David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputies Clare Daly, Niall Collins, Tóibín and Bríd Smith, the Tánaiste, Deputy Fitzgerald, and the Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, on their contributions. I thank the Government for not opposing the Bill as well as those who have said they will support it, albeit with the caveat that it be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Sinn Féin has no opposition to that. It is prudent, given the complexity of the issues involved, that that be the case and we have no objection to it.

I concur with the Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, that the vast majority of employers in the State act responsibly and were as horrified as Members were when they heard of the tactical insolvency that took place in Clerys, and I said that earlier. That makes it all the more urgent for action to be taken. Not only did the workers suffer but taxpayers also suffered because they had to pick up the tab, as do companies when situations such as this one emerge.

Deputy Tóibín pointed out that copies of the Bill were sent to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, all key trade unions, all the party spokespersons and the Independents before First Stage. That was my attempt at new politics. I said that if they agreed with the intent and substance of the Bill, and if they agreed something had to be done, then let us convene a meeting at which the Bill could be discussed, amendments could be put forward collectively and it could then be moved on Second Stage. That did not happen. Sinn Féin, therefore, had no choice but to move the Bill, which it has done. It was fortunate that the Bill was chosen in the lottery and is now being debated.

In that spirit, we have absolutely no objection to it being scrutinised on Committee Stage. In fact, we have a Bill on the issue of if-and-when contracts that is currently in a similar process and is being examined by the Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation as well. I am assuming that committee will deal with this Bill as well.

Deputy Niall Collins expressed concern about whether the asset might be transferred back to the liquidator responsible for the tactical insolvency. I do not believe that would happen because the liquidator would not trigger a tactical insolvency, rather the company itself would do so. The liquidator would come into play when the assets are transferred and then when the operations part of the company is liquidated. That is something which can be teased out.

The Government made a number of interesting observations with which I agree and the Bill would be strengthened if they were taken on board. The Minister said that she could see that section 2 of the Bill seeks to implement proposal 4 of the Duffy-Cahill report. The proposal is to allow a trade union or employee representative make an application to the High Court, whereas the Duffy-Cahill report recommended only the Minister or the liquidator should do so. Again, this is something that can be debated at committee stage. It would be useful and important for a trade union to have that right. The Minister also said that section 2 fails to provide a definition in respect of employee representatives. If there are definitions that need to be added to the Bill, we are more than happy to accept amendments to that effect, and we will draft our own if necessary. There is no objection to that.

The Minister said that section 2(1)(b) refers to any property of the company of any kind whatsoever rather than using the words "an asset of significant value", which is the term in the Duffy-Cahill report. I would not have an objection to an amendment in that regard either. I do not see any reason why that could not be accepted and, again, it is something that can be considered on Committee Stage.

The issue of priority status of creditors arose, where concern was expressed by the Minister to the effect that it was too broadly defined and that it would effectively give a lien on the assets of a business to employees. I agree with that but if it is problematic for certain parties or individuals, it would have to be debated and scrutinised. We would be more than willing to examine those issues as well.

There was an issue concerning proposal one, removing the insolvency exemption from the prohibition on implementing collective redundancies during the consultation period, which is not contained in the Bill. The Minister and the officials would be aware that there is a section of the Bill that does deal with a 30-day consultation period. However, the Duffy-Cahill report dealt with this in detail and a number of recommendations were made. One of the recommendations states, "A further matter that may be addressed as part of the proposed amendment is that an employer could be required to provide certain information to employees and/or their representatives during the consultation period." If there are elements of the Duffy-Cahill report that are not included in our Bill, we would be more than happy to have those included in order to strengthen it.

I welcome the Minister's lack of opposition to the Bill. She stated that the Bill should be referred to the joint committee and subjected to further scrutiny, which I agree with. She then set out the reasons why. The first reason she gave is that account should be taken of the analysis and recommendations contained in the Duffy-Cahill report. That is absolutely right and prudent, and should happen, because of the complex nature of this matter. It was a very detailed report and much work was done on it. It would be very useful if Mr. Duffy and Ms Cahill were witnesses before the committee to assist us with amendments to the Bill. That would add value to the Bill. The second reason given was that account was taken of the Department's public consultation process and submissions made, which are on the Department's website and which I have read. Again, that would strengthen the Bill. Account was taken of work of the company law review group, which the Minister has said will be available shortly. The only caveat I would add is that we have been hearing for a long time that the committee will conclude its work shortly. I hope that the elongated nature of that work and process would not unnecessarily hold up progress on this Bill. Notwithstanding that, there are references in the Duffy-Cahill report to company law, although the authors do put caveats on changes to company law.

The Minister says that the proposed Bill needs to be a balanced and comprehensive response to the Duffy-Cahill report, which is what we all want and is what needs to happen. It is important that the proposed Bill does not give rise to any unintended consequences. All Members, including representatives who are now in government, know that the opposition do not have the experience of teams of people who can give us the technical support that we need when drafting Bills. There may well be unintended consequences. If there are and they need to be ironed out we will absolutely support those amendments, and amendments to any errors in drafting, because it is not our intention to have unintended consequences that would take from the substance of the Bill. No Bill is perfect or without errors, so we are open to making changes.

I hope that over the next number of months we can not just not oppose this but also do the serious work that needs to be done. We should take the work that the Department, ourselves, Mr. Duffy and Ms Cahill have done and perfect this Bill, and make sure that it is passed as quickly as possible. We must make sure that we are not responsible as legislators for situations where workers are left high and dry because of a tactical insolvency. That would be a failure on our part. We can criticise companies for doing the wrong thing when they do so, but if they are allowed to do it because the law allows them to do it then that is our fault and we have to take responsibility. What we are doing here tonight, I hope, is taking responsibility and taking that first step. Teachta Bríd Smith is right - it should not take the Opposition tabling Bills of this nature in order to force the issue. However, I did not see any evidence of the urgency of this from the Government, notwithstanding some of the work that was done or the point made by the Minister of State, Deputy Phelan, in respect of the report and the group set up to examine the issue. The report was sitting there for a long time and I saw no evidence of any Bill coming from the Government. We now have a Bill which can be amended and perfected and which can make a real difference to workers. I have hope that this can happen.

I conclude by commending the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Phelan, and the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Fitzgerald, on their support for the Bill. I also commend the other Deputies who contributed to the debate. I thank the Clerys workers in the Public Gallery because they are the people who were left high and dry and who suffered the consequences of this. It is for them that we do this, and also for future workers who will not face the same consequences as a result of the fact that we in this House will have done our job.

See this speech in context