Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Before I make my contribution on the legislation, I want to put on the record again my dissatisfaction with the fact that the Tánaiste, Deputy Varadkar, is not here. The Minister of State will know that we were not happy previously when the Tánaiste did not attend. Today, again, he is not in attendance. This is a pattern. On the previous occasion on which I spoke on this, I stated that I sincerely hoped it was not a pattern. One would not need a microscope to figure out that there is a pattern here. It is disrespectful. I do not mean this disrespectfully to the Minister of State, who is here, but I would ask that he convey to his senior ministerial colleague our dissatisfaction that, once again, he has not seen fit to turn up to discuss his own legislation. We were asked to waive pre-legislative scrutiny in respect of this Bill, a request to which we acceded. There is clearly no desire on our part to delay or anything else. However, it has to be recorded once again that we are discussing legislation and the Tánaiste is not here.

Sinn Féin broadly welcomes the Bill, the purpose of which is to address operational issues in respect of compliance that arise under the Companies Act 2014 and the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts 1893 to 2018 as a result of the Covid-19 public health emergency. These changes include providing for the ability to hold meetings, such as AGMs, by means of video technology, for the use of electronic communications in general during the interim period, increasing the debt threshold at which a company can be wound up and extending the examinership period. Those elements of the Bill which deal with instances in which companies and small businesses struggle with debt are to be welcomed. I suggest to the Minister of State that they be examined for permanent insertion into the legislation. This is something I would be interested in pursuing and I sincerely hope I will have an opportunity to discuss it further with the Minister of State.

There is severe pressure on businesses' cash flow and the threshold at which they are deemed unable to pay their debts for the purpose of being wound up by the courts is extremely low in normal times, at €10,000. It is imperative that this threshold be increased during these extraordinary times. Some organisations, such as ISME, have been proposing changes to administrative insolvency whereby matters can be discussed between parties to achieve a resolution without going down the examinership route. As we move through the Covid crisis, organisations such as those representing SMEs and microbusinesses should be brought into the fold by the Department. They have a lot to offer on how we can help businesses get through this difficult period. They do not have all the answers and I certainly do not always agree with their perspective, most especially on the issue of workers' rights. That said, they can bring a unique perspective and they do need to be listened to.

The Bill seeks to support as many businesses as possible with changes to the debt threshold at which a business can be wound up, thus helping them trade through the crisis, supporting their economic recovery and helping to preserve employment. However, as I have said previously, the preservation of employment cannot just be for its own sake. They have to be decent jobs that are worth having and that can help people to pay the bills. They should not be jobs that require long-term support from the State. Increasing the period of examinership by 50 days provides a similar support and will allow businesses additional breathing space within which to formulate restructuring plans.

I would add, however, that much more needs to be done. Many SMEs, microbusinesses and small family concerns looked on at the July stimulus and were disappointed at what was announced, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of workers in the hospitality and accommodation sectors who were gravely disappointed by the Government's offering. Businesses were waiting weeks for the stimulus package and now that it has been announced, many are calling it a lost opportunity. Businesses are struggling to get back up and running. They have been calling out for liquidity injections through grants. Instead of a comprehensive and funded grant scheme, businesses are instead being asked to take on more debt through loans, which they say they cannot do. The July stimulus package involves a 4:1 debt-to-grant ratio. This flies in the face of what the Government has been advocating in Europe. The Taoiseach spent a full weekend preaching about the need for grants in Brussels, but when he comes home he talks only about debt. Businesses were calling out for an economic life buoy and, let us be honest, the Government has thrown them an anchor. The provisions in the Bill around the ability to hold meetings such as AGMs through video technology and for the use of electronic communications in general during the interim period will help to streamline proceedings for those businesses and are also necessary from health and safety perspective. These changes are welcome. They will make business operation much easier but will also offer proactive health and safety precautions for directors and board members.

The speed with which the legislation is being rushed through to protect the health and safety of company directors and board members is, however, in stark contrast to the failure of the State to legislate to protect ordinary workers on the shop floor or the hospital ward or in the meat factory. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, has been to the fore in campaigning for a simple change by way of regulation, not even legislation, to make workplace outbreaks of Covid-19 notifiable to the Health and Safety Authority, HSA. At the stroke of a pen in an office in Government Buildings, workers could have had additional protections for their health and safety. The former Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Humphreys, refused to do this and the Tánaiste is now also refusing to make this change. Instances of Covid-19 in workplaces such as meat plants were rife during the lockdown period and many workers were put in danger because of the rapid development of clusters. Was there any emergency legislation rushed through for these workers? Not a single thing was done for their health and safety. Maybe if they wore suits and ties to work and carried briefcases there might have been a little more concern, but these people wear Snickers work wear and overalls. They are ordinary people. They just do not really get onto the Government's radar very often. The simple change that we and ICTU requested is that Covid-19 be designated as a notifiable illness in the meaning of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, which essentially means that if one contracts Covid-19 in the course of one's work it is classified as an occupational injury. I would have thought that would be fairly plain. If one contracts an injury, disease or virus as a result of one's work, then it is an occupational injury. However, the Government seems reluctant to acknowledge that. It is our hope that the necessary regulations will be amended. That said, we are not pessimists but optimists with experience. We have legislation we will table if that becomes necessary.

I want to refer briefly to the ESRI report which shows that workers such as carers, meat plant employees, taxi drivers, security guards, cleaners and migrant workers are most at risk of severe adverse outcomes from Covid-19. I call on the Government to work with the representative bodies and trade unions to ensure that policies and strategies are put in place to proactively protect the health, safety and welfare of workers in work and not just company directors. The ESRI report also highlights the hypocrisy of the Government when it comes to how different categories of worker from different sectors have been treated. They can see that. They look in here and see what is going on. There are only 67 Health and Safety Authority inspectors available to carry out inspections of the return to work safety protocol. This protocol was designed to support employers and protect workers as they return to work. It was developed following a high-level dialogue involving the ICTU and employer representatives. It has really good information and safety recommendations. The HSA was tasked with carrying out return to work safety protocol inspections but it only has 67 inspectors, as I found out from a ministerial response to a parliamentary question. This situation is farcical. It makes a mockery of the protocol and puts workers and their health at risk. We need to get real about workers' rights during Covid-19. We need to protect the worker in the supermarket or meat factory just as much as the company director in the International Financial Services Centre.

The Bill is welcome. Aspects of it will make significant changes that will be good in the context of protecting public health and businesses during this crisis. However, it is only the tip of the iceberg in the context of what must be done to protect workers and support businesses.

10 o’clock

While I have the opportunity in the context of this Bill, I wish to make reference to the company that runs the Houses, namely, the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. Last night, the commission met for the first time. There were eight nominees to it between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the Green Party. I doubt anyone in this establishment, particularly the women, will be surprised or shocked in any way, but I regret to inform the House that the four parties did not nominate a solitary woman. What message does that send out from this institution? The message Sinn Féin sends out is that we have no difficulty nominating women to such positions, given that I was nominated by my party and its leader. On the one hand, the Oireachtas is telling corporate bodies that they need to be mindful of diversity and inclusion and, on the other, it is a case of jobs for the boys and more of the same. We have to lead by example. We cannot stand here and talk about equality only to fail to back that up. There was not one woman from those four parties. They had eight nominees between them, but they could not find even one woman whom they could nominate to the company that runs the Oireachtas. Will the Minister of State go to his parliamentary party and his Government partners and see if they can do better and try harder?

See this speech in context