think the detailed guidance that has been offered by the Revenue Commissioner will address many of the issues that you have raised there. In relation to Deputy O'Donoghue, in relation to how a decline in turnover will be judged. The way it will be re-judged is by looking at what the expected turnover will be for quarter two of 2020. And comparing that with likely turnover for quarter one or, if appropriate, quarter two of 2019. So that's how that issue will be looked at. In relation to Deputy Troy, Deputy Troy, this scheme is based on net wages. So the idea of this scheme is that it will maintain 70 per cent of the net wages that an employee would otherwise get after they have paid their taxes. So yes, there will be tax liabilities that will be generated during the year in relation to it. And the Revenue Commissioner will have to engage with every company to ensure that this is managed in a way that is fair and understood by all. And the Revenue Commissioner, through the guidance they've issued tonight, and also through a huge amount of engagement that they are having at the moment with accounting bodies and with employers. I hope we'll be able to clarify all of that. Just in conclusion, Cahirloch, I will open where I began. I believe in the absence of an intervention like this, the risk is very high. I believe this scheme, if accepted by the Oireachtas, by the Dáil tonight and by the Sánid tomorrow, can play a very important role in keeping people in jobs who otherwise would not be in. But be under no doubt, Cahirloch, Cahirloch, this is an emergency scheme. And the emergency scheme will need to come to an end. The costs here are sustainable for a period of time. They are not sustainable indefinitely. And it will fall to a future minister to conclude this scheme.