Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Bruton raised the issue of precedent and also asked the question as to whether there were international examples. The answer to that question is "Yes". If we look at legislation in Greece, France and Portugal, we will see that there is legislative provision for workers to be put at the head of the queue and be first to be paid in a liquidation situation.

I note as well that the representatives of IBEC would also like to make an international comparison. I will not put words in their mouths; I will quote them. They talk about how "our nearest neighbour and competitor, the United Kingdom", imposes a maximum statutory redundancy payment of £17,130 and caps length of service in any such calculation at 20 years. They say that we need to be competitive in relation to our nearest neighbour in that regard. Therefore, the international comparison upon which the IBEC representatives would like us to focus is legislation introduced by a Tory Government in Brexit Britain that wants to create a bargain basement labour market. Their Prime Minister has pointed to Singapore as an example. There is no mention of comparison with European Union countries.

Deputy O'Reilly has mentioned Belgium and France, and I could mention many others, where workers have fought to improve conditions and they are now enshrined in law. I want to make that point at the outset.

I have spoken to hundreds of people, perhaps thousands, about the Debenhams dispute. Not all of them are people on the left and not all of them are trade union activists or even trade unionists by any manner or means. I have to say that the first people I have met in the last two to three years who were not prepared to say that what happened in Debenhams was an injustice are the representatives of IBEC who are here this morning. I believe their viewpoint is representative of the view of a mere tiny minority in Irish society. The overwhelming majority of people feel there was deep injustice done in Debenhams and that it is a wrong that needs to be righted. My first question is for Ms McElwee. If she says that effective legislation provisions and mechanisms already exist under both employment and company law, how on earth would she prevent another Debenhams style situation from developing? What guarantee could she give if the law is not changed, which is what is being considered here?