Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

That is absolutely the case and I can confirm that she had planned to be here at 10 a.m. I spoke to her on this issue quite a lot over recent days and met with her on it and other matters last week.

We all share the sympathies. I have met Debenhams workers and their representatives. We have engaged with Mandate and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to try to tease through possible solutions and efforts to try to help them with their campaign. It is a difficult time for them and those who have been out on strike for the last 160 days to campaign for their rights and entitlements. It is a traumatic thing at the best of times and it is a horrible thing for any worker to lose his or her job. It is an experience that many workers across Ireland are having as a result of the pandemic which only exacerbates the anxiety which many workers feel as they re-enter a very uncertain jobs market. The timing made it even more difficult for the workers of Debenhams to be able to exercise their rights. I recognise this and it was a point well made to me by ICTU's Patricia King and Gerry Light from Mandate. I commend Mandate and all the representatives and the workers who have tried to champion the workers' cause, to work with them and to negotiate. There were two aims, namely, to realise their collective bargaining entitlements and their hopes and aspirations that they agreed to many years ago, but also to ensure that the system was changed to try to prevent this from happening to others in future and to ensure the position of redundant workers is improved, as Deputy Harkin noted. The Tánaiste, myself, the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, and the Taoiseach and others have met the representative and we are committed to working with them and working with the House to see how we can strengthen legislation, review the proposals in Duffy Cahill and make those changes if we can get agreement.

We cannot commit to other parts of the motion and we have tabled an amendment. I ask Members to agree to our amendment and to work with us on this over the months ahead as we look at whether there are areas to work on with the recommendations we have and whether there could be further recommendations to strengthen the position of employees in future redundancies.

With the notable exception of large grocery outlets, the retail sector has perhaps been particularly affected by the measures that nations around the world have had to take in response to the spread of Covid-19. I have probably spent the last month engaging with every representative body in the retail sector to try to work through the future of the sector and deal with the Covid fallout to save as many jobs as we can. We have been examining how to get back to a growth state in order that we can increase employment in the retail sector and strengthen its capacity to employ more people and develop the skills in this area. We are committed to this as a sector because it is a major employer in Ireland, and we want to build on that.

In the case of Debenhams, it had come through a number of turbulent years and an examinership process, only to be dealt the final, fatal blow in March of this year. Sadly, it is not the only retail outlet to experience a decline due to the changing nature of shopping habits and other external factors. We are concerned that more closures will follow, both at home and abroad. We know Debenhams UK is also in grave danger, battling to avoid liquidation and having to lay off staff. This is a turbulent time for many in the sector.

I applaud the workers, their representatives and the Deputies who have made the case for them. They have campaigned to ensure they get the best possible outcome from this difficult situation. This Government, along with officials in relevant Departments, including the Departments of Business, Enterprise and Innovation and Employment Affairs and Social Protection, has engaged with the workers, with Mandate Trade Union and with ICTU. We have engaged with the Debenhams UK administrator and sought advice from the Attorney General in an effort to assist where we can. We have been doing that over the last couple of months. Unfortunately, there are limits to what we can achieve for these particular workers at the present time. While everyone naturally wants to see their campaign be successful, there is only so much that Ministers are able to do and that we can do as a Government.

Representations had been made by Mandate several months ago to seek ministerial intervention in the consultation process that was ongoing at that time between the employer, the liquidators and the workers and their representatives. This request was in the context of the Protection of Employment Act 1977, which obliges employers to engage in a consultation process and to notify the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection of potential collective redundancies. That Act, which was drafted in an era before the advanced industrial relations framework of the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court that we now have, provides no Government Minister with the power to influence a particular outcome or to direct a party to take a particular course of action in respect of a redundancy situation. The Attorney General confirmed that this is even more so the case where there is a High Court-appointed liquidator who is in charge rather than the employer. The compliance requirements under the 1977 Act are that a consultation process should be initiated between the employer and the employees' representatives, that specific information should be supplied by the employer to the employees' representatives and that the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection should be notified of the proposed collective redundancy. Officials in that Department have confirmed that all these requirements were complied with in the case of the Debenhams liquidators.

One element of this situation is a clear frustration on the part of the workers and their trade union representatives with the liquidators. Deputies will be aware that the appropriate avenue of redress in that respect with officers appointed by the High Court cannot lie with a Government Minister. In the context of Debenhams Ireland undergoing a court-supervised liquidation, I want to emphasise to the House that a company cannot merely assert that it is insolvent. Many Deputies have commented here today and on previous occasions about the issue of assets, transfer of assets, tactical insolvency and so on. That is not as simple as people portray it in this House and the courts have a judgment call on that. It must apply for an official court liquidation and, as such, the liquidation will be under the supervision of the Irish courts system. It is not the political system that makes that judgment but the courts system. It is not possible or proper that a third party should seek to change the orderly distribution of assets and discharge of debts necessitated by the liquidation given the statutory framework that we currently have. That is why I continue to call on all parties to enter into discussions and engage to get a fair resolution with a clear-eyed understanding of the financial realities of the company.

Many Deputies draw a comparison with the Duffy-Cahill report and try to portray it as being as simple as implementing that report to stop this from happening. To be clear, the Duffy-Cahill report was done in response to the Clerys situation. Many Deputies consistently make a connection between Debenhams and Clerys, and I am not convinced that they are right to do that because they are different situations. It does not mean that it is as simple as us implementing the recommendations of the Duffy-Cahill report. While saying that, we are committed to reviewing it, but Members here draw the conclusion that it is a magic wand because Clerys, in their view, is the same as Debenhams. That does not prove it and does not seem to be the case at all.

See this speech in context