Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. Some weeks ago, that well-known left-wing firebrand, the deputy governor of the Central Bank, stated that we should be wary of socialising the costs of the private sector, whether it is big business, banks or landlords, while profits continue to be privatised. Yet the Covid-19 business package announced by the Minister a number of weeks ago, and updated just two weeks ago, has a noticeable lack of any social or environmental conditionality attached to those mechanisms. In many ways, the Minister has done very little, through the leverage she has, to advance the idea that a post-Covid Ireland would be any better than what has gone before. This goes against the EU grain. Countries right across Europe have attached conditionality to very substantial taxpayer and citizen supports to businesses at risk.

The case of National Pen in Dundalk illustrates and provides an example of this. It has dishonestly deployed the pretext of the Covid-19 pandemic to essentially gut jobs from its facility in Dundalk and transfer them to low-wage economies elsewhere. This company, as the Minister knows, received up to €1.5 million in grants from the IDA between 2015 and 2019. As the Minister might be aware, this week I wrote to her directly and I understand the workers of National Pen in Dundalk, some of whom she represents because they are resident in the constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, require some answers to the questions I put to her.

I will reprise some of those questions. When, under the statutory obligation for the company to notify the Minister of collective redundancies, did it alert her to its intention to introduce collective redundancies at the facility? Will the Minister call on National Pen in Dundalk to suspend the consultation process which started in earnest today, in the context of the Covid-19 restrictions? Will she instruct the company to do what the Labour Court has asked it to do, namely, allow SIPTU to represent professionally the interests of the staff during the statutory consultation period?

The Minister will recall that a similar case was made by Mandate Trade Union in terms of the suspension of the liquidation and statutory consultation process around collective redundancies in Debenhams. It is practically impossible to have a meaningful consultation process between workers, trade unions and employers given the current restrictions. One cannot have a meaningful consultation about the future of one's job via Microsoft Teams.

On conditionality, we have to ask ourselves whether the taxpayer should now foot the bill for private companies, some of which have been knocking on the Minister's door to look for grant and loan assistance, have evaded tax, are exploiting workers' rights and have, thus far, eluded the obligation to recognise trade unions. Some have, in fact, made an art form of giving the two fingers to the industrial relations mechanisms of the State. For example, we now have a plethora of hospitality sector actors who have a path worn to the door of the Minister and to everybody else looking for a 0% VAT rate, when they are the very same people who actively campaigned to ensure this Government continued to allow them to have a veto over the operation of the joint labour committee system that would deliver decent pay, terms and conditions to their workers. There should not be corporate welfare without respect for the welfare of the citizen, through collective bargaining rights for workers.

We know that our domestic economic sector requires support, and I support that, but the Minister and her Government colleagues need to use the leverage they now have to make sure we do not go back to the status quo. Will the Minister commit to ensuring employers in receipt of public support will be obliged to recognise the Labour Court and the WRC, implement their recommendations and recognise workers' rights to collective bargaining?

Many of the Covid-19 business supports have been inadequate in terms of their scale.

I have some concerns, and I have said this before in the media and this House, about the speed and bureaucratic stringency around the allocation of funds to businesses that need those resources now. I am glad the Minister addressed the situation regarding the maximum €10,000 grant. That can present an important lifeline to our high streets and I look forward to reading the detail. The Minister knows, however, that it is confidence that businesses need. People preparing to open their doors need confidence that the State is there to support them and provide them with the resources and cash flow required. I am looking forward to an update on that tomorrow.

I turn now to the question of insurance. I think the Minister will accept that insurance indemnity will be crucial to assist in the reopening of our economy and individual businesses. We have already seen the childcare scheme for front-line workers killed off just last night because of an inability of providers to acquire cover. This sets a very dangerous precedent and illustrates what we already know. A dangerous situation is now facing us. There is a real risk to the success of the Minister's, and our, plans to reopen this economy and that threat is posed by the behaviour of the insurance companies. I would like to hear the Minister's plans to resolve this insurance indemnity issue with her Cabinet colleagues. I accept the Minister does not have full direct responsibility for the insurance sector, but it is important she consider the Labour Party's proposal to use the State Claims Agency, SCA, in respect of indemnities for businesses.

My last point concerns the welcome production of protocols regarding the reopening of the economy and the return of citizens to work. We will need a strong and robust inspection and compliance regime from the HSA. Those found to be breaking the rules must face the full force of the law. Any issues with compliance should be treated in the same way as a company responsible for a chemical spill. It should be closed. The owners of such companies cannot be allowed to put the health of their workers, the general public and themselves at risk. As Patricia King of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, has said, these rules are mandatory. There is not a menu of options that businesses can select from, these rules are mandatory and there needs to be compliance with them.

From figures released in recent days, I know some 200 complaints about breaches of the Covid-19 guidelines had been received by the HSA. Worryingly, none has resulted in inspections. We need to see an improvement on that and we need to see a new momentum behind this approach on foot of the protocols published just a few days ago. I have been pointing out this lacuna in regulation for some time now and I am glad some efforts are being made to address this issue. We look forward to seeing how this develops. Workers need to have full confidence that when they make complaints to the HSA those complaints will be followed up. Can the Minister guarantee the House that workers making complaints about the conduct of their employers, and issues concerning their workplaces, will be free from victimisation? Will those workers be protected from victimisation in the same way as the law protects those workers engaging with their trade unions for collective bargaining, as well as those workers who use the protection of whistleblowers' legislation to advance their rights?

I understand that the HSA only has about 100 inspectors available. That is a major deficiency. Some 100 inspectors alone will not be sufficient to police this protocol and ensure its implementation. Is the Minister planning to move public servants from other agencies? Will the Minister, if she has the opportunity, elaborate on what training will be provided to those public servants and when they will be in the field?

See this speech in context