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

I thank the Members from various parties for their contributions and the issues they raised. This is a short Bill that tries to focus on one category of people who are missing out due to lay-offs during the Covid restrictions and the reckonable service on which they have missed out. I have discussed the matter in the House with various Deputies during the past two years. We said we would have a response ready to deal with this and that is what the legislation before the House is doing. I am conscious that it has given rise to much discussion on other issues. I will try to deal with that briefly in a moment.

I get the impression that Deputy Gould has been working on his speech for the past two years, trying to cover bits and pieces. I wish to be clear. I have repeatedly stated in the House, whether here in Leinster House or down in the convention centre, and at committee meetings that it is not true to say that if the recommendations of the Duffy-Cahill report had been implemented, what happened to the Debenhams workers could have been prevented. The latter is not true and we have to face up to that. The authors of the report stated that at the committee. I met the Debenhams workers and their union representatives at a very early stage, along with the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, and others, on a few occasions. We gave two commitments and they had two asks for their campaign. The first was that they wanted to see their collective agreement honoured by the company. The agreement went beyond the statutory payments. The State can only guarantee statutory payments. That is what we do. I am happy to have a debate on whether those statutory payments should be increased. That is something we could do. They have been there since 2002. I am open to that. However, the State and the Social Insurance Fund that everybody pays into can only honour statutory payments. They cannot go beyond that and honour agreements that are reached individually between companies and employees. That is above what the State can guarantee because such agreements could be different in every situation. Deputies have to be honest and fair about that.

I have said it before and I will say it again that the Debenhams workers were wronged by that company. They missed out on their collective agreement. They were also wronged by others and were given misinformation and false hope. I never try to do that and never would do that, but I did commit to work with them where we felt we could strengthen the legislation. That was a commitment we gave. We worked with the unions to try to help them get their entitlements and packages. The State did get involved in respect of a certain package relating to training and supports and so on. I believe that is there and should be there and tapped into. I am happy to work with others on that. The last time I checked, everybody who applied for a statutory payment had received one. The State does protect workers in redundancy situations and it stands behind those statutory repayments. It is wrong to keep alluding to other issues.

Deputy Boyd Barrett raised issues that I am happy to tease through with him again. I will meet the workers if that is what they want. That is fine. However, he and other Deputies have repeated this link to assets and money. The courts do not agree with them on that. I have asked on many occasions for Deputies who stand up in the House and make such claims with authority to show us the evidence. No one has come to me with anything. Deputies make statements in the House that they claim are factually correct. The courts judge these matters and those judgments are not in agreement with the Deputies in question, or have not been as yet. The receiver has a job to do. If assets were moved, the law does provide protections in that regard. However, that is not what has come through in the courts and no Member of this House has provided me with any proof in that regard. I want to put that out there. We would act on such evidence. The law is there to act on it.

Some Deputies constantly link this back to the Duffy-Cahill report or the Clerys workers. Those are different situations and nobody has given me evidence to show any different. I would certainly work on that if I had it. I did commit to the workers that if we could, we would strengthen the legislation in respect of workers' rights in redundancy situations. The Tánaiste also gave that commitment. We are prepared to do that. We announced an update in that regard which I will also provide to the House. Following the engagement with the Debenhams workers, I said I would use my time in this Department, along with the Tánaiste, to strengthen the legislation to make it better for workers in the future if we can do so and if the need is proven. That does not mean that we said the recommendations in the Duffy-Cahill report are the answer to that issue. That has been well teased out at this stage.

Following extensive engagement with the social partners in the context of the debate arising from the treatment of the Debenhams workers and other situations since then, the plan for action in respect of collective redundancies following insolvency was published in June 2021. It sets out several commitments to safeguard further the rights of workers in these circumstances, including a range of amendments to company law and employment law, setting up an employment law review group on a statutory basis and the provision of an accessible guidance document to help workers and their representatives to navigate the existing legal framework. Again, there was a significant amount of misinformation. Workers were given misinformation at a very early stage in the context of Debenhams. That guidance document is very important in the context of people's rights, but also to make sure that people can pursue their rights. We will help them with that as well.

4 o’clock

The guidance was published on the Department's website in December 2021. The document aims to ensure that employees are aware of the protections that exist for employees whose employment is ending in redundancy. The most relevant pieces of information have been brought together to ensure that employees are fully informed of their rights and can act accordingly.

Other recommendations, such as the rescue process for small and micro companies, were progressed in the Companies Acts. The remaining company law recommendations will be progressed this year. Work on drafting amendments to the Protection of Employment Act 1977 will commence in quarter 1 of 2022.

The independent employment law review group that we agreed to establish will be established this year. It will comprise expert stakeholders and will help to shape the formulation of policy and legislation to ensure that Ireland employment law framework remains fit for purpose and adapts to the evolving contemporary workplace.

This complementary range of measures will promote the provision of quality information, enhanced participation and transparency for those workers facing collective redundancy following a company law insolvency. It will also provide for the continued development of company law in general, which is what I committed to when I met the Debenhams workers. That was one part of their campaign, and another was the achievement of the terms of their collective agreement. That was a matter to do with the company; the State could not get involved because the State can only honour statutory payments from the Social Insurance Fund in order to be fair to everybody.

I have no issue with having a debate on whether the statutory entitlement should be increased. The figure was set in 2002, and I am happy to have that debate. It is a separate discussion that we all have to feed into. Whatever is agreed has to be level and fair for every employee. It does not mean that collective agreements that are independent are included. They are separate, and we have to recognise that. We discussed options for companies to set money aside to honour personal agreements. That is something I am all for, but it is beyond the involvement of the State.

I thank colleagues, most of whom agree with the Bill, and rightly so because it will make sure that employees do not miss out. Some people asked why employers should not pay for this. That would not be right, because this is about enforced restrictions on employers and employees. It is important that we step in quite quickly to put the legislation in place to make sure that nobody misses out due to retirement or reckonable service.

On why the Bill was not ready in the autumn, we clearly said we would make these payments. We committed to that and it went through Cabinet in time, before section 12 was related. There are complications in developing a system to make these payments possible. That was always going to take a period of time. While it is to be hoped the legislation will be ready first, work has started and has continued over the past number of months regarding the systems needed to make these payments. Deputy O'Reilly asked about that. That work is nearing completion and will be finished before the end of quarter 1. We will be in a position for the Department of Social Protection to make these payments from quarter 2 onwards. The payments are guaranteed. People know they will get them. They will be paid to the maximum of people's entitlements. People who were fully laid off right throughout will receive a little over €1,800. For many others, the figure will be lower. It will be 20 September 2024 before we can judge the full impact of this.

While the figures show the cost could potentially be €150 million, we are setting aside €10 million now and we believe it will be a lot less than €150 million. Thankfully, due to other supports for businesses, employers and jobs, which everybody here agreed with, we are in a position whereby we are having a stronger recovery coming out of Covid than people could have predicted. It is to be hoped that will reduce the number of redundancies due to Covid and, therefore, the draw on this fund. The timeline will mean payments can be made in quarter 2

The matters raised by Deputy Collins were not related to this Bill, but I am happy to have them checked out. I have covered most of the points raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett. Deputy O'Donoghue raised some issues, and I want to assure him that even though I am a Government Deputy, I still meet people who work in businesses and are out there on a daily basis. As Deputies and Ministers, we meet the same people with the same issues and queries, and we are all equally committed to working through them, whether we are in opposition or in government. On the image that people try to portray that Government Deputies never get to talk to real people, people need to look at themselves in the mirror. That is part of our everyday job. That is why we committed to this Bill a long time ago. We recognised that businesses and employees would need something like this. We meet people every day of the week.

Regarding SME supports, we have shown that response over the past two years. There was cross-party support for the measures for the SME community because we recognised that SMEs are massive employers in the State and create jobs throughout the country. When we support SMEs, we support jobs. We want to have a jobs-led recovery so that we can put in place the resources we need to provide all of the other services across education, health and so on.

I again thank Deputies for their support for the Bill. I have dealt with most of the issues raised. If I missed any, I am happy to correspond with Deputies individually.

See this speech in context