Mr. Liam Berney:

I have just a couple of comments. I thank Deputy Bruton for the question. There has been an implicit line of argument this morning that necessarily, the taxpayer will fall the victim of or will have to pick up the debt for a collective redundancy agreement in a liquidation. It is my understanding in the Debenhams case that the assets of the company that were left in the Republic of Ireland at the time of the closure of the business would have been more than enough to meet the terms of the collective agreement that was in place at that time. It is not necessarily the case that the social welfare fund will be overwhelmed, as my colleague from IBEC said, by claims in liquidation for collective redundancies. I do not think is necessarily the case. The Social Insurance Fund will not have to pick up the debt because in many cases, there will be sufficient assets left in the business to meet the debt that is required.

Ms McElwee referred to discussions with the Minister of State, Deputy English. Those discussions have been going on for quite some time. We have had numerous promises from the Government about changes to the legislation and none of that has materialised. The Bill we are discussing is a response to the fact that there has been enormous frustration about the lack of action in this area. We need to have some action. In fairness to Deputy Barry, this Bill is a response to ensure that we do not face a situation such as the one in Debenhams again. For that reason, the Bill is very welcome.

I just want to make the point that it does not follow necessarily that the Social Insurance Fund will be left exposed in the way that has been suggested. In the case of many businesses that find themselves in this situation, assets remain to pick up the terms of the collective agreement. That was certainly the case with Debenhams.