Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Joan Collins and the Independent group for bringing forward this very appropriate and apt motion. The motion is five paragraphs long and within those five paragraphs is a very clear roadmap for how we can make better the lives of workers throughout this country who are experiencing an anxiety that is being accelerated by the fact there does not seem to be a sense the Government has their back. Both Ministers have been present during this debate. This is the fourth time in the past few months we have got together and somebody from the Opposition has brought forward a motion in regard to workers’ rights, and we have had many of the same conversations we are having today. This is the fourth motion since June. We do not do that to be a nuisance or because we want to get on the Ministers’ nerves. The reason there have been four motions since June, three of which pertained specifically to Debenhams, is that there is a genuine absence in the law of protections for workers. We are trying our best to keep on the record of this House, where we create laws, the fact that people's lives are being impacted detrimentally and that we can, through the mechanisms at our disposal in this House, make them better. I believe we can do that.

I want to acknowledge once again the role played by the workers of Debenhams in the 11 stores across the country who, through their courage and determination, have been incredibly inspiring. They have inspired me, and I am sure they have inspired other workers who may be feeling a sense of insecurity in their own positions, to believe it is imperative that we fight back, that we hold power and vested interests to account and that, through our collaborative efforts, we can make things better.

There is a reason it is essential we make this better. I want to imagine one of our high streets, for example, Henry Street, which I have the pleasure of representing. Some 100 yd up the road from the Debenhams store, which is now lying empty, is Clerys, which is going to be something very different. Within those 100 yd on that street there are probably five or six relatively large high street stores which are at risk of closing down. As they close down, they will vacate our city and the workers, who have been predominantly low paid but, through their efforts have made them relevant, will find themselves in very precarious circumstances.

That is all ahead of us. I have strongly argued that for several years, even in my role as a Dublin city councillor. The trends we are seeing now, such as what we are seeing in high streets and in Debenhams, have been accelerated by Covid-19, but were not necessarily caused by it. Over the past couple of years, Dublin city - I can speak about Dublin city because I know it best - has experienced a loss of commercial footfall. We have seen the M50 shopping centres and shopping centres on motorways taking most of the footfall out of the city. There has been the emergence of online retail shopping, which is again taking people out of our high streets. Stores recognise that. They have used these tactical insolvencies to remove the responsibility of paying redundancy and fulfilling the entitlements they should provide for the workers who created those stores. They are using our current existence under the pandemic to accelerate the arrival of a reality they knew was going to happen. If we do not step in and re-imagine how we can protect their workers and rejuvenate those streets that are not commercially focused, cities throughout the country will lie bare, with the people who built them up left behind. That is essential.

I wish to discuss the Duffy Cahill report which features in the motion. I had to re-read that report today. It is my third reading of it since I was elected in February and probably my fourth since it emerged in 2016. This is a very moderate document. It is quite conservative in its approach. Such is the fear Fine Gael has of it, I was expecting something like Mao'sLittle Red Book to be in it. It is not. It is quite a conservative document that contains a number of very moderate recommendations. I disagree with the Minister of State that the Duffy Cahill report was commissioned solely on the basis of what happened in Clerys. Clearly, Clerys was the impetus for it, but there had been Vita Cortex, the Paris Bakery and any number of instances before that in which workers were left behind and their statutory rights were not protected by the State. With regard to the Duffy Cahill report, how are we prioritising when a report that is so moderate in its approach has simply not been implemented four years later?

The Minister of State said in his opening statement that we can get together and talk about it. It has been 93 days since this was first brought to the attention of the Dáil. When the Minister of State says that, is it just a way of fobbing us off? Does he have a date in mind, and is it next week or the week after? When can we all get around a table and discuss the implications of that? Anything else is simply fobbing us off and is unacceptable. The five paragraphs presented by the Independent Group are very reasonable. The proposed amendment is a great deal longer, says nothing and is quite insulting. In terms of how we collaborate, there are many instances when the Opposition and Government will disagree. This should not be one of them. Across the Opposition and the Government, be it the Taoiseach or the Tánaiste, everyone was out standing with the workers and talking about how we would like to collaborate to improve their lives, yet this is the third occasion a motion has been brought forward by the Opposition and it is simply being removed with the stroke of a pen. Did anybody even have a conversation with the proponents of the motion? Did anyone sit down and say the Government did not agree with one part but perhaps it could collaborate and implement another aspect of it, or was it just a case of bringing forward the load of ridiculous nonsense here that means nothing?

Let us be truthful here. This amounts to nothing. The language in it is quite dismissive. It says: "the only asset reported to be in consideration is some stock in the stores...". Some stock in the stores amounts to €25 million. It also amounts to the only access to recourse. Debenhams workers are sleeping outside those stores at present to ensure that stock cannot be removed. It is the only access to potential justice they have. That is not "some stock"; it is quite valuable. It is very valuable in terms of the rights the workers have at present, and it is valuable as an asset in terms of what they can be afforded.

These motions will continue to be tabled. What we are discussing, fundamentally, is the role and protections of employed workers in this country and the value we place on their trade unions and trade union representatives. It cannot go unsaid again that an agreement was reached with the trade union on four weeks' redundancy and it has just been dismissed. The workers have absolutely nothing, other than to sleep outside the stores. It is incredibly courageous, but they should not have to do it. One of the lamentable sights of this pandemic period is working class women being led into police stations. It is a sickening sight and every Member of this House owes those women an apology. All they are seeking is four weeks' entitlement. They will not have a job after this, despite the fact that they built up the business. At Christmas they would have been working hard to look after people in the store. Seeing them being led into police stations is beyond lamentable.

The fact that we are still saying we cannot do anything, effectively saying "tough luck", is a disservice. It undermines the role of this House in terms of drafting legislation and enacting laws that reflect the type of country in which we want to live. If we really valued those workers, and not just used mealy-mouthed words, we would be sitting around a table discussing the laws we could enact that could improve their lives now. The Duffy Cahill report is definitely a start in that regard.

See this speech in context