Mr. Gerry Light:

I wish to come in on that point as well. We have come across similar circumstances, particular from the trade union side, in the past, probably on far too many occasions, when we address the whole issue of precedent. In response to Deputy Bruton, it is yet another example of whether we want to be leaders or followers. Based on the particular circumstances of the Bill under scrutiny, what it is seeking and the circumstance that gave rise to it, we believe there is a valid case to be leaders in this regard, as opposed to followers.

To follow on from my colleague, Mr. Berney, in respect of the assets and the comments made by Ms McElwee in respect of the burden falling unnecessarily on the Exchequer, the State or the Social Insurance Fund, there are many things that can create a burden for the Exchequer and the State finances and we have seen that far too often, unfortunately, in the past number of years. Workers are rarely the cause of that. There are many other factors that have a much greater impact and potential impact than what we are talking about.

It was stated that nothing illegal was done in respect of the lead-up to it but there were many concerns in respect of the Debenhams business. We lived that as part of the negotiating team. I led the negotiating team back at the examinership process. There were many concerns over many years in respect of how the company was being managed and how certain assets were being put out of reach of the Irish business, particularly, to give a specific example, in regard to the online business. However, there were also assets retained within Irish business here as well – mainly the stock. We had many a battle over many months trying to extract maximum value from the stock. We even got liquidators into an unprecedented position to negotiate with us. Going back to Deputy O’Reilly’s comments about whether there is a capacity to negotiate with liquidators, this was unprecedented that they actually sat down and started discussing with us the potential to access some of those assets. There were assets and retained assets, but it is about prioritising the distribution of those assets. That goes to the very essence of what the Bill under scrutiny is about.