Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

-----in an effort to insulate their investments from the responsibilities they have to their staff. The fact is that both the State and the workers are getting stuffed over and over again. We have complete inertia from the Labour Party with regard to its response. If I have to paint it out clearly and simply for the Tánaiste again, I will do so. A number of purchases in 2012 and 2015 have been about maximising property profits and minimising responsibility to employees. Gordon Brothers walked away from the sale of Clerys with approximately €15 million. Natrium has bought a prime development opportunity worth multiples of what it has invested. The Minister of State, Deputy Nash, has said he is satisfied that Gordon Brothers and Natrium are not required under company law to cough up with regard to employees' entitlements. Is the Tánaiste satisfied that they are not forced to do so? If we do not resolve this through legislation, we will be back here in six months talking about another firm. It is clear that there is a flaw in the existing framework. The question is whether the Labour Party will challenge that flaw.

Will the Labour Party fix that flaw? For our part, Sinn Féin has already tabled legislation on this issue, but it has not received the support of the Labour Party.

We are told that this matter has been referred to the Company Law Review Group. This group last met in February and the items it has been asked to consider do not include a review of section 224 of the Companies Act 2014 or tactical insolvencies. The fact that it has not been asked to do this yet is alarming. Such situations are happening repeatedly, and in large numbers, but this practice is not being challenged. The Minister of State says in his report that section 224 imposes a duty on directors in respect of company employees. What is the specific provision in that section and where is the precedent? When will the Company Law Review Group meet to discuss the legal issues arising from the Clerys situation? When will it be charged with reviewing the existing company law framework, or are we to have another example of duplicity with strong robust rhetoric from the Government but nothing being done?

See this speech in context