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

We all understand how difficult it is for all those involved in Debenhams or who are in any situation like that. It is not a nice place to be and, certainly, the workers feel strongly about it. As the Senator said, they have been out on the picket lines for more than 200 days. I have met and engaged with some of the employees and with the unions quite a lot around this. I fully understand and sympathise with them.

The State will do all it can within the law and within our framework to try to help and work with that. We are doing that as far as we possibly can in our role. The difficulty, however, is enhanced redundancy, and negotiations around that are a private matter. They are not something the State was part of, or part of that agreement. We do not have a role in seeing that part of it out because it is a private situation and it varies from company to company.

Regarding the discussion around the fund, again, it is a suggestion that has been put forward by many and others have commented on it. Some will be for it and some will be against it. It is being teased through. Will that fund help the situation? No decisions have been made on that fund or a potential fund. Senator Crowe and Deputy Shanahan asked how it will work and whether there will be different versions of it. Again, it goes back to whether an arrangement is made to have enhanced redundancy or other enhanced entitlements. Who pays for that? If it is a private decision in a company, who should pay for it? I believe employees in that situation who have agreed to it would fully expect and feel entitled to it, and feel it is theirs. In that respect, therefore, one would say there should be some ring-fenced funding to guarantee it is paid out.

Regarding statutory entitlements, the State is fully supportive and is behind and part of that. The State makes sure there is a ring-fenced fund to pay out on that. It is called the Social Insurance Fund. The role of the State is to provide a strong commitment there and it is well recognised. The other fund is about enhanced redundancy entitlements or other issues. One must ask the question then, who pays into that fund? Who will pay for that? I posed that question to all those in the discussion to hear their views. I am sure the committee may also have views on it.

The Duffy Cahill report refers to employees having equality and one cannot have different types of rights for employees. One must have equality. If, therefore, that fund is in place for those who have enhanced entitlements and others do not have access to it, is that right and fair? That is the kind of stuff we must tease out and that is being looked at.

It has been much asserted by people that were the Duffy Cahill recommendations implemented, Debenhams would not be in the situation it is. I have not seen the evidence to back up that assertion. I am being truthful on that. That does not mean I am right. I have seen no evidence. People have claimed it and have joined the two together. I have been through the Duffy Cahill report probably ten or 11 times at this stage. I have read and gone through it and I cannot see the evidence. I believe the authors of the report did not say that either because, again, they kept referring to the fact their report is about situations involving assets and the separation of assets. That is what they were asked to report on and make recommendations on, and that is what they did. They did not go into the policy, funding or cost of that. They just made potential recommendations. Our job is to go deeper than that and look at it all. I have not, however, seen the evidence to say that if those proposals were implemented, we would not have the tragic situation that is happening in Debenhams, and it is tragic. We do not want anyone losing his or her job. So many people were committed, many of whom had 30 years-plus service. It is difficult for any of us to lose a job. It is, however, even more so when a person was committed to a company for so long and gave so much of his or her life, and probably grew up in the place. In many cases, it was generations of families. That is difficult to accept and hard to work on. That is why the State has given this as much attention as it possibly can to try to help and to work with the unions. We are not, however, privy to some of the private parts of that process. We are prohibited by law to step in, in some cases. We can only work within the framework we have.