Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will hopefully give the Minister plenty of time to respond to my questions. I thank her for the response on the specific question on emergency rent supplement for those experiencing domestic violence. In my maiden speech some weeks ago, when we were beginning our response to the coronavirus pandemic, I flagged the issue of domestic violence as one we cannot forget. I give credit to the Department of Justice and Equality and State agencies, particularly the front-line providers. They introduced the Still Here campaign to remind potential victims and victims that domestic violence services have been operating this whole time.

A key concern of many service providers in this area was that there seemed to be a difficulty with accessing the emergency rent supplement. I presume that was the case because much of the focus has shifted to the housing assistance payment, HAP, in recent years and the use of rent supplement has declined. I am especially pleased to see that the Minister has addressed the other element of referral pathways as well, because the issue is not just the length of the form. It is also the matter of who can flag these applications with officials in her Department and the various offices around the country to ensure they are prioritised. On foot of that, will the Minister continue to engage with Safe Ireland and the other NGOs for the next two or three weeks to see if this process is working and if we are getting these applications processed more quickly? That could give much confidence to people working in this sector as well as benefiting the people impacted.

New parents constitute one of the groups most deeply affected by the coronavirus restrictions. Many are going without basic supports they have been used to, whether it is access to grandparents or to post-natal check-ups and mother-and-baby groups. All those supports are absent and many women are being forced to extend their unpaid maternity leave because returning from that leave would make them ineligible for the temporary wage subsidy scheme. Has the Minister considered how groups such as women returning from maternity leave and employees returning from sick leave are impacted by the current definition of "specified employee" under the temporary wage subsidy scheme?

Specifically in the context of women returning from maternity leave, has the Department given any consideration to potential European Union law implications arising from the exclusion of women returning from maternity leave? Under EU law, women during pregnancy and returning from maternity leave are among the most protected classes of persons. It strikes me as strange, therefore, that we are allowing this discrimination to take place here. If any changes were being made to the temporary wage subsidy scheme, would they have to be made by way of primary or secondary legislation? The Minister might clarify that issue. Has the Minister considered extending the statutory period of maternity leave, and the period of payment of maternity benefit, to provide protection for women who otherwise would be returning to work during the Covid-19 crisis? Would such extensions require primary or secondary legislation?

As the Minister is well aware and as has been mentioned already, more than 1,000 people, including many in my constituency, have been made redundant with the closure of Debenhams. Many of them had worked in the company for years or decades, and some had previously worked for Roches Stores. They are now being left with only the statutory redundancy paid by the Minister's Department. This is despite an agreement being in place that would have provided a redundancy payment of two weeks' pay per each year worked, alongside statutory redundancy. In recent weeks, I have raised this issue with the Minister through parliamentary questions and in a number of letters. My colleague from Waterford, Deputy Ó Cathasaigh, has done the same. I appreciate that the Minister has always responded to us very quickly on these points.

We have a situation where all these workers and their families are facing being laid off without their previously agreed redundancy payments, while Debenhams UK, the parent company, is going to exit this soft administration with 120 stores trading, a much reduced cost base and a continuing and considerable income stream. I have a question for the Minister but I first want to recognise the huge efforts the workers have made to highlight this issue. I met them when they were demonstrating outside Leinster House and at their pickets at the Blanchardstown store. Their commitment to fighting for what they are entitled to in these very difficult times is extremely impressive. The Mandate trade union, which represents many of these workers, has expressed its frustration that the coronavirus restrictions are inhibiting consultation between the employer and the unions.

I would like if the Minister could be a little more specific about the advice she has received about her ability to intervene in a liquidation process under section 15 of the Protection of Employment Act 1977. In particular, she responded to Mandate Trade Union recently and she seemed to suggest that this legislation is outdated now in light of our current industrial relations climate. Does she think that legislation needs to be changed to strengthen the power of a Minister to intervene?

In light of the economic situation we have all spoken about, there is the potential that more companies are going to seek liquidation in the next number of weeks. Is there anything we have learned from the situation with Debenhams that will allow the Minister to intervene more quickly, using the current legislation, with a view to protecting the rights of workers and as many of their entitlements as possible?

See this speech in context