John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Cullinane and the Members who contributed to this useful discussion. I note that both Sinn Féin speakers referred to establishment parties offering tea and sympathy. That phrase must have been part of their briefing note. In the establishment of the Duffy-Cahill process, which has led to the review the Tánaiste outlined, more was offered than tea and sympathy. No Member has a monopoly on grievances, in particular in the Clerys case, which was appalling not just in terms of the State but, as Deputy Smith outlined, in terms of the 400 plus employees, many of whom had spent their entire working lives in Clerys, which was an institution in this city and country. For country people coming to Dublin, it was recognised as an institution.

As the Tánaiste outlined, the Department has been preparing its own response to the Duffy-Cahill report which was published a little over 12 months ago. Deputy Cullinane's Bill, which is to be welcomed, deals primarily with two of the six recommendations contained in the report. That is one of the reasons further work is required and the Bill will go to the pre-legislative scrutiny stage for consideration by all Members of the Oireachtas and other interested parties.

Deputy Clare Daly said that there has only been one welfare fraudster in the State in the past 12 months. I do not know where she got that statistic but it is not accurate. The Government wants to deal with this issue and the Tánaiste has indicated that will be done.

Deputy Tóibín bemoaned many things. He gave a litany of things that are wrong, some of which I agree with, in terms of Irish employment scenarios that have developed in recent years. In particular, he bemoaned internships. I suspect he and I will never agree on such things but internships have a role in ensuring that people starting out in their working careers have the experience necessary to do so. Almost worldwide that is the case, as it now is in Ireland. I note he gave an impassioned plea that the Government not block the passage of the Bill even though the Tánaiste had already indicated it would not be doing so. Sometimes Members should listen more to each other. However, I do not doubt Deputy Tóibín's intentions.

Deputy Niall Collins pointed out the correspondence from the two unions which all Members have received. There is no real political difficulty or differences between Members of the House. When I was Chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Oversight, I discovered how frequently I agreed with Deputy Boyd Barrett. Members of my own party were appalled at that. Why should they be? The job of Members is to serve those who elect us. Their interests should be at the heart of everything we do. Members may differ on ideological grounds but should not do so on the outcomes for the public.

This has been a useful debate. There are many genuine employers who attempt to do the right thing by their employees and were appalled by what happened in the case of Clerys. Members must remember that in attempting to strengthen laws in order to address situations such as the one referred to, they must take care to do so in a balanced and proportionate manner that does not have unintended consequences for genuine employers across the country. The Duffy-Cahill report said that any changes proposed would require careful drafting so as to confine their effect to the type of situations they are intended to address and have no broader or unforeseen consequences in either field. All Members know the issues involved are complex, cross-cutting and concern important issues to do with people's livelihoods and ability to earn a living. There are also the issues regarding company law, as outlined by many speakers, and the question of how the codes interact with one another.

The Tánaiste has said that an investigation is being carried out by authorised officers from the Workplace Relations Commission into the collective redundancies in Clerys. It is the job of Members, as legislators, to strengthen the law if there are weaknesses in it, which is what this Bill addresses and I have no problem supporting it. People will face charges before the District Court in relation to the matter discussed. I support that this Bill go to pre-legislative scrutiny.

See this speech in context