Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

Throughout this debate, speakers have cited the many recent experiences of workers that point to the need for this Bill and other legislation to provide greater protection. In my constituency, we saw the plight of the GAME workers who, in common with their fellow workers in stores across the country, staged a sit-in at the Monaghan town shop. These young workers were simply dumped without notice by their employer while the State was left to pick up the tab in statutory redundancy payments.

Since 15 December, the workers at Lagan Brick in Kingscourt, County Cavan, have been maintaining a 24-hour vigil at the plant after they were laid off at an hour's notice. Once again, workers were dumped by their employer and nothing worthwhile was on offer, despite many years of service by the staff, 43 years in the case of one worker.

We are talking here about ordinary working people and their families. These and many thousands of workers like them are dependent on employers for work and on the Government to ensure fairness at work, as well as fairness in the event of redundancy. They have been let down badly on both counts. They do not have gilt-edged private pensions, senior Civil Service pensions or offshore bank accounts on which to fall back. This Bill's primary purpose is to enhance the period of notice to workers being made redundant and to speed up the hearing and processing of claims to entitlements.

The Government itself is giving bad example in this regard. Yesterday, I received a reply from the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, concerning redundancy payments to special needs assistants who were laid off by the Government last autumn. Redundancy applications received by the Department in October 2011 are only now being processed. That is not good enough, especially when it affects low-paid workers. The Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, stated the British Government is actively evaluating the relevance of the continued application of the 90 day provision in its jurisdiction. He said the existing 30 day notification and consultation period have served this State well for more than 30 years and neither employer nor employee have ever sought their amendment. He claimed that the 60 and 90 day periods would be unrealistic and inconsistent with the flexibility needed by companies in making decisions in restructuring. He also stated it could create a period of prolonged uncertainty for workers. I find this incredible. Are the intentions of a British Tory Government being advanced by a Labour Minister as an argument against this Bill?

In essence, that is what has been happening. It is simply untrue on the part of the Government to state that employees have not sought a change in the 30 day notification and consultation period. The record shows the contrary is true.

This Bill has received the support of the Mandate and Unite trade unions. Mandate's general secretary, Mr. John Douglas, has stated that the Bill is:

very much welcomed by Mandate, as recently unemployed workers are finding it harder and harder to get the benefits that they are entitled to. The Government needs to protect workers and this Bill is a step in the right direction.

Unite has also given full support to this legislation and its national co-ordinator, Mr. Walter Cullen, has pointed out that his union is currently involved in more than 200 individual cases that have been awaiting adjudication for more than two years. It represents former staff at the Connaught Telegraph newspaper, who have been deprived of wages and holiday pay totalling €20,000 for the past six months. He stated:

It is too easy for bodies and companies to rush consultation and delay payments. Individuals will gain much better protection in the fairer framework this legislation will give rise to. We fully support its introduction with all possible haste.

That is a strong endorsement for this Bill, and we in Sinn Féin are very proud of that.

Despite what some Deputies have inferred, there is no question of this legislation putting companies out of business. Some may have misunderstood the provisions. The Bill would deem companies insolvent for the purposes of the Protection of Employees (Employers Insolvency) Act only. This relates exclusively to allowing workers access to the insolvency fund and does not affect the company otherwise in terms of its legal status. The protections which exist clearly are not adequate. Employees have been left in a legal limbo and unable to access their entitlements, which is a scandalous loophole. We are endeavouring to deal with that in this Bill.

It is a pity the Government did not take more notice of the Labour Party Senators, to whom my colleague, Deputy O'Brien referred. More than six months ago, in the context of the TalkTalk dispute, they called on the Government to act. Senator Marie Maloney, a former SIPTU official, has already been cited, and she stated:

I am aware of many people who have encountered difficulties when they tried to claim redundancy payments and entitlements ... I am aware of individuals who have been waiting as long as three years for payments. This is not good enough ... If employees have at least 60 days' notice, they will have time to come to terms with the devastating news and investigate their entitlements.

Senator Denis Landy stated:

I cannot and do not accept the argument that if a new company is being brought in and faces a requirement to give 60 days notice then, even if everything else fits into place, the company will choose not to come here as a result of that provision. That does not stand up.

Senator Ivana Bacik stated "We propose that existing legislation be reviewed in order to provide for a longer notice period than 30 days, especially in cases where a large company is proposing to make collective redundancies." The Government should listen to the voices in their respective teams.

See this speech in context