Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue of the Debenhams workers. It is very difficult and unsatisfactory from the workers' perspective that it has dragged on for so long and they have not received their redundancy entitlements as per the collective agreement they entered into with their employer. The Government will, of course, honour the statutory redundancy but that is not the issue at stake. The recent exploratory talks at the Workplace Relations Commission ended without agreement. The Ministers of State, Deputies English and Troy, jointly chaired a forum with the social partners on 4 November to discuss the legislative provisions that deal with redundancy and insolvency from a company law and employment law perspective. I am already on the record of the House saying we need to change the legislative situation, particularly in terms of liquidations and the parity and status given to collective agreements. That in itself may not be of much use to the workers here and now in the current situation.

I am not quite clear regarding what the Deputy said about the Government waiving fees but I take it he might be referring to State agencies or arms of the State that stand to get something from the liquidation, such as Revenue or the Department of Social Protection. The challenge facing the Government in situations such as this is the creation of a precedent for other situations. We do not want a situation emerging whereby the Government on an ongoing basis picks up the tab for rogue employers or, indeed, for employers who never honour their commitments irrespective. The legislative framework is fairly clear in this regard. That said, we have not stopped looking at ways of seeing whether we can be of some assistance here, notwithstanding the legal constraints. A liquidation takes place within a legal framework and it is not that simple or easy for the Government to just waive the legal issues to one side and intervene in a manner that could ultimately create a precedent that would allow other employers to get off the hook from their obligations. I do not think anybody in the House wants that either. We are supportive of the best outcome possible for the workers but the issue is trying to get the mechanism to secure that. That has proved very thorny and very difficult to get sorted.

See this speech in context