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

I thank Deputy Barry for his Bill and the conversation we can have about this and amendments needed in legislation to strengthen the rights of workers, which the Government is prepared to do. I have listened to the speeches and, like everybody else here, I sympathise with the workers in Debenhams and other workers facing redundancy in other situations because workers are the big losers in a redundancy. They lose their jobs, their careers of 20 or 30 years, their families are affected and there is an immense knock-on effect. We can have nothing but sympathy for people who are made redundant. That is why all of us have debated this matter on many occasions and tried to find solutions to prevent redundancies in future and to work with those who are made redundant to find new opportunities. That is ongoing work that we all engage in.

It is also important that we have an honest conversation about this because the conversation from many of the speakers has been dishonest. That has not helped all those in Debenhams who have worked and campaigned hard for their rights and for changes to put a better system in place for their children and grandchildren. I agreed, as did the Tánaiste and Taoiseach, that we would work with them to do that. The conversation in this debate has repeatedly been about the Duffy Cahill report that was produced about Clerys, how it would solve all this and stop redundancies and how it would have prevented the issue with Debenhams. That is not true and it is not fair to keep saying that. The authors of the report have attended a meeting of the joint committee. We have teased through all of this. I have attended the committee and we went through all the recommendations for changes. The authors stated that their report would not have prevented the issues with Debenhams because it and Clerys are two different situations. None of us likes what happened in those cases or in many other situations that resulted in redundancies, but they are different and it is wrong, untrue and dishonest to keep linking the two cases. I have asked Deputies if they have any evidence to prove such a link or that would assist me, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste or the courts in our work, concerning so-called assets and a big pot of gold that we are told Debenhams has. They should come to me or the authorities. That has not happened either in public or in private. None of those who keep saying that in the House has done that. If there is a link and there are assets, please identify them and we can have the matter dealt with.

Despite what has been said, there is legislation in place that provides protection in such situations. I will be happy to engage with any Member who can genuinely show me the connection or the assets that are supposedly hidden away or some place else that would help the workers of Debenhams. Who would not want to help them? The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, and many others have repeatedly said that we will work with everybody to strengthen the position in this regard.

The Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, myself, the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, and many others have repeatedly said we will work with everybody to strengthen the situation and try to find any resources we could within the legal system to help those who were made redundant in Debenhams.

The Bill enhances the conversation we are having here. There are two things in it. We have asked for a timed amendment. We have been working on this for the last months, probably since last July, since I sat down with the Tánaiste, Mandate and some of the workers who have been referred to here from Debenhams. We gave a commitment to review all the legislation, the Duffy Cahill report and all the other legislation to see if we can strengthen the position of people who are left in the situation, if we can make it better for them and strengthen company law to prevent companies such as Clerys who did that. That was not the case with Debenhams, or it is unproven. The people who say it is should bring forward the evidence. We have committed to doing that. We gave our word that we would do that. Those employees said to me that they had two parts to their campaign, first, to get their entitlements that they really felt strongly about and which they absolutely have the right to campaign for, and, second, to strengthen the legislation to give greater protection to workers. We are all for that and are happy to engage on that.

That is the work we have been doing for the last couple of months. As the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, said earlier, yes we wish we had got that work finished quicker but it is now complete. We are in the process of writing to all the social partners and unions involved to tease through the suggested actions from our side. I committed to going back to the committee to tease them through. I am very happy to engage and work with anyone in this House around our proposed actions and recommendations which we believe will strengthen and assist the case. That is not to say that the Duffy Cahill report was the answer to everything because that is not the case and the authors themselves have said that. The report was written specifically about Clerys. It is not that it sat on anyone's shelf or gathered dust. It was reviewed in 2017 by the various Departments and the decision was made not to proceed with it. We committed to looking at it again, and everything else, to see if we can help and that is what we have done. There are changes that we will bring forward in legislation. It will not take a year to do that. We asked for a year, a timed amendment, for all this to be completed but that process is very far on and we can move to legislative proposals straight away. We will engage with the committee on its own report on this issue, and with former Debenhams workers and everyone else to do it. It will not take 12 months but that is the timed amendment, because traditionally one asks for six or 12 months, to make sure we can get all this done. My commitment here is that it will be done.

There is another part where we disagree with the Bill, or more accurately a conversation has to be had. The Deputy talks about prioritising workers' rights. All the speeches here gave the impression that is not in place already, but it is. Workers' statutory entitlements are protected. The chair of the Labour Court has said this, so have the courts. We have paid out the money because they are prioritised in a redundancy situation, they are preferred creditors, but beyond that -----

See this speech in context