Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. I confess that I am not fully up to speed on it as I am not a member of the relevant committee and have not participated in the debate there. My knowledge may not be as full as it should be. It is my understanding that much of what is contained in the Bill arises from the high-profile redundancies in Clerys, Debenhams and the like. Workers had to fight for some recognition that they were an integral part of the companies being wound up and that those companies should have an extra responsibility for their workers above what is prescribed in law at the moment.

My study of the legislation, limited as it has been, suggests that what is required has not been done fully. Most of its content seems to be about looking like provision is being made without actually doing it. The easy parts, such as provision for notifications, are done, but the real rights workers deserve are not being given. Companies have personality status and they seem to be the be-all and end-all as far as legislation that comes through this Parliament is concerned. Sadly, workers are left behind and, unfortunately, that seems to continue in this Bill.

The Bill requires at least 30 days' notice of any collective redundancies and gives employees better advance notice of the winding up of a company. It also places the onus on the receiver to continue the 30-day notice period. That will help workers to protect their rights and have the ability to get organised and fight. There is a lot of emphasis in the legislation on penalties for failure to provide notice. I wonder whether any company directors or insolvency practitioners have ever been fined in cases where they have not carried out their duties. I would be interested to hear about any such situations. We hear a lot of talk about sanctions, which are often included in legislation, but I wonder whether they are ever used. If a sanction has not been used and will not be used, it is of no use.

The proposals for the amendment of the Companies Act 2014 seem interesting and have value. The provision for dealing with employees as creditors is welcome, and requiring them to be given information is vitally important. However, I am not yet sure what these provisions will mean in practice for workers. How they work will be the crux of the legislation. Unfortunately, we must wait a couple of years to see whether the Bill works. If we decide it does not work, it will be another ten or 15 years before legislation is introduced to correct the issues. That is the problem. We should be protecting workers and getting beyond these issues.

Giving the courts the power to order a related company to contribute to the debts of a company being wound up is welcome. I wonder how that would have impacted on the Debenhams situation, for example, where the UK parent was continuing to trade through a website that was available in Ireland and making a lot of money in so doing. I am not sure whether this legislation could be used to tackle a parent company in those circumstances. We will need to see what happens in practice.

My reading of the Bill digest suggests the Bill will have a limited effect in helping employees. The Department seems to have modelled it on the New Zealand approach, which does not meet the needs of employees. That is the reality. The Department's excuse for not including powers is that it does not want to create preferential treatment for redundant workers over workers in other situations. Surely being made redundant makes a worker preferential and in a different situation from other workers? This should be looked at and addressed in legislation. Being made redundant due to a company folding is different from workers being made redundant as a consequence of a company restructuring or where the company is otherwise continuing on but changing what it is doing. That is the whole basis of these disputes and it needs to be addressed. The State has made provision for statutory redundancy requirements and so on and workers are protected as creditors in that situation. Next in line could be the workers who should have an entitlement above statutory redundancy. They could be protected in that way. At least the State would be seen to be saying that these workers should be protected as a priority. Unfortunately, we do not seem to be going down that road.

We just seem to be putting on a show of them being protected when they are not really. It is a semblance of doing something without actually doing it. I could be wrong on that, though, and if I am, I would be happy to say so at a later stage. Unfortunately, time is the only thing that will tell on this matter.

See this speech in context