Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms O'Dea for her very good explanation. It is useful. She spoke about raising awareness. Nobody thinks about redundancy until they get a notification. They just do not. We hear about it happening to other people and we do not think about it. Many people are unaware of their rights. I know of many situations - I am sure Ms O'Dea does too - in which people walk away from their employment without their legal entitlement simply because they do not know their rights. Whenever it happens, there must be a comprehensive information programme. It is usually in small companies and it is most definitely in companies that are not unionised. When it happens, very often, you meet the worker and talk to them after the time has expired. It is a bit like that quiz show when they say, look at what you could have won and did you know you could have got this. It might only be a small amount of money but it is certainly necessary. That is important.

In head 19, which would amend section 599 of the 2014 Act, it is indicated that the courts will be given a fair amount of discretion to bring forward a result which is fair. We want to make sure it is fair. It gives creditors the opportunity to prove why a related company should contribute to the debts of the company being wound up. The principle of equality of creditors of equal standing still holds. In the standing of creditors, workers' wages are secured but their collective redundancy agreements are unsecured. In many ways, what is proposed will not address that, which I am aware of, but where collective redundancy agreements are not honoured on the winding up of a company, it could be done if workers were given preferential creditor status. Will the witnesses talk us through why that option was not taken?