Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have listened carefully for the past hour or so to the concerns expressed by Deputies. I share their frustrations on behalf of the Debenhams workers and all those facing job losses at this time. It is clear that any proposal to progress requires careful consideration involving further consultation with many stakeholders on the recommendations in the Duffy Cahill report.

I would note that the Companies Act 2014 already provides for a court power to order the return of assets improperly transferred in appropriate cases. That provision already exists on the Statute Book. The Duffy Cahill report refers to an entirely different situation from that faced by Debenhams workers today. The matter at hand is a court-supervised liquidation of a failed company with, as far as any of us know, no other significant assets to dispose of apart from certain stock, the value of which is still under dispute, and a range of creditors who also have legitimate claims upon it.

The intention of this Government, as set out in the programme for Government commitments regarding employee protections, is to review whether the current legal provisions surrounding collective redundancies and the liquidation of companies effectively protect the rights of workers; review the companies Acts with a view to addressing the practice of trading entities splitting their operations between trading and property, with the result being the trading business, including the jobs, go into insolvency and the assets are taken out of the original business; and to examine the legal provision that pertains to any sale to a connected party following the insolvency of a company, including who can object and the allowable grounds of an objection. This is what we will do in terms of future legislation. The Duffy Cahill report is part of that work but not the whole of it. As Minister of State with responsibility for company law, I do not want to wait any longer for this work to be conducted.

I note specifically the Deputies' motion to "examine the need for a ring-fenced insolvency fund, such as exists in several European Union states, to allow for all payments due to workers laid off by an insolvent company, which could be financed by a levy on employers Pay Related Social Insurance". This is an interesting proposal and the Government considers it worthy of detailed and serious consideration. A similar proposal was made recently by ICTU to the Minister of State, Deputy English. I look forward to Government considering the proposal with the input of ICTU and that of other informed parties. This debate, too, will feed into it. It has to be acknowledged that the proposal will have some obvious challenges which would necessitate wider consideration not only across Government but among stakeholders such as employers who would be asked to pay into the fund. We would be asking employers to pay into this fund at a serious and challenging time in the context of Covid and Brexit. Business failure does not help businesses and it certainly does not help employees.

As I understand it, the proposal is essentially that a levy on private sector employers would be established, with contribution rates in the order of 0.35% to 0.66% of wages, which would be used in situations such as this where an employer defaults on a collective agreement due to insolvency. Such a levy would potentially alleviate the extreme pressure being imposed on the Social Insurance Fund and might offer a tailored solution to this particular scenario should it happen again in the future. Currently, the only non-social insurance fund charge collected with employer social insurance is the 1% National Training Fund levy which is returned under the PAYE system to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and is subsequently transferred to the National Training Fund administered by the Department of Education and Skills. I am engaging with my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy English, on how to progress consideration of the proposal, on revisiting the Duffy Cahill report, and on establishing the best way to do so in consultation with stakeholders. Engagement is key.

I met the Debenhams workers with the Tánaiste and I also met them with my party colleague, Deputy McAuliffe. I have also engaged with Deputy Lahart on this matter. Together with the Minister of State, Deputy English, I will finalise a multi-stakeholder forum to ensure appropriate recommendations are carried forward and put on a statutory footing. This will necessitate the engagement of all stakeholders, including union representatives. In my negotiations and discussions with some of the unions, I informed of this. The Duffy Cahill report will be foundational in this regard and will be utilised to realise the commitments made in the programme for Government without further delay.

I again extend my sympathies to the employees of Debenhams Ireland who have lost their jobs and I acknowledge the distress and worry that this is causing for them and their families. The workers will receive their statutory entitlements. However, additional payments can only be secured through negotiations between the unions and the liquidators consulting in good faith with one another. I have heard from many Deputies on the Opposition benches of the need and right of employees to have access to union representation, and rightly so. These workers do have access to union representation. The union has entered into consultation on behalf of the workers.

6 o’clock

We continue to encourage this and we hope for a successful outcome. However, we cannot dictate that outcome and neither should anybody on the other side of the House. It should be left to the unions representing the workers. There are other avenues that may be used by unions and workers. The Workplace Relations Commission stands ready and available should the unions representing the workers wish to use that arm of the State.

The Deputies are seeking an immediate emergency legislative solution that would apply to these cases retrospectively in a special way, over and above many other workers who have been made redundant. This approach is on shaky legal and policy grounds. Retrospective action brings obvious legal concerns and I also question the wisdom of setting one class of worker over another.

The reality of the Government's position is there is no statutory role or power for it to intervene in the distribution of assets currently under a court-supervised liquidation, and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. The Government does not have the luxuries enjoyed by Members in the Opposition, who can make promises knowing they will not have to deliver on them. The Government must operate within the confines of existing law.

The Government's role in respect of the Debenhams workers is to ensure redundancy payments are made from the Social Insurance Fund and the workers are supported with jobseeker supports, including retraining, with in-depth consideration given to company law and employment rights law issues set out in the programme for Government.

As I have said, the Minister of State, Deputy English, and I will continue to pursue the relevant programme for Government commitments and revisit the Duffy Cahill report, assessing which elements could help to address the shortfall that arose with Clerys. We will consider the proposal for a levy and engage with the stakeholders on this. As I have said, we are finalising a multi-stakeholder forum and it is my intention for this to commence within weeks and not months. I am determined to ensure we can pursue policies for the protection of workers in the not too distant future.

See this speech in context