Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

There are two issues here. The Duffy Cahill report was produced in relation to hypothetical situations, using examples from 2016. The report was published and its work taken on board by various Departments, which decided not to progress the recommendations. In some cases, there was no consensus on them. That is the discussion that we are having here about funds and different ways of achieving this. We have reopened that discussion and we think it is appropriate to do that. We are committed to doing that and we are looking at it again. It may result in making changes to strengthen this position if needs be. That is work the Chairman is doing and I respect that, and I am happy the committee is doing that. We are doing it too. All of us, ultimately, might arrive at changes that we agree on. It does not mean that we are only focusing on the six recommendations in the report because we are not; it goes beyond that into the entire area of redundancy and insolvency.

On the second part of the Deputy's question, he is drawing a specific link with the Duffy Cahill report. I am not sure that he is right in asserting the link, and the authors of the report did not draw that link here. They are potentially very different situations. I have seen no evidence to say the Debenhams situation could be addressed by the Duffy Cahill report and that they are similar. The report explicitly deals with the separation of assets. I do not see the evidence in the case we are discussing that the link is there. The Deputy is making that assumption but I cannot make that assumption because I do not have the evidence to do that.