Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Tactical insolvencies happen. We can put any name we like on them. They should not be allowed, and we all know that. If sufficient laws had been in place to protect workers like those in Debenhams, TalkTalk and Clerys, workers would not have had to protest and engage in the action they were forced into. They did not do that as a first choice. I know this because I spoke to workers in all of these companies. They were terrified and felt they were at the back of the queue. They felt that things were happening all around them and that decisions were sometimes being taken in boardrooms in London and other places. As a result, they lost their jobs, which were the only source of income for some families.

The Minister of State referenced the carefully balanced order in terms of when insolvencies take place. It does not seem very balanced for those on the receiving end. The system seems very unbalanced and unequal. The amendment seeks to balance things in favour of workers. I appreciate the concern the Minister of State expressed about potential knock-on consequences for SMEs. SMEs could find themselves in that situation, in any event.

I do not feel that enough has been done or is being done to address this issue. I cannot find a single Deputy in the Dáil or Seanad who disagrees with the amendment. Everybody says we should not have another Debenhams, TalkTalk, Clerys, La Senza or Paris Bakery. Everybody agrees that should not happen, yet when it comes to legislation we sometimes come up short. This is complicated and there are potential knock-on consequences. The legislation needs to be very well thought out. Equally, there needs to be legislation which focuses on those workers and the people who are the true victims in any tactical insolvency. They do happen and should not be allowed to happen. That was the purpose of and intention behind the amendment.

See this speech in context