Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)

I broadly welcome the Bill, which provides a mechanism for workers to access the Social Insurance Fund where their employer has ceased trading but has not been formally wound up. The Bill addresses the 2018 Supreme Court judgment that found that Ireland did not properly or fully transpose an EU directive on the protection of employees in the event of insolvency. That was seven years ago, and this had been mentioned and recommended as far back as the Cahill-Duffy report in 2016 and the company law review in 2017. Better late than never.

The Bill puts in place a new process for workers to have their employer deemed insolvent where the employer ceased trading without going through a formal wind-up. This enables employees to claim payment from the insolvency payment scheme following the employees’ application to have the employer deemed insolvent. This is a time-limited application window to cover historical cases impacted by the Supreme Court judgment. It covers the period from October 1983 to date, a period of well over 40 years.

The Bill describes what is identified as a new right whereby employees have two years to make an application, which may be extended by a further two years in exceptional circumstances that are outside the employees’ control. The Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union, in its submission to the Oireachtas joint committee during pre-legislative scrutiny, submitted that this was, of course, not a new right, as described in the legislation, but a right that workers were deprived of as the State failed to correctly transpose the EU directive. This also ignores the fact that many workers who could have availed of this procedure may no longer be alive or may not necessarily have the information available or the capability to make an application. Given the length of time covered - as I said, it goes from 1983 to 2025, the period in which the State failed to correctly transpose the directive - the two-year limit is not proportionate and is too short. SIPTU has recommended that the time limit be increased to six years, and I agree.

Again, given the long delay, I believe a significant communications campaign must be undertaken to ensure that workers who may be entitled to claim under this legislation are made aware of their entitlements and how to access them. There are 4,000 to 5,000 historical cases where payment may be due. During the period since 1983, there were certainly very strong periods of emigration, so I believe any communications campaign must not only be local but international as well. We should use every avenue, such as local radio, national radio, advertisements, television and every other avenue, to ensure that workers who are entitled to claim under this provision, and who were deprived of that right over the years, would know of the scheme and be able to access it.

This raises another point. It should be possible that the scheme is accessed by any worker and that workers are able to make their way through the scheme themselves. The situation must not be that workers would have to engage solicitors, accountants or consultants to avail of their rights under the scheme.

The salary cap should be included in the Bill.

The cap has not been increased in 20 years and it disproportionately reduces the amount awarded to workers under the scheme.

I broadly welcome the scheme and look forward to changes during the further process.

See this speech in context