Mr. Mark Paul broke the story in The Irish Times yesterday that a company called MML Holdings, which owns O'Flaherty Holdings, received €1.8 million in taxpayer funded wage subsidies in 2020. It made profits of nearly €10 million last year but here is the rub. It also paid out a dividend of almost exactly the same amount as subsidy to Hailstone Holdings, an offshore company in the Isle of Man tax haven. This is some coincidence.

These related companies ultimately flog Mercedes cars to well-heeled people across the country. The O'Flaherty family made a tidy profit last year while the people of Ireland picked up the bill for the wages of their workers; a bill paid for with the borrowings that future generations will have to pay.

This would make Boycie, the car dealer in "Only Fools and Horses", blush. We know from The Irish Times that Prometric and its related companies were at it too. This is a company the State uses to operate our driver theory tests. It paid out €1.25 million in dividends last year having received a total of approximately €1.5 million in wage subsidies to date. I hope the Tánaiste will agree that this is absolutely extraordinary.

The wage subsidy schemes that this House has supported have saved jobs and kept good businesses going but surely the scheme was never meant to line the pockets of big investors. Even Santa Clause would not be this generous. I can guarantee that this story does not end here. The Government is big on corporate welfare but it is not big on corporate obligations. The truth is the Government was warned that this abuse would happen.

From the get-go, the Labour Party and I have argued for strict social, economic and labour conditions to be attached to the schemes. We have said in the House that there should be no supports for companies registered in tax havens, for companies with enough cash to pay dividends or for companies that ignore recommendations from the WRC or the Labour Court. Other countries attached conditionality to ensure state aid would not go to companies registered in tax havens. France and Austria included dividend bans but no such strings were attached here. All we currently have are Revenue compliance checks. It is clear that companies that are, and were, profitable should be looking at whether they really need that support from the State. The Minister for Finance seems to agree with me.

We have called repeatedly for the EWSS to be transformed into a permanent short-time working scheme with conditions. We know that these schemes operate well to save jobs when the economy is in difficulty. Will the Tánaiste call on O'Flaherty Holdings and Prometric to repay the pandemic supports that they obviously did not need? Will the Government now carry out a full audit of the payments made to companies to find out if other companies profited from wage subsidy schemes in this way? Because we are at risk of losing tens of thousands of jobs next year, will the Government put in place a permanent revised short-time working scheme with conditions as I have consistently advised?

I caution the Deputy. We need to be careful about making allegations certainly against named families, even though they may be beneficial owners of companies or corporations. We just need to tread warily, please.

Cognisant of what the Ceann Comhairle said, I am not going to make any particular remark about any particular company or any particular individual. What I can say in the round is that it is my view that companies that have recorded substantial profits this year or are in the position to pay substantial dividends should refund the money they received under the employment wage subsidy scheme, EWSS. A number of companies have done so. They received the money in good faith. They did not know how hard they would be hit by the pandemic. The EWSS allowed them to keep on staff that they might otherwise have let go or put on short time. However, if it turned out that the year was a good one for the company and it made substantial profits and could pay its shareholders a dividend and did not really need the wage subsidy money, then I think that money should be repaid. That is the view of the Government as well.

Both the wage subsidy scheme and the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, were organised and designed in a hurry. We needed to get money out to workers and businesses quickly. We always knew that some people would not necessarily need the money. That applied to both schemes. However, particularly when it comes to the wage subsidy scheme, where substantial profits are made by companies or they find themselves in a position to pay dividends, it is appropriate they should return that cash to the taxpayer. Some companies have done that, in fairness. Others have not and they should.

I agree but the type of behaviour I outlined from corporate entities, which is on the record - and I believe there may be more revelations in coming days - should have been made unlawful in the first place as has been the case in Austria and some other countries against which we like to compare ourselves. No conditionality whatsoever was attached to the temporary wage subsidy scheme, TWSS. I can understand that this scheme, in particular, was introduced in a rush. It was an urgent scheme and a good one to keep people close to their employers and keep people in work. However, the lesson should have been applied to the operation of the EWSS.

Will the Tánaiste discuss with Revenue the need to properly audit companies that have benefited from the scheme? It is unfortunate that all we can do in this House, because this behaviour is not unlawful, is plead with profitable companies to return this money to the taxpayer. That is not acceptable to me. We should learn lessons from the way that this scheme has operated.

I wish the Tánaiste, Matt and his family a very happy Christmas. I hope that he gets to enjoy a break.

I thank the Deputy. More than €6.6 billion has been provided under the EWSS comprising of direct subsidy payments of €5.729 billion to companies and PRSI forgone of just under €1 billion. It has helped to protect approximately 700,000 jobs in 60,000 companies. The legislation incorporates important safeguards to ensure that it is correctly claimed by companies. Revenue is undertaking assurance checks on the scheme to ensure that conditions have been met and will continue to do so.

Qualification for EWSS is based on the employer demonstrating that his or her business experienced a 30% reduction in turnover or orders during a specific period and that this was caused as a consequence of disruption related to the pandemic. Revenue is rigorous in its structured programme of checks to ensure the eligibility of businesses for subsidy payments under the scheme and will pursue any instances where a business fails to qualify for the scheme, whatever the reason.

While the question of what dividends a company may or may not be in a position to pay shareholders is a matter outside the current legislative remit of the scheme, the Minister for Finance wants it noted that some companies have voluntarily repaid some or all of the subsidy received. Revenue has put in place procedures for the repayment of wage subsidies where businesses wish to make them.