Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change) | Oireachtas source

I will take seven minutes.

I wish to express my support and solidarity for the up to 1,400 workers who were directly employed by Debenhams and those who were concession staff. I loudly condemn Debenhams calculated, cynical and tactical liquidation of the 11 stores in the Republic of Ireland. These workers, mainly women and mainly mammies, as one of the girls from the Henry Street store said at a briefing yesterday with the Debenhams workers, are defending their money in the stock in the shops around the country.

These workers have tried, consistently, to work with Debenhams. They have shown huge loyalty to Debenhams over the years. In 2016, when the company went into administration, the workers assisted the company through the negotiation with their union, Mandate. They took pay cuts, they took cuts in their increments and they forewent staff discounts, which they gave up to Debenhams to keep the company going. Those workers drove the profitable online sales businesses, and all to keep their jobs. They have been treated with contempt. Even after the Clerys debacle and other debacles with other companies that went into liquidation such as HMV, this State has made no attempt to protect worker redundancies from rogue companies. Tactical insolvency is a fraud and amounts to theft of workers' pay and pensions, theft of goods and services from other companies, and theft of revenue from the State.

The loss of a job is traumatic. On top of this, workers are cheated out of wages they have worked for and out of redundancy pay they were legally entitled to. It is absolutely disgusting, and particularly under the cloud of Covid-19. For workers to have this foisted upon them, and to see their employer - in cases of profitable employers - getting away with such behaviour, is absolutely devastating. Debenhams has done this because other companies have done it and gotten away with it. There was a huge opportunity there. The previous speaker spoke about not attacking the Government but pleading with the Government. Workers have been pleading with previous Governments for decades to try to get this resolved and there was no effort by previous Governments to do this.

Deputy Cullinane pointed out that his Protection of Employees (Collective Redundancies) Bill 2017, which was put down, was to provide for protections for employees in situations of collective redundancy in which an employer is insolvent. One aspect of that Bill made a genuine attempt to prevent companies from asset stripping by giving power to the courts to return transferred assets into the hands of a liquidator and by making the employee the preferential creditor. This was one of the key points. The Bill got to Second Stage. It went on to Committee Stage and got lost even though all stood up and said, "Yes this needs to be done, we support the Clerys workers and Debenhams workers". Actions speak louder than words. This has not been acted upon even though there was a clear opportunity to do so at that time.

I thank People Before Profit-Solidarity for putting the motion forward. In his response to the motion the Minister of State said there is company law. Why then are we not advising those workers in how to challenge that company law, and how to challenge the company for doing what it did? The company is also in breach of section 9 of the Protection of Employment Act 1977. Section 9 of the Act provides that employers are obliged to consult employees' representatives and the consultation must last for 30 days, at least, before a notice of redundancy is given. Debenhams is also in breach of section 10 of the Act which states, "the employer concerned shall supply the employees' representatives with all relevant information relating to the proposed redundancies". The company is in breach also of section 10(2) that prescribes that such information includes: the number and descriptions of employees affected; the number and descriptions of the employees normally employed; the period during which the redundancies will happen; the criteria for selection of employees for redundancy; the method of calculating any redundancy payments; and so on. Debenhams is in breach of this Act, but the only thing the representatives can do for the workers is to bring it to the Workplace Relations Commission but the company does not have to go. It is unbelievable that the law in this country is so weak and so pro-business. It is not being challenged. The Industrial Relations Act 1990 does not deal with such issues for workers. There has also been the recent court ruling on sectoral employment orders, which again undermines workers' rights.

The workers at yesterday's briefing made clear points about what was going on in this case. On 14 May, when they spoke to the liquidator, KPMG claimed that debts to creditors, including the Revenue Commissioners, amounted to €19 million. Of this, €5 million was owed to Revenue, predominantly in the form of VAT. At this meeting, it was also confirmed that the value of the retail stock held in the 11 Irish stores was in the region of €20 million.

Subsequently, KPMG announced that Debenhams Retail Ireland's debts had increased to between €225 million and €250 million. This discrepancy arises from Debenhams Retail Ireland being made co-guarantor of debt facilities provided by the Debenhams Group as part of the 2019 restructuring. The Debenhams Group owners advanced new loan facilities of approximately €200 million. Debenhams Retail Ireland was co-guarantor in respect of these loans. These loans were only taken out towards the end of last year. The companies involved would not have got them if they were in any way non-profitable. They had to have been well profitable in fact.

The workers are not looking for the stars. They are practical and know the company, under our law, can get away with this. What they are asking for is at least four weeks' redundancy per year in payment. That is the minimum the Government should try to ensure they get offered. It might involve forgoing the €5 million due to the State in VAT or the Government could ensure that those assets in the store are claimed for the workers which the liquidator can do.

Deputy Barry pointed out earlier that the liquidator stated that unless the State instructs the liquidator to allocate supplementary cash for the workers, nothing can be done. Why is the Government not instructing the liquidator to do that? The liquidator has stated it can do it if it is instructed.

I salute the Debenhams workers in their courageous battle on the front line.

See this speech in context