Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) (Amendment) Bill 2025. The Bill makes changes to the insolvency payments scheme. This scheme fulfils a vital function. It protects workers in the event of their employer's insolvency. It covers certain pay and pension-related entitlements that an employee may be owed by their insolvent employer. Payments under the scheme are made from the Social Insurance Fund. The scheme is administered by the Department of Social Protection on my behalf.

Before getting into the specifics of the Bill, it may be useful for me to outline the background to the insolvency payments scheme. The scheme has operated since 1984. It is governed by the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act 1984, as amended. This protection stems from European law, currently Directive 2008/94/EC. When an employer becomes insolvent, a liquidator or similar relevant officer is usually appointed to wind up the company. As part of their role, the liquidator will check the company's books and compile a list of what each employee is owed. The liquidator then applies to the Department of Social Protection on behalf of the employees for payment under the insolvency payments scheme. This scheme covers a range of entitlements. These include arrears of wages, holiday pay and sick pay, minimum notice, unpaid employment rights awards and certain unpaid pension contributions. Certain limits are applied to payments. A salary ceiling of €600 per week applies to most payments. Arrears of wages, sick pay and holiday pay claims are further capped at a maximum eight weeks each. When a claim is accepted, payment is made from the Social Insurance Fund to the liquidator. The liquidator in turn pays out to the employees.

Access to the insolvency payments scheme is contingent on the employer being insolvent. Insolvency is currently defined in the Act as where the employer is in liquidation, receivership, bankruptcy, has died and their estate is insolvent, or is insolvent under the laws of another EU member state or the UK. However, there are gaps in the legislation that the Bill intends to address. In rare cases, a business may cease trading but fail to fully wind up. This may be because the directors have insufficient assets to fund the liquidation, or for other reasons. This is sometimes referred to colloquially as informal insolvency. When this happens, former employees of the business who have moneys owed to them do not have a legal mechanism to claim these amounts under the insolvency payments scheme. The Supreme Court found in the Glegola case that this does not meet the directive’s requirements. The Supreme Court held that the State has, therefore, failed to transpose Article 2(1)(b) of the directive.

To address this gap, the Bill provides for a new "deemed insolvent" application. Using this new application, an employee can apply to have their employer deemed insolvent for the purpose of accessing the insolvency payments scheme. This new process will address the Act's shortcomings, as identified by the Supreme Court. To avoid any unintended consequences, the Bill provides that a finding of deemed insolvency under this process will not have any implication for other definitions of insolvency, such as under company law or bankruptcy law. The Bill also provides for a process for historical deemed insolvency, and I will give more detail on this process in discussing the details of the Bill. The Bill proposes some additional technical changes to improve the scheme's operation.

I will outline the four main policy objectives of the Bill. The first is to ensure Directive 2008/94/EC is fully transposed into Irish law. This will ensure that employees of employers who do not formally wind up their business will benefit from the directive's protections. The second is to ensure the scheme's operation is in alignment with broader Government policy on personal insolvency. The third is to further improve the operation and administration of the scheme by reducing policy uncertainty in how the salary ceiling applies to certain payments. The fourth is that we want to ensure that Circuit Court awards for gender discrimination are brought back within the ambit of the scheme.

Before turning to the detail of the Bill, I want to give a brief explanation of how the new process for deemed insolvency will work. In summary, under this new process, the employee will first have to serve formal notice on their employer and give them a reasonable period to pay any moneys due. If the employer fails to pay, the employee can apply to the scheme to have them deemed insolvent. When an application for deemed insolvency is received, the employer will be notified and given a chance to participate in the process.

The test we will use to deem an employer insolvent is whether they have ceased trading. This is a more favourable test than the directive requires. Under this test, officials will consider the application, the employer's response and, most importantly, Revenue and Companies Registration Office data on the employer. If the evidence shows an employer has ceased trading, the employer will be deemed insolvent for the purpose of that application only. The employee will then be able to seek their outstanding moneys from the insolvency payments scheme. If the evidence shows an employer has not ceased trading, then the employer is not deemed insolvent. In such cases, an employee still has rights to pursue the employer through the Workplace Relations Commission or the courts.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill. The Bill consists of 13 sections, divided into three Parts. An explanatory memorandum has been published and provides a summary of the provisions.

Part 1 deals with preliminary and general matters. Sections 1 and 2 set out the Short Title of the Bill, commencement provisions and necessary definitions. Section 3 provides for a transitional provision for claims already in progress at the time of the Bill’s commencement.

Part 2 amends the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act 1984, which is defined as the principal Act. Section 4 inserts new definitions and updates other standard definitions in the principal Act. It also amends the principal Act’s definition of insolvency in two ways. It now includes the new process for deemed insolvency and, for claims arising before the Bill comes into effect, a process for historical deemed insolvency. It also includes an employer who enters into an insolvency arrangement within the meaning of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. These insolvency arrangements were introduced as an alternative to bankruptcy.

Section 5 updates how the date of insolvency is defined in the principal Act for these new types of insolvency.

Section 6 inserts eight new sections, sections 4A to 4H, into the 1984 Act. Section 4A allows an employee to serve written notice on their employer seeking payment of moneys owed. This starts the process for deemed insolvency. Section 4B allows an employee to apply to the Minister to have their employer deemed insolvent if they have not received their money after eight weeks. It also provides for the automatic stop of the process if the employer is already insolvent.

Section 4C requires the Minister to notify the employer where an application to deem them insolvent has been made. The employer has four weeks to respond if they want to engage with the process. Section 4D permits an employer to respond to the application to deem them insolvent and to request further information from the Minister on the application. Section 4E sets out the process for the Minister to follow when deeming an employer insolvent, or not, as the case may be. It also provides that a finding of deemed insolvency does not mean the employer is insolvent for any other purpose.

Section 4F deals with a historical deemed insolvency process. This is a particularly important section. It ensures employees of employers who ceased trading without formally winding up before the Bill's commencement are not disadvantaged by the previously incomplete transposition of the directive.

This covers historical cases where employees were owed money but their employers failed to formally wind up their businesses. It relates to claims spanning from the original directive transposition date, October 1983, to the commencement of this legislation. The historical deemed insolvent process will be open for two years following the legislation's commencement. A further extension of two years is possible in exceptional circumstances outside the employee’s control. My Department will run a comprehensive communications campaign to ensure affected employees are aware of this process.

The new section 4G sets out how notices under this Bill are to be served on employers.

The new section 4H sets out how personal data is to be treated.

Section 7 makes changes to section 6 of the 1984 Act, relating to applications for payment of outstanding pay-related entitlements. These are generally of a technical nature and reflect the specific circumstances of the new deemed insolvency and personal insolvency arrangements. This section will also update how the salary limit is applied to all payments from the scheme. This change gives a statutory basis for the long-standing practice governing scheme payments, which was found to be ultra viresin the Court of Appeal judgment in the Brady case. This change will ensure that all applicants are treated consistently. Minor differences in the wording of adjudications for employees receiving similar awards in comparable situations will not give rise to significant differences in their entitlements under the scheme.

Section 8 makes some technical changes to section 7 of the 1984 Act relating to applications for payment of outstanding pension contributions.

Section 9 amends section 8 of the 1984 Act to allow the Minister to request certain information from an employee applicant to assist in deciding an application.

Section 10 amends section 9 of the 1984 Act by specifying that certain decisions are not appealable to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC.

Section 11 is a technical amendment to section 10 of the 1984 Act to reflect other changes made in the Bill.

Section 12 amends section 11 of the 1984 Act by allowing the Minister to vary, by order, the number of weeks an employer has to pay an employee the monies owed, before the deemed insolvent process can commence.

Part 3 contains one section, section 13, which amends the Employment Equality Act 1998. This change ensures awards of the Circuit Court for gender discrimination are covered by the scheme. This corrects a 2015 amendment that inadvertently omitted such awards from the scheme’s scope.

The Bill is quite complex and technical. Deputies will appreciate it will deliver an important change to how the State protects employees. I draw Deputies' attention to a number of important points. I welcome the support of the joint committee in the previous Dáil for the Bill during the pre-legislative scrutiny process. It is rare for a legislative proposal to receive a statement of support without any suggestions from the committee during the pre-legislative scrutiny process. I thank the committee for its consideration.

I also flag my intention to bring forward amendments on Committee Stage. These will clarify the extent of the State’s liability to pay certain outstanding pension contributions, where both the employer and defined benefit pension scheme are insolvent. They will also clarify the protection of outstanding contributions to the new auto-enrolment retirement savings scheme when an employer is insolvent.

Part 2 of the Bill will complete the proper transposition of the directive. This Part reflects the recommendations of an interdepartmental working group which examined the issue in 2023. The proposals set out in the Bill represent a careful balance. We have sought to make the process as straightforward as possible for employees, while also ensuring employers who may still be trading are able to participate in the process and taxpayers’ money is protected. While the legislative proposals are quite complex, our objective is to ensure that the process itself will not be.

The new deemed insolvent process will be employee led. This is because no liquidator or similar officer will be appointed to wind-up the employer’s business. My officials have worked closely with their counterparts in the Department of Social Protection to ensure the customer journey is as straightforward as possible for employees who need to avail of this new deemed insolvent process. This includes straightforward application forms, using plain English, and clear, step-by-step assistance. The Bill also provides that a representative such as a trade union or trusted family member can make an application on an employee’s behalf.

If the Bill proceeds to enactment, the Government will undertake a communications campaign to ensure people who may be entitled to claim under the new deemed insolvent process are aware of their entitlements and how to access them. In particular, we will focus on those with a historical claim to ensure employees of an informally insolvent employer are not disadvantaged.

This Bill will further enhance the protection of employees when their employers become, or are deemed, insolvent. Most importantly, it will extend access to the insolvency payments scheme to include employees of employers who cease trading without formally winding up their businesses or of sole-trader employers who enter into personal insolvency arrangements. It will deliver a time-limited process for historical deemed insolvent applicants to claim their entitlements. It will ensure that the salary limit applies to all payments from the insolvency payments scheme in the same way, ensuring certainty of outcome and consistency of treatment for all applicants.

I look forward to debating the merits of this important Bill and working with Deputies and Senators across both Houses to ensure its swift enactment. I commend this Bill to the House.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill is quite complex and technical, and it is important that the State protects workers. I take this opportunity to reaffirm a core principle that has always guided Sinn Féin, namely is our commitment to standing with workers. Throughout our history, we have been to the forefront in the context of workers’ rights, fairness and dignity in the workplace. For too long, workers have been left vulnerable, especially in times of crisis. When a business becomes insolvent, it is not just about profits or corporate failure; it is about people - families, communities, lives - being thrown into turmoil.

This is not just about recent cases or the present. For decades, workers, particularly the lowest-paid and most vulnerable, have called out for support, fairness and justice from the Government. Time and time again, low-paid workers have been on the front line. Those working in retail, hospitality, cleaning and other essential sectors have protested and demanded that their voices be heard. They have faced the pain of losing their jobs, their livelihoods, and their dignity when their employers went into liquidation or simply abandoned their responsibilities. However, it is often overlooked that these workers have consistently called on the Government to stand with them, protect their rights and ensure they are not left behind. For years, workers have protested on the streets demanding support and fair treatment and that those who profit from their labour do not walk away without consequences. They have called for better protections, fair entitlement payments and the security they, as workers, deserve. Time and again, Sinn Féin has stood shoulder to shoulder with them, advocating, fighting and demanding that their voices be heard. Our history has been one of standing with workers. We have supported low-paid workers when they called for fairness, staged protests and demanded justice. We have championed their right to fair wages, decent working conditions and protection when their employers abandon their responsibilities.

The cases of Clerys and Debenhams are stark reminders of how corporate greed and mechanisms such as tactical liquidation have been used to avoid obligations to workers. More than 1,000 people at Debenhams lost their jobs overnight. Their redundancy and other entitlements were wiped out because the company sought to evade its legal obligations. These workers, many of whom are low paid, have faced hardship and despair because their Government failed to protect them when they needed it most.

We acknowledge that the Bill is about ensuring that even if a business ceases trading informally without going through a formal liquidation, workers can still claim their unpaid wages and entitlements from the insolvency payments scheme. It is about justice, dignity and making sure that those who have worked hard, often in low-paid jobs, are not left to suffer alone when their employer walks away. For decades, these workers have been calling for support and for the Government to stand with them on the front line in their struggle. Fairness should never be limited by outdated legal technicalities. It extends protections to the most vulnerable, including sole traders and those facing gender discrimination. We have always championed the rights of the lowest paid, whether through advocating for fair wages, better working conditions or stronger protections against exploitation. We have always believed that legislation must prioritize workers’ rights, especially during their most vulnerable moments when a company is in insolvency.

Let me be blunt. The Government has too often failed those who need support most. Promises to increase sick pay, raise minimum wages and end discriminatory pay practices have been delayed, broken or ignored. For years, low-paid workers have protested and pleaded for support, yet many remain without a safety net.

Insolvency is driven by rising costs - costs the Government has failed to adequately address. The cost-of-living crisis has left many families struggling, while Government policies have long failed to deliver on promises to improve living standards.

Sinn Féin’s alternative budgets and policies aim to address these injustices by supporting a real living wage, introducing fairer tax structures and protecting workers’ rights at every turn. We will continue to call for laws that enshrine workers’ rights, ensuring they cannot be denied their rightful entitlements. We will stand against practices like fire and rehire, bullying and exploitation. We believe in genuine collective bargaining and empowering workers and their unions to negotiate fair terms. We will never forget those who have called for support and been left behind.

This Bill promises that when businesses falter, the lowest-paid workers will not have to bear the burden alone. Sinn Féin has long stood with workers, particularly those who have protested, organised and called for justice, to fight for a future in which dignity, fairness and justice are fundamental rights for all. We will support those who keep our economy moving, our communities thriving and our future bright. We, as legislators, have a duty to stand with them now and always.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The legislation proposed by the Minister, if enacted, will bring Ireland in step with an EU directive which should have been transposed into domestic law in 1983. While I welcome the fact that it is better late than never that the Government is attempting to provide these protections to Irish workers, I cannot help but wonder how many more workers could have been protected if this legislation had been brought in the eighties, as should have been the case.

The Government will say that workers who believe they may have benefited from this legislation can still make claims. Realistically, however, a lot of time has passed since 1983. The Government will know that the proportion of people who might have had unpaid wage claims from, for example, 1985, will be vastly higher than the number who will seek redress now.

The Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) (Amendment) Bill 2025 delivers several important changes. The expansion of access to the insolvency payment scheme to include employees of employers who ceased trading without formally winding up their business is significant and must be welcomed. I am happy to note the Bill will also provide a new statutory process for employees in this situation to apply to have their employer deemed insolvent and to recover their outstanding moneys from the insolvency payments scheme. Extensive pre-legislative scrutiny was undertaken by the enterprise committee of the previous Dáil. I acknowledge my colleague Deputy O'Reilly for the diligent work done on this Bill to date.

I have some remaining concerns regarding the Bill. These relate to the ease of access for people who may wish to make claims. Will it be the case that a worker will need legal representation or is it the intention that, once it is done, it will be easy and accessible? Will it work through a website? How is it envisaged? Employment issues, by their nature, can be intricate, complicated and individualised. The last thing we want is for people who may have an entitlement to look at the process and think they would rather not engage with it because it is too difficult to do so. This should be something a person can make their way through without incurring the cost of legal representation, which, as the Minister will appreciate, would be a chilling factor for many workers. The more easily accessible and plainer the language is, the better. There must also be a communications and media strategy. This is essential as we want people to be able to access the system. For historical cases, it must be absolutely clear that people know they can still make claims in respect of informal insolvencies that happened as far back as the eighties.

While my party is supporting the Bill on Second Stage, I want the committee to look at the media strategy around it. If people are not aware of the entitlement, they may as well not have it. I also hope the committee will examine the Bill in light of the rights and entitlements a worker may have had by way of a collective agreement or enhanced redundancy. Is it the case that it only covers statutory entitlements?

On the cost of implementing the legislation, the Department has allocated almost €15 million in respect of the historical element. Last year, when the pre-legislative scrutiny was ongoing, some Department officials estimated that there might be up to 5,000 historical applications. On that reckoning, it seems the Department thinks the average award would be in the ballpark of €3,000. This is a small sum of money for the Government. For an individual, however, I have no doubt that it would mean a lot. Again, this goes back to the ease of application, which should be commensurate with the level of award allocated. I also want the committee to look at how these historical cases will be assessed and monitored. Is there any way - aside from the advertising campaign - historical applications can be encouraged to ensure all those eligible are able to access the fund? In a case where a worker has died in the 42 years since 1983, is there a possibility for a spouse or other relative to make a claim on their behalf? Has the Department given consideration to this? These are the intricacies that we must be able to stand over and to which the Minister must give attention.

The Bill is a welcome. I commend the Minister for bringing it this far. However, we have a way to go. Introducing a scheme which should have been introduced years ago does not get the Government off the hook for its failure to deliver on workers' rights. Sinn Féin has long stood with workers in their struggles. We believe legislation must prioritise workers' rights, especially their collective redundancy agreements. Those entitlements always need to be prioritised alongside wages or statutory redundancy payments. The Government has consistently failed to deliver on its promise to improve workers' rights and living standards. Despite its commitment to increase statutory sick pay, raise the minimum wage level and eliminate discriminatory pay practices, many of these promises remain unfulfilled.

The Government promised to increase statutory sick pay from five days to seven in 2025 and to ten from 2026. However, it has postponed this increase and left more than 1 million private sector workers without paid sick leave. This delay worsens financial and health hardships for workers and families. When we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, I absolutely do not see it as a contest between employers and workers. The greatest asset of any business is its workers. We must ensure that we have workforces that are respected and that their rights upheld in the same way as those of others. That is why collective bargaining is so important.

Similarly, the pledge to move forward on a living wage has been stalled. While most EU countries increased their minimum wage significantly last year, Ireland's minimum wage remains well below EU average. This contributes to Ireland's high rate of low pay, with 20% of workers earning below a fair living standard. The Government's reluctance to accelerate wage increases puts further pressure on low-paid workers amid rising living costs.

Promises to end discriminatory subminimum youth pay rates and improve migrant workers' wages have also been broken or delayed. The minimum wage for migrant workers on general employment permits is still below market levels and wage increases have been postponed. Additionally, the Government has delayed the raising of the employers' PRSI threshold, which would help to reduce the tax burden on businesses and support workers. Many other social commitments, such as pension reforms, hikes in child benefit and scrapping the means test for carers have been shelved or quietly rolled back.

The auto-enrolment pension scheme, which Sinn Féin supports, remains poorly managed and risks increased exposure to market volatility and privatisation. The Government claims economic uncertainty justifies these delays. However, a Red C poll shows that 56% of the public oppose these backtracks, with only 24% supporting the Government's stance. Voters who supported Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are particularly opposed, highlighting a disconnect between Government actions and public expectations.

The failure to honour promises has real consequences. It leaves workers more vulnerable, increases poverty and deepens inequality.

Instead of supporting fair wages and social protections, the Government is prioritising short-term economic narratives that give handouts to the wealthy and big businesses. I am again calling on the Government to honour its election promises and to stop paying lip service to workers in this State. For the workers we are seeking to protect here and other workers, it is vital to recognise that they are living in a real cost-of-living crisis. The cost of living extends to people trying to be able to afford their groceries and trying to pay their energy bills. We know that almost a half a million people are behind with their energy bills at present. It is distressing to see that the Government has at this stage ruled out any cost of living package in the budget. I ask the Minister to go back to the Minister for Finance and look at where people are in terms of the struggles families face right now to be able to afford to live and to be able to afford to have any quality of living. I always make the point that workers have never worked so hard and yet they have never struggled so much in just trying to make ends meet. Everything connects with everything else and employers need to demonstrate fairness and to have people who are properly paid for the work they do. We need to look at things like increasing productivity. This can be done by lifelong learning, by investment in education and by investment in training, all of those things. The first thing we examine must not always be a cut to wages. I hear it in all kinds of discussion, whether it be around water infrastructure or whatever else, seeing how much more can be got out of people's pockets. This surely has to be about putting some money back into workers' pockets and people's pockets, so that the contribution they are making to society is truly valued.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was in Liberty Hall when Cleary's closed down. I remember the shock of the workers. They were completely shell shocked. In any man's language, we could call a tactical insolvency. The response of the Government through the Minister for labour at the time, Joan Burton, was to turn Liberty Hall into a dole office. She just gave the workers advice on how to access social welfare. She said there was nothing there for them and she certainly was not prepared to do anything for them. We see this again and again. There was Cleary's, Debenham's, TalkTalk, La Senza and the Paris Bakery. What is the one thing all of these had in common? It was mostly women workers on low pay. Apart from a small few examples, they were not unionised. They were left high and dry by their employers.

Some of them - the Debenham's workers are a very good example of this - were subject to a collective agreement. Anyone who has ever negotiated an agreement knows there is give and take. They got some enhanced payments for redundancy written into their collective agreement but we know that they also had to give. However, when it came to it, there was no protection for their collective agreement. Some of them had worked that agreement for years. It did place some onus on the employees and the workers to do certain things and in return there was the enhanced redundancy. I note that the Minister's script said that it would protect workers in the event of their employer's insolvency and cover certain pay and pension related entitlements that employees may be owed by their insolvent employer. That is really welcome, because there is nothing more unjust for a worker who is working hard and doing nothing wrong than when their employer becomes insolvent.

A suggestion I have is not perhaps for this legislation but could be considered for the future. The Government should be looking at protecting collective agreements because they are the backbone of a unionised workforce. In the next couple of months, we will see the transposition of the EU adequate minimum wage directive. That will tell a tale about where this Government stands. I do not want to spoil it for anyone but the Government rarely stands on the side of workers. The Minister knows that. The transposition of the directive will show this.

What workers need is the legal right to organise. They need those protections in their workplace. No worker would be foolish enough, certainly not anyone who saw what happened with Cleary's, Debenham's, TalkTalk, La Senza, the Paris Bakery and all of the others, to think that if they wait around long enough that a Fine Gael-Fianna Fáil Government is going to on their side. What they need is the protection of their trade union. It gravely worries me when I hear from lobby groups and some in government that they do not think there will be a need for legislation arising out of this. There will be a need for very robust legislation in order to protect workers.

The truth is that until workers have a Government on their side, the right to organise will not be delivered. We know the Government not necessarily by what it says but its actions. There have been no increases to the sick pay, which were promised, and there is no commitment to a living wage, which has been pushed out again. There is yet another delay to auto-enrolment.

Workers know who is going to be on their side. They know who they can rely on when the pressure is on. I hope I am wrong on this but I believe the transposition of the EU directive will show the Government in very stark relief for what it really is, and that is not a Government that is prepared to stand with or stand up for workers but it is a Government that will always and forever be on the side of the bosses.

This Bill goes some way towards addressing the issues of insolvencies but we need to see action from the Government in relation to tactical insolvencies because those employers have big, deep pockets and access to a lot of legal advice and the workers are left bereft. We need to outlaw that.

George Lawlor (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Bill and I will outline just two concerns I have. There is a range of laws that can come into play when an employer closes down. European Union law governs some of these laws. The legislation in this area is usually concerned with ensuring minimum rights, underwritten by the Exchequer, while allowing the parties to agree more substantial or enhanced terms. Of course, there can be no agreement for enhanced terms if the employer is insolvent and so cannot fund any additional payments.

Some comments made about this Bill relate to the relative complexity of the whole legislative landscape. First, where jobs are lost due to the closure of a business, the Redundancy Payments Acts apply and provide a statutory minimum redundancy entitlement for employees with a set period of service. Apart from redundancy, outstanding wages, holiday pay, commission and bonuses are protected by the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 requires employers to give notice of termination, or else to pay employees in lieu of notice. Normally, it is up to the employer to pay statutory redundancy but in default a liquidator can seek, on behalf of workers, payment from the redundancy payments scheme.

Regarding the other outstanding entitlements, legislation provides for the payments of these by the Department of Social Protection in the event of employer insolvency. Under the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Acts, subject to certain limits and conditions, money due to employees is paid by the Department in a range of situations, including arrears of pay, holiday and sick pay and any entitlements under the minimum notice and terms of employment, employment equality and unfair dismissals legislation. We know that when there is a major insolvency, the Department and its agencies can swing into action so as to reach out to affected workers and ensure that everyone is aware of their entitlements and that claims are swiftly processed. We certainly could not expect an average worker to be able to steer through what can be quite complex procedures without assistance.

Under this Bill, however, due to a need to correct the way in which EU law was originally transposed, we are allowing applications to be made dating back to insolvencies that occurred since 1983. I appreciate we are not dealing with all insolvencies, just a category of informal insolvency that should have been captured in our legislation but which was omitted. These are cases where an employer ceases trading and lets staff go, but never enters into formal liquidation. The Department’s officials very fairly told the committee that the nature and extent of what will now be recognised as outstanding claims is virtually unknowable.

The year 1983 is important because this was when the original EU directive ought to have been transposed into Irish law. It ought to have applied to informal as well as to formal insolvencies. The Supreme Court’s decision in Glegola found that the directive was not fully transposed into Irish law. The Department then got clear legal advice that this failure in transposing the directive has subsisted since 1983 and, therefore, this Bill needs to make provision for all the people who might have been affected over 40 years.

As we have heard, modelling work within the Department estimates that there could be in excess of 4,000 and perhaps closer to 5,000 applications. The Bill proposes a two-year window of opportunity for applications to be made arising from these historical informal insolvencies, although I note that this is extendable by a further two years by ministerial order in exceptional circumstances.

If I understand the position correctly, there is provision for up to €14.5 million for the cost of these 4,000 to 5,000 historical applications and a separate provision of €500,000 per year, going forward. There is also provision for an additional €172,000 for the Department of Social Protection in order to process these claims. SIPTU has recommended extending the two-year time limit to six years, and the Department's officials who appeared before the committee agreed that this could be considered.

I appreciate the need for finality in medium-term budgetary planning, but I am concerned about whether it is realistic to think that a major communications campaign can be devised and put in place, and will reach all those with an entitlement, within just two years. For example, given the scale of emigration that took place over those decades, is there any consideration as to how the communications campaign will reach those now outside the State? It seems clear that dealing properly with the historical backlog is the biggest issue the Department faces, since we are told that including these deemed insolvencies will, as regards future claims, increase the number by just 220 or so annually.

A second issue that arose in the scrutiny of the general scheme was employment status. The Supreme Court has offered clarity on the correct approach to be followed when deciding whether an individual is, in truth, an employee or is self-employed. We know that many firms in recent decades resorted to questionable contract terms that sought to misclassify their staff. In the process, they also short-changed the Exchequer in terms of tax and PRSI contributions.

It is hard to believe that the clarity offered by the Supreme Court on these issues will not have some impact on the processing of historical claims dating back several decades. Is the Department prepared to deal with a set of claims that will occupy not just its redundancy and insolvency unit but may also take up the time and resources of its scope section?

It is at least foreseeable that some individuals would not have regarded themselves as employees due to views prevailing at the time they lost their jobs but, on fresh examination, and applying the more recent Supreme Court tests, would now have an argument that they were indeed employees and that this Bill should apply to them. Will the communications campaign make this clear?

I assure the Minister of State that I very much welcome the Bill.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the library and research service for the paper it prepared on this Bill. It was very helpful to me in preparing my contribution for today, as I am sure it was for many of us.

Déanann sí scoth na hoibre chun a chinntiú go bhfuilimid mar reachtóirí in ann ár gcuid oibre a dhéanamh, agus molaim í as ucht a cuid iarrachtaí.

Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom leagan amach céard ar mhaith liom díriú air inniu. Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar an easpa soiléireachta agus cosanta d’oibritheoirí i gcomhlachtaí nach bhfuil ag trádáil ach nach bhfuil ar scor. Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar rochtain ar cheartas dlí d'oibritheoirí nuair a stopann comhlacht ag trádáil mar seo. Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar pholasaí poiblí maidir le dócmhainneacht.

I will speak today about the clarity that has long been denied to workers in situations where their employer has ceased trading without formally winding up; access to justice in situations of insolvency for employees; and also the wider public policy aims of insolvency law, which often go under the radar.

I am supportive of the aims of this Bill in seeking to further protect employees in the event of their employer's insolvency. There are few people who know how truly vulnerable one's livelihood is than workers who have faced involuntary redundancy and the sharp end of corporate bankruptcies or a cessation of trading. It is not simply one's wages and a chance to get back on one's feet that one fights for - it is recognition of the thousands of hours, the commitment and the personal cost of one's job being pulled out from under one through no fault of one's own.

The Glegola judgment highlighted that while there were certain mechanisms whereby employees could seek the money they were owed, our legislation had a significant gap for companies that did not fit the restrictive definition of "insolvent" under the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act 1984.

The insolvency payments scheme is a vital safeguard to employees. Where other processes may leave them in the lurch, unpaid and unprioritised, it ensures that they are able to recoup some of the money they are owed that has been denied to them. I welcome the prospect of employees who have previously been left in a legal limbo as to their entitlements now being assured that they have grounds to claim their wage arrears, holiday pay, payment in lieu of notice, and other payments due to them in a clear process under the scheme.

When it comes to ensuring that these employees are truly able to receive what is owed to them, simplicity of the process is key. Access to justice in situations like this is often thwarted by opaque rules and long and difficult processes that individuals are expected to navigate. It is something we not only need to enshrine in legislation, but also to ensure that it works in practice, especially due to the significant time period covered by this new provision due to the delay in transposition of the directive.

There are some provisions I believe could be addressed on Committee Stage. First, on the onus to serve notice to the employer in respect to an application, it is hard enough to keep track of an employer from five years ago but, in some cases, for an individual 40 years ago would be almost impossible. An employer who is difficult to find should not be a barrier to employees getting the money to which they are rightly entitled.

Second, while sole traders are not going to be the main employers who are brought under the scheme in this Bill, it is important that the new section 4G(a), to be inserted in the principal Act by the Bill's section 6, does not unfairly disadvantage employees who may not have the address of their former employer, especially when this is information that may be available to the State.

I will now discuss the wider public policy implications of insolvency policy, to which this Bill relates, and which we need to address as a State if we want to provide secure, high-quality employment to all workers. In this country, we have seen countless examples of workers being left behind in insolvency proceedings. It is vital that we do all we can to protect employees and their incomes in an insolvency.

The Bill is a positive step in this regard, but we must not forget that there is a huge lack of responsibility being taken by employers for the people who in many cases have given their lives to working in companies that may go into liquidation. The protection of assets through transnational corporate structures is a tangled web, but it is one that we must try to unpick as a matter of public policy. Debenhams' workers faced total dismissal, and violence, and fought for 406 days for their right to a fair redundancy. The parent company of Debenhams decided to stop funding the Irish operation and to cut its losses. These losses included the livelihoods of countless workers, mainly women. This subsidiary had few assets and was allowed to go bankrupt, all while the parent company had assets and profits to pay them a just redundancy but no legal framework that could help the employees to get a fair deal. Prior to this it was the Clerys' workers whose company did not pay them redundancy, leaving the State to provide some relief to workers who had given many years of their lives to their workplace, all while that very company held on to some of the most valuable commercial real estate in Dublin.

In a time when a company seeks the aid of the courts and the State in allowing it to escape the repayment of debts and to wipe the slate clean, and when public policy is assisting a corporate entity to escape its commitments and liabilities, it is difficult to justify why the workers affected by this are most vulnerable. It was not the Debenhams workers who made the company go into liquidation. It was not the fault of Clerys' workers that they woke up one morning to find their jobs were gone. As a matter of public policy, we should make it a priority to recognise this reality in how the State supports workers, but also in the duties we impose on employers to support them as well.

If we are considering insolvencies and liquidations as matters of public policy, which I believe we should, we must be able to look at the situation in the round. While it is very tempting to think of insolvency as something that is solely between the creditors and the debtors, by seeking the assistance of the courts and of liquidators and receivers in the first place, we have before us an admission that this is no longer a private matter. This places to the forefront the duty of the State to support workers when their employer becomes insolvent. It is also important to ensure that we are imposing responsibilities on employers.

I feel that we are more comfortable with setting up a State support than taking on a change in the duties of employers, particularly with regard to large companies in this country. However, in a context where we, as a State, are willing to take more responsibility for the protection of people’s livelihoods, it is nonsensical to shoulder that burden alone and allow companies that have already failed in their responsibility to remain solvent, to such a degree that they become bankrupt, to then also not take responsibility for the human cost of their mistakes. If we want a more equal balance of power and responsibility that does not lead us into such damaging and high-profile bankruptcies, as we saw with Clerys and Debenhams, this is something we have to address.

Tá sé thar am go bhfoghlaimeoidh muid ó na botúin agus na cásanna crua atá tar éis teacht romhainn. Caithfear níos mó suim a chuir sna fáthanna agus an teoraic ar a bhfuil ár corais dócmhainneacht tógtha.

We need a wider conversation on the hiding of assets in a warren of corporate structures while employees walk away empty-handed. We also need to give serious thought to the theoretical underpinning of a bankruptcy policy that leaves those with the least amount of leverage and advantage in their negotiating relationship with a business - those being, the employees - with the most vulnerability in bankruptcies.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Bill will better protect employees’ unpaid wages and entitlements if their employer becomes insolvent. I would commend the Government on introducing it but let us be real. It is a matter of obligation more than choice. The Government did not push to protect worker entitlements when they were denied on foot of the Vita Cortex insolvency in 2011, nor did the Government spring into action when the Clerys insolvency saw 460 jobs lost and workers denied their due in 2015. Not even when it was thousands of workers in the case of the Debenhams closure in 2020 did Government efforts exceed empty platitudes. Quite literally, the State left those workers out in the cold. No, the reason this Bill is before us is a Supreme Court decision dating back to 2018. Even though the Government realised its legislative framework failed to meet the minimum standards under EU law, it has taken seven years for it to meet its obligation to workers.

While I would welcome this Bill as a break from a shameful past, the past few weeks have shown this to be anything but the case. Pension auto-enrolment is delayed, providing additional sick leave to workers is shelved and scrapping the carer’s means test is nowhere to be seen. Commitments made are delayed in the face of economic turbulence, or that is what this Government tells us out of one side its mouth at least. The explanation simply does not hold water. Out of the other side of their mouths, the same Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Ministers will tell us that cost-of-living measures are no longer necessary.

All of this is self-defeating because when working people and families have chosen to pay rent rather than buy groceries, small businesses in their communities see decreased business and suffer too. This contributes to insolvencies. When workers attend work if they are ill and know they should not have to, this only contributes to the spread of flu and other illnesses. Does that not contribute to the strain on our health services and GP offices?

What of the promise to end discriminatory sub-minimum youth pay rates? We cannot do that because of economic uncertainty, or so Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael will say. They will tell us that some young workers would be better off with more hours if they were saving for college because the price just went up €1,000 and rent pressure zones are on top of the chopping block. Economic uncertainty be damned when it comes to ordinary workers, young people and carers.

If ordinary workers cannot afford to live, then businesses, especially local small-to-medium-sized businesses, cannot thrive. Sinn Féin’s approach is different and the proof is in the work of my party colleague, Caoimhe Archibald, the minister who recently introduced Sinn Féin's good jobs Bill in the Assembly. It is a Bill that will ensure fairer treatment of workers, including better net pay, tips, holiday pay and parental leave, which will promote a stronger regional economy that benefits businesses. I commend her on introducing that Bill, which sets out the standard for workers’ rights on this island. The Government here would do well to take notice and do the same.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue of workers' rights. Over the past 40 years, I have long been involved in campaigns, with workers and as a worker myself on many occasions, trying to get basic rights.

I broadly welcome the Bill. It makes the necessary changes to the insolvency payments scheme but it is coming late. I welcome that it will cater for the situation at present regarding wages, sick pay, holiday pay, minimum notice entitlements and pension contributions. While they are in the insolvency payments scheme, workers lose out where the employer does not deem itself to have ceased trading. Thousands of workers have lost out over the past 41 years in that regard, so this legislation is coming a bit late.

The time limit was mentioned. There is a request from the largest union in the State, SIPTU, that it be extended from two years to six years. I would support that.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that the relevant EU directive had not been transposed properly to provide for a situation where the employer ceased trading but had not formally ceased business, and where it had not been declared bankrupt or gone into liquidation, leaving workers in an awful position. There are many examples of that.

On the timeline for moving this forward, the heads of the draft Bill were started in 2023. Last October, pre-legislative scrutiny was completed by the committee. I have read all of the information on the provisions of the Bill. I welcome the new process for the applicants to have the employer deemed insolvent where the employer ceases trading without going through the formal wind-up. They can claim under the insolvency payments scheme. The Bill also provides a time-limited application window to cover the historical cases impacted by the Supreme Court judgment, covering the period from 1983 up to whenever we enact the Bill. However, the employees only have two years to make the application. I would ask for that to be extended given that some employees who are affected by this are advanced in years now. Some of them may have emigrated, as mentioned by Deputy Healy.

I welcome the closing of a gap in the scheme to ensure that employees of former sole traders in insolvency arrangements as defined in the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 will now be covered by the scheme; the amending of the Employment Equality Act 1998 to ensure that any court awards for gender discrimination are covered by the scheme as well; and the updating of how the salary limit is applied to all payments.

I broadly welcome the Bill but there are some changes I will be looking for. It is important that we protect workers. Some progress has been made. I acknowledge any time there is progress made but we have had situations where many workers have lost out. It has typically been low-paid workers. The Debenhams case was a classic case where there were over 1,000 workers but there have been many lesser-known cases where people have lost their jobs. The employer did not formerly wind up the business and did not formally cease trading, and company loyalty - people having given decades of work and service to a company - seemed to count for nothing. In some cases, the employers magically spring up under another company name within a very short period of time and seem to be flying it again, which is always disappointing, whereas the workers, who have worked for maybe two, three or four decades with a company, are left high and dry.

There is more work to be done in terms of workers rights. We need to get to a living wage in this country. We have a minimum wage but we need to go further on that. The cost of living here is very high compared to other EU countries. Auto-enrolment in pension schemes is being delayed again. We have a large group of workers who are heading for pension age for whom the only pension entitlements will be the State pension. An increasing number of those workers will be in private rented accommodation. They will be in a real fix because private rented accommodation will be totally unaffordable for pensioners. I have already dealt with a couple of cases where pensioners were living in private rented accommodation and the State pension alone did not cover it. In one case I dealt with, the person had an employment pension and the State pension. That individual struggled, but managed to keep going until being housed by the local authority, but many employees and former employees will not have that. It is important that the pension scheme be advanced.

The Minister mentioned that a trade union official could make the case on behalf of the workers but the majority of workers in the private sector are not represented by a trade union. The percentage of workers in the private sector that are represented by a trade union is at an all-time low compared to the 1970s and 1980s. We need to look at why this is case. There are a number of reasons. The fact is that many employers, albeit not all of them, are making it difficult for workers to join a trade union. Workers are targeted when they try to join a trade union. Some of them wind up losing their jobs. They wind up being bullied out and targeted and all sorts of tricks are played on them to make life difficult for them. We also have the promotion of a mé féin culture in society generally that we can all do these things on our own, but we cannot. They only strength that workers have is in combination. There is no legal right to collective bargaining and no legal right to join a trade union. Here is another example of it. While the Minister says in the scheme that a trade union can get involved on behalf of the workers, the majority of workers will not be represented by a trade union. I hope that changes, but imagine if hauliers, for example, were told that they could not combine and make their case collectively, which they do and I recognise is their right to do, or if chambers of commerce members were told that they could not combine into a chamber of commerce and make their case to the local authority or Government. Imagine telling members of IBEC, ISME or any of them that they had to come to us individually and we would not talk to their representatives. There would be a huge hullabaloo in this House and everywhere else over it, including across the media.

I welcome the Bill and I broadly support it, but the issue of trade union membership, which is in the programme for Government this time round, needs to be advanced. Workers, particularly low-paid workers, are at the bottom rung of the ladder and the only protection they have is in combination. It is a basic right. We are lagging way behind the rest of Europe with this. We must give workers the right to be represented by a trade union. As for this thing in Irish law - an Irish solution - that you can join a trade union, it is very difficult to join a trade union in many places of employment or companies in the State. It is little use being in a union if you do not have a right to be represented by that union. In the private sector, we must change the dial that where there are more than ten workers in a company, they have a right to combine together to be represented. Many good employers do that, and that is fine, but we need to look for that to be an absolute right in law in the State. I urge the Minister and the Department to go further with this.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I see we have skipped over the Government slot.

Time and again, workers in the State have been left high and dry when companies collapse, not only through sudden unforeseen insolvency but, all too often, through a deliberate and tactical decision to shut down, to strip assets, to walk away from obligations to staff, to hide assets in corporate mazes, to deny workers what they are owed. Workers, who in many cases gave decades of loyal and long service, are left without wages, without redundancy, without any recognition and without answers.

This Bill is a necessary response to a long-standing injustice. As my colleagues have already pointed out, Sinn Féin will support it on Second Stage. However, let us be honest; it should never have taken this long to come before us. In 2020, more than 1,000 Debenhams workers were thrown to the wolves when their employer folded, not in an unavoidable liquidation but through an orchestrated tactical wind-down aimed at avoiding the payment of collective redundancy. In Waterford, those workers, who were mostly women, occupied and picketed their store for almost 400 days and nights. They spent 400 days defending their rights while this State defended the liquidator and the company that wriggled off the hook for paying these women. Over 30 gardaí were deployed to forcibly remove workers at midnight so that stock could be cleared from a shuttered store. The stock, Debenhams and the liquidator were protected but the workers were not.

Will the Minister of State and this Government apologise? We now have recognition in that the Government has finally seen the light and is moving this legislation. Will the Minister of State apologise in this Chamber to the Debenhams workers for what happened to them on the State's watch?

The Bill accepts that informal or tactical insolvency must be treated as what it is, a way of avoiding paying what is owed. It creates a mechanism to deem employers insolvent and allows workers to access the insolvency payment scheme even if an employer has not gone through a formal court process. That is overdue and welcome. It also provides a path for historical claims, recognising that many have already lost out. However, legislation alone is not enough. Workers need more than a pathway to partial redress. They need a guarantee that their rights will come first and not last and that, when businesses go under, wages, redundancy and collective agreements will not be treated as disposable. That is what we in Sinn Féin stand for. We have stood with workers on the picket line. I have stood with the Debenhams workers in Waterford. We have also stood with the Clerys workers, the Tara Mines workers and many others. We are clear that workers should never again have to fight for what they are owed from the side of the street while company directors swan off, moving on with impunity.

As others have said in this Chamber, this is part of a wider issue. Across the community and voluntary sector, thousands of workers are delivering essential public services but are underpaid and undervalued. In many cases, they are denied collective bargaining or trade union recognition. School secretaries and caretakers are currently balloting for industrial action. Wage theft remains a live issue that is not legislated for. Union recognition is denied as a right across all sectors. That is why we need more than piecemeal progress and why Sinn Féin has led with action in the North through the good jobs Bill put forward by the Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, which Deputy Bennett has already mentioned. We need something like that. We need a step change when it comes to respecting workers' rights. We believe in a fair economy where workers are not the last to be paid or the first to be forgotten. As I have said, this Bill is a step in the right direction but the real test will be how this State treats workers when the next crisis hits.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille seo. Is maith an rud é go bhfuil sé ag iarraidh cearta oibrithe a threisiú sa tír seo. Le fada an lá, ní raibh cearta ná cumhacht ag oibrithe in aghaidh go leor comhlachtaí. Dá bharr, chaill go leor dóibh a gcuid tuarastail agus a gcuid slite beatha.

Aontú is committed to justice in the workplace and the right of all workers in Ireland, North and South, to fair pay for a fair day's work and fair living conditions. We affirm the dignity of work and the right of workers to equitable pay and working environments. Low pay and precarious work affect the lives of thousands of workers in this country. In many sectors, workers are treated without respect and have limited guarantees and paid hours. There always needs to be a balance between the rights of employers and the rights of workers to make sure that employers can build their businesses and make a profit and a livelihood for themselves and to ensure that workers are not exploited.

The stated objective of this Bill is "to amend the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act 1984 ... [to protect] employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer". This is a good objective. It is obviously a tragedy for employers who have struggled to keep a business afloat to lose that business but they also have a moral responsibility to trade in a manner that allows them to fulfil their responsibilities to their employees in the event of insolvency and that has not always been the case. Workers cannot be expected to give loyalty, effort and work to a company if that company does not protect those workers in return.

I welcome aspects of the Bill but one of the big difficulties I have is that there is not enough enforcement in this country. All the legislation will not make a whit of difference if the Government does not enforce it. In my experience, there has been a complete absence of enforcement in this country for many years. I first became a TD at a time when there was an avalanche of tactical insolvencies in this country. For many years after the crash, many businesses traded in a manner that did not allow them to meet their responsibilities to protect their employees or tactically separated resources from companies that were exposed to responsibilities to their staff. That was done in a large number of cases and the Government never sought to enforce anything. I refer to La Senza, Paris Bakery, Clerys and Debenhams, which was the latest example. That was facilitated by providing for a corporate veil. That corporate veil allowed companies to hold two separate legal identities for different aspects of their business in certain situations. Clerys was restructured in 2012. In 2015, the operations element of the company became insolvent while the resources element did not have a responsibility to look after the workers. This obviously left workers stuffed as regards their incomes but it also left the State on the hook to a great degree because the State had to step in to provide funds for workers. That is still a major difficulty in this country.

Another issue that has caused significant damage is the issue of bogus self-employment. A large number of people, especially in the period from ten years ago up to five years ago, were employed forcibly as self-employed people. This reduced employers' responsibilities in respect of sick pay, holiday pay and other supports. It also cost the State hundreds of millions of euro because the State lost PRSI and tax contributions as a result. The Government had an enforcement section within the Department but there was precious little enforcement ever. I would struggle to say whether any prosecutions came out of that whole period. Whatever legislation is put through here, we need to make sure there is strong enforcement and that companies are not allowed to separate resources from responsibilities. The idea that companies would close and then reappear very quickly, a number of years later, with the same people, the same board of directors and so on and carrying out practically the same work but having shed their responsibilities to workers is another three-card trick that should not be allowed.

Every worker in this country should have a constitutional and legal right to become a member of a trade union. Trade unions are a natural part of the balance between employers and employees. If that relationship is imbalanced and if either side has too much power, workers' rights will not be fulfilled and businesses will not be able to trade and operate properly. The fact that this right is denied to many workers is still a problem in the law.

Guím gach rath ar an mBille seo. Táimid ag iarraidh díriú isteach ar go leor athruithe ag Céim an Choiste agus níos déanaí ach is céim chun tosaigh é agus táimid ag iarraidh go mbeidh sé curtha i bhfeidhm go luath.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) (Amendment) Bill 2025 is crucial legislation that aims to safeguard workers in the event their employer goes under.

Independent Ireland firmly supports the principle that no worker should be left unpaid if a business ceases trading. The Bill addresses a significant gap in our law, highlighted by the 2018 Supreme Court ruling, and ensures that employees of small and medium enterprises, including sole traders, are protected. One of the key provisions of this Bill is the introduction of a new deemed insolvency process. This allows workers whose employers stop trading without formally liquidating to apply for their employer to be deemed insolvent. This unlocks access to the insolvency payment scheme providing unpaid wages, holiday pay, notice pay, and more. This process helps employees avoid being trapped in limbo due to legal technicalities. We need to remember too that employees are left devastated when they lose their jobs. They have rent or mortgages to pay as well as childcare and the usual costs of living. This is at least one way of protecting the employee.

The Bill also recognises sole traders in insolvency arrangements, amending the principal Act to include employers under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. This is a sensible and overdue change. Additionally, the Bill extends coverage to gender discrimination awards, allowing employees to claim compensation for Circuit Court gender discrimination awards in cases of employers' insolvency.

The Bill revises the salary cap application, responding to a Court of Appeal ruling by clarifying how the weekly pay cap of €600 is applied across different claim types. Independent Ireland has some concerns and cautions. We recognise that most small business owners want to treat their staff fairly and responsibly, yet the new process could lead to additional paperwork, form filling, and legal correspondence, especially under sections 4C and 4D. There is also a risk of increased employer costs as there is no clear commitment in the Bill that PRSI rates will not be raised in the future to cover increased payouts. We strongly caution against shifting the cost burden of this legislation on to the employers through higher payroll charges. The cost to a small business at the moment is detrimental. The VAT rate has not been reduced, which was promised in the lead up to the general election. The cost of running a small business has increased, with energy costs, insurance costs, and outdoor seating costs, so we need to ensure this does not end up being an added cost to small businesses down the line.

While the process provides a necessary safety net, it must be carefully monitored to ensure it is not open to vexatious or unverified claims. Employers must be given fair opportunity and time to challenge claims and supply evidence before a deemed insolvent status is applied. The administrative load on a family-run or sole trader business is another concern. The requirements for employers to interact with the Department, provide statutory declarations, and navigate a formal process may be difficult for non-corporate employers who lack HR or legal support. We would favour the introduction of simple, digital templates or low-cost advisory supports for small businesses facing claims. Financially the projected cost to the State is €570,500 per year in the scheme payments, plus a once-off cost of €14.92 million over five years. Administration costs are estimated at €185,000 annually under the Department of Social Protection. While Independent Ireland supports these investments in fairness and justice for workers we insist that they do not be used to justify a backdoor increase in PRSI or payroll taxes.

Independent Ireland supports the intentions and core mechanisms of the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) (Amendment) Bill 2025. We welcome the enhanced protection for workers, and especially those caught in informal insolvency situations. We urge caution to ensure that small businesses are not overwhelmed by the administrative demands, that costs are not unfairly passed on to employers via increased PRSI, and that the new system is monitored to prevent abuse.

We talk about sorting out the world but we also need to look at our own problems here. I met the Oireachtas broadcasting workers recently. They are being treated terribly unfairly here in the Dáil, a bit like the school secretaries. Basically, when it is holiday time here and the Oireachtas steps aside for a few months, these broadcasting workers do not get paid and have to sign on social welfare. This is a terribly unfair situation they find themselves in. All they are asking is for a bit of fair play. We need to look at this too. The Oireachtas only sits for about 100 days so outside of those days, they have no income and often must rely on social welfare. They receive no retainers, no pensions, no healthcare, and no income protections. Imagine that in here where legislation is made this is how we treat our own workers. This is something we need to look at. They work unsociable hours and during the run up to an election, they have no work for months. There are about 20 of these people working in the House. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, would look at that area as well. It is only fair that this is brought up as well as the school secretaries and the terrible situation they find themselves in during the summer.

Ken O'Flynn (Cork North-Central, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I rise today not merely to contribute to the passing of a technical amendment but also to underscore a broader truth the legislation reveals, which I am sure this Government would prefer was overlooked. At the heart of this Bill it seeks to strengthen the protection for employees where their employers become insolvent, and it finally gives fuller effect to the Directive 2008/94/EC. This directive was adopted by the European Parliament 17 years ago. Let us sit with that fact - it was 17 years ago. I put it to the Ceann Comhairle that the question before us is not just about insolvency arrangements but it is about the State's performance in regulatory delay and a creeping culture of legislation and legislative procrastination that has taken root under the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and Lowry Independents' stewardship.

When an employer fails, it is not just a simple event or a simple business event. Wages are unpaid, pensions are frozen, and entitlements are contested. In far too many cases, it is only through litigation or European pressure that the State grudgingly moves to close a gap it should have anticipated. That is not governance. It is reactionary. This Bill, belated but necessary, and although it may remain a patchwork response to an epidemic diffusion of bureaucratic breakdown, provides the deeming of insolvency in a case where the employer enters into an arrangement while technically not insolvent. This is welcome but it is an indictment of how long the workers in this country have been left exposed legally through ambiguity and administrative neglect.

While the amendment addresses for some the calculation of payment into the Social Insurance Fund, it does not address the deeper question of why we, in this country, are always legislating under pressure. Why are we, in this country, reactive instead of proactive? Where is the rigorous audit of State conducted in the delayed implementation of the European standard? As a centrist, we respect the values of efficiency and legal certainty and the respect of contract and obligation. On all three counts, this State has failed. This State has failed its workers and exposed itself repeatedly to legal challenge. We in Independent Ireland support any effort that protects and supports the rights of workers affected under employer insolvency but we also deem that administrative reforms are much needed in the State so that the Irish complacency with the European obligation is not something dragged reluctantly through this Government but is a matter of routine and professional governance and good governance.

This Bill is a good step forward but let us not flatter ourselves in this House. It is a step taken too late - 17 years too late to my mind - and is too small by a Government that works too slowly.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) (Amendment) Bill 2025 is a crucial piece of legislation. I will start off by looking at how Debenhams managed to pull the wool over the Government's and its employees eyes, and leave this country with no accountability. It set up a UK sister company and set up online. All its online business was imported into this country through a UK company, which showed in the books of Debenhams that it was dropping and dropping. That was not only done by Debenhams. It was done here by different companies.

Even in the creamery sector, there are companies such as Dairygold and others that tried to downsize and close down the creameries. They proceeded to go online in order that farmers could book their stuff online. However, if the farmer went to the local creamery and asked for five or ten tonnes of fertiliser, the creamery booked that online but it did not go through the business in that area. It went through an online portal which showed the books in that creamery to be less viable. We need to make sure this type of thing cannot happen here. We saw what Debenhams did here. Other major stakeholders in this country have done something similar. If we are to protect workers, we need to make sure that if a person orders something online from a local company, it goes into the local company's books and does not show up in a sister company and thereby undermine the company in the local area. We need to protect local companies and make sure workers are protected.

I was in the Seanad a few minutes ago where the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, was speaking. I brought to his attention the need to protect SMEs when I was first elected. Independent Ireland has been calling for the protection of SMEs since the start. The Minister has said that any person who employs someone in an SME should be looked at. While SMEs may not contribute as many benefits as the multinational companies, they are still wanted in this country in order that the entire country works. It has taken four or five years for the Government to see that. Why does Independent Ireland have such an issue with this? As an employer, I see it myself. In the hospitality sector, I see employers who are trying to keep people going. What we are seeing, however, is legislation being passed all the time and tax and VAT rates being changed. That only changes one thing, namely, the cost of opening the doors. It increases wage costs, which is good, but the problem is that the increased wage does not go any further because the cost of everything people are buying has been inflated.

The Government needs to look at the model it is using. It is one thing to increase the minimum wage and put extra money in people's pockets, but if it does not get a person anything extra, it is not an increase but an inflationary cost, which costs the companies to keep their doors open. The only person who gets more out of inflation is the Government. If we look at the watchdog over Government spending we see the bike shed outside. I had a visitor from a family resource centre with me a few minutes ago. The person said if the centre spends €500, it has to first get three quotes. The Government can build a bike shed for €336,000 and it is brushed under the carpet with no accountability, but a family resource centre has to get three quotes to spend €500. That is not transparent. If the Government is leading with this, it should lead by example. If it is good enough for an employer and an employee, it has to be good enough for the Government to work within the same regulations.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It should be noted that the Government benches are empty. For months, this House had a huge issue with speaking rights. I heard Government TDs, spokespersons and senior officials say on radio and television that they did not have speaking time and were being discriminated against. It is funny that when we are discussing workers' rights-----

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would appreciate it if the Deputy kept his contribution relevant to the Bill.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but this should be noted.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a Government Bill.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy-----

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Where are those who cried crocodile tears now?

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Limerick is standing with Cork.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Committees have been set up. People are adjusting.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Time was provided for Government TDs. They should have taken it.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that but the Deputy must move on to the debate.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am proud to stand here to discuss and remember what the Debenhams workers went through under this Government. I know people will say this is a new Government but Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael were in the last Government. The Debenhams workers stood up for their rights for 406 days. Government TDs stood in the picket lines with them. I was there and those TDs spoke about what they were going to do. That went on for 406 days. Then the Garda was brought in to enforce the removal of stock. It was absolutely shameful. I talked to gardaí who did not want to be there and wanted to stand with the workers. That was the craziness of the situation; the gardaí wanted to be on the picket line with the workers because they know these people. They come from the same communities. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael allowed that to happen and allowed it to be enforced.

Here we are with legislation. Looking back, workers stood up when the Government failed to stand up. What happened to the Debenhams workers was nothing short of a disgrace. They were a group of low-paid workers, mainly women, who had to stand up and fight because the Government had failed for years to bring forward legislation to protect them. When it came to workers' rights, everyone else was ahead of them. What Debenhams did was corruption. It knew what it was doing. It stripped the Irish stores of their assets. The workers proved this. They went to KPMG with documentation and they went to court, but because of our legal system and the lack of legislation, they were sold down the river. Looking at workers' rights, I think of people such as Mary Manning, Joanne Delaney, Rosie Hackett and Carol Ann Bridgeman, Irish women who for generations led the way on workers' rights and for trade unionists and the right to stand up and fight when injustice is served.

It has taken this Government four years to bring this legislation forward. If Fine Gael had listened to the Supreme Court in 2018 when it found that Irish law did not adequately address informal insolvency, the Debenhams workers would have been saved from the pickets and the stress and trauma they experienced. I remember this happened during Covid. I remember being on Patrick Street and in Mahon Point, where we had to be 2 m apart. For 406 days, when the country was going through the Covid emergency, these workers were denied their rights. There should be recognition of what those workers have done.

Carol Nolan (Offaly, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the debate we are having on this very important matter. Clearly, there is a need to rectify the deficits in law with respect to insolvencies and the protections offered to employees. Indeed, that need is becoming increasingly urgent. We know from reporting on this matter by Credit Connect in January that business insolvencies in Ireland hit the highest level in six years, based on research conducted by PwC. That report also specifically highlighted the fact that insolvencies increased by 16%, although they came in below expectations as the fourth quarter saw a drop-off in company collapses. That said, the total figure for 2024 was 852, which was, as noted, below PwC's forecast that insolvency numbers would breach the 900 mark last year. Most alarmingly, however, the report found the retail and hospitality sectors accounted for 40% of all insolvencies. This collapse and the folding of such businesses is an issue I have been highlighting for some time with respect to my constituency of Offaly. In fact, last year, I engaged with then Minister for Finance, Michael McGrath, urging him to adopt maximum flexibility with respect to 1,530 businesses in what was then the Laois-Offaly constituency which had liabilities of €23 million warehoused as part of the tax debt warehousing scheme introduced for businesses following the pandemic. I pointed out at the time that were there 755 businesses in Offaly with tax debts of €11 million, while in Laois there were 775 businesses with €12 million in debt currently being warehoused.

This presented a clear and undeniable case for granting increased latitude to businesses around repayments, given the ongoing nightmare of closure announcements that were falling like confetti when it came to restaurants, cafes and the hospitality sector.

This problem has by no means disappeared. In light of the heightened volatility around tariffs and the EU response to the US, we are probably facing into a period of rapid growth in insolvencies. On the impact on hospitality, I highlight the statement issued by the Restaurants Association of Ireland, RAI, earlier this month in which it referred to the fact that 150 restaurants closed in the first quarter of 2025 due to soaring business costs. This data also revealed the mounting financial pressures restaurants and hospitality businesses right across this State are facing. According to the RAI, the pressure on the sector continues to result in closures, with 65% of respondents reporting a decline in financial performance in 2024 in comparison with previous years. Business owners identified wage increases and escalating operating costs as the most pressing challenges, with many restaurants forced to reduce the number of staff, raise menu prices and seriously question their long-term viability. The survey revealed that payroll costs now account for 39% of turnover. This is a significant increase from just under 32% in 2022. Food costs have also surged, rising from 28% to over 34% of turnover, while insurance and utility bills have climbed by 32.89% and 25.81%, respectively, over the same period. Employment trends reflect the strain, with full-time staff levels dropping by 10% and part-time roles by 7% since 2022.

This Bill is definitely a step in the right direction. However, my main point is that our first priority should be about putting structures and supports in place, be it be through the tax or VAT code, to prevent further insolvencies. I hope the VAT rate will be reduced to 9% for restaurants and hair salons, which are also impacted. Workers need access to their rightfully earned wages if a business becomes insolvent. No one could disagree with that as a fundamental principle.

We must also ensure far more robust protections in line with the Supreme Court ruling in December 2018 that Article 2 of the 2008 EU directive was not correctly transposed.

We must do more in terms of reducing the massive tax and VAT debt that far too many businesses are labouring and, in some cases, collapsing under. This is something we can control. We should respond with all the latitude and constructive engagement we can when it comes to achieving the goal of creating an environment in which local and regional businesses cannot just survive but in which they can thrive and in which jobs are protected. I say this because if employers and businesses are not protected, then obviously this will lead to job losses. I am particularly concerned about this happening in County Offaly, where we have seen far too many small businesses, especially restaurants and cafes, close their doors recently. I hope more supports will be given in the forthcoming budget. Indeed, I am calling for this to happen and for the VAT rate be reduced to 9% for our restaurants, cafes and hair salons.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also welcome this legislation. I hope it would be of interest to Deputy Gould in the context of the lecture he was giving people here.

I wish to declare that I am a part of a company that employs up to 25 people. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle is well aware of this aspect, particularly as she was self-employed for years. Many small businesspeople are ag déanamh a ndícheall i gcónaí. They are doing their very best to keep the doors open.

This legislation is welcome, but, from an employer's perspective, I have to highlight the amount of legislation, changes and EU directives that have come about in the past 20 years. When I started in business a daichead bliain ó shin, actually it is 41 years, in 1982 or 1983, it was simple enough at that time. We did our books, had our account and everything else. Now, I everything must be right. I am not saying I want shortcuts, because I do not. For every five employees that people have now, you would need to have a secretary to deal with all the paperwork in light of the reams of legislation involved. It is impossible to understand these requirements without having a quasi-legal insight or a draft of the legislation. It is not possible to keep up with it. It is very onerous, and this is turning many people off being self-employed. People who are self-employed are walking away. I have seen people who have left and gone to Canada and Australia. The cost of living and of houses are both high over there too, but they can run a business, have employees and abide by the relevant legislation. They are able to make a profit and come home here and try to set up a business. We want to encourage this too. The bureaucracy here is crazy.

I refer to what happened to the Debenhams workers and the staff of some of the bigger co-ops. In my case, the local co-op started out as south Tipperary farmers' small co-ops. It became Avonmore, then Glanbia and is now Tirlán. I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will be well aware of this in her area too. It is now a huge company. There is also Kerry Group, and a couple of others. I was forever praising the likes of the Mullinahone co-op and the Tipperary co-op, now Arrabawn Tipperary co-op. The Tipperary co-op ran into difficulties recently and had to amalgamate. Its workers are being displaced due to that amalgamation. I salute the board members of the co-op down through the decades who held the reins tightly. The co-op got in these whiz kids, however, and they went mad with borrowing. They got themselves into major trouble. The end of it is that the co-op has lost its identity. Tipperary co-op is no more, with the resulting impact on 30 or 40 employees in a town in an area of west County Tipperary that has been ravaged by unemployment and a lack of investment.

Deputy Nolan referred to several reports by PwC and others. No matter what goes on for this Government, the only answer it seems to have is to get PwC or some of the other big finance houses involved. There are only a couple of them and they have tentacles in everything. We had them as well. I remember when these companies gave a clear bill of health to the banks in 2007 and 2008 before the crash. There is a kind of a cosy circle and arrangement whereby these people are wheeled in all the time to give advice. Whatever advice you want to get, they will give it. Many good employees are working in those companies too, and young graduates. As I said, however, they have questions to answer too about the crash, its aftermath and the continuing situation in our country.

Employees must be protected. The Ceann Comhairle will know about and is very interested in the area of self-employment and employing people. It is a two-way street. If you treat your employees with dignity, respect and good manners, then you will have positive employer-employee relationships. I refer as well to paying the proper rates of PRSI and the proper insurance schemes and whatever else for them, and also including health and safety. All the other legislation must be looked at too.

We then have the big companies that have bogus self-employed people. I met a legion of RTÉ officials leaving the complex. There were about ten or 12 of them. They were shaking hands and saying they missed me at the committee meeting earlier. I am not on that committee any more. Anyway, I refer to the number of bogus self-employed people in RTÉ. It was with the knowledge of Ministers for at least a decade and a half, and that of the Department of Finance and the Department of employment. Strange happenings were going on out there and are still going on out there. There have also been court cases and settlements have been made. Who pays for these settlements? It is taxpayers who are funding RTÉ.

Deputy Nolan spoke about the ordinary punter and the small businesses, and keeping na doirse oscailt sna siopaí, óstáin and the restaurants and everyplace else. They must be supported. It is vital that they are supported. One way of supporting them would be to give them a level playing field and some space and a bit of encouragement. There are organisations like the National Employment Rights Authority, NERA. I have said countless times in this House what I think about NERA.

Its name should be changed to a support organisation for employers. They walk in flashing the card at a minute past midnight insisting on a different wage structure per hour for employees. This has happened to businesses in my county and every other county. They should be in during the day asking the management team, "How can we help you?"

These are tough times for those in business. I see that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has taken over in the Chair. As a self-employed businessman, he understands this intimately. These are tough times. There are legions of officials - columns of them - coming along with different identification and flashing badges at people when they might be at their lowest. They might be missing employees through sickness or something. They might have a funeral group coming into a hotel or something else might have happened. These people are on travel expenses, driving around the country. NERA now has five different offices in various regions.

As I said, these people need to be reined in and asked chun cabhrú leis na gnóthaí beaga, to help the businesses. I am not saying anyone should be breaking the law in this area, but they should be there to help and support these businesses, not all the time waving the big stick and flashing the card. If you go in and say a word to them and make a complaint, you are in another situation.

I want to turn to Sinn Féin and Deputy Gould, with the permission of the Chair. You were not here, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Deputy Gould was lecturing people for not being here. I do not see many Sinn Féin people here either. He does not understand - the Ceann Comhairle had to point it out to him - that there are committees sitting and there are lots of side meetings going on. Those in Sinn Féin have the answer to everything but can do nothing. They were missing in action during the five years of the previous Government. They went into hiding and paid the price for that in the general election. Their behaviour here is that they joined in with other groups - left, left and more left.

Then there are those in the so-called know-everything party, Independent Ireland. It is a wonder that they do not have the Saor Éire flag flying over them as well. They tried to deny us speaking rights. Deputy Nolan, who can speak for herself, and I are Independents. We are not in any group. They wanted to muzzle us. They do not like what we say because we tell the truth.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Independent what?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Independent independent.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Independent government.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are not in government.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, you are.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The problem with these lads and ladies is that they are not fit for government, full stop. They have proven that in the North. They have not yet shaken off the legacy of bullying, intimidation, kneecapping and everything else.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should stick to the topic.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We saw what happened last night in the Chamber when they had a Gallery full of people here to organise a ruckus with flags and banners. I said to the Head Usher today that the Sinn Féin TD who signed those people who misbehaved in last night should be restricted from having visitors here again.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let us just deal with the legislation.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Bill.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am, but I am addressing Deputy Gould.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The protection of employees and workers' rights.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I might as well address the so-called freedom fighters of Independent Ireland. A Deputy brought an outside person into this House with a tripod and camera. That person made appalling videos and denigrated the excellent staff of this House in the restaurant and the excellent cuisine on offer there.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy-----

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, it is important to put this on the record.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is, but I want the Deputy to stick to the subject of the debate.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call on Deputy O'Flynn to apologise. He does not know anything about business. The restaurant here is a business and many people are employed there as well as in the bar. There are also the staff of the House, including the ushers. To denigrate this House, its staff, its workers and its cuisine-----

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept all of that, but this is not the place for that conversation. We are debating the legislation.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is the problem with this House.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Deputy to stick to the legislation.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, I am doing my best to stick to it.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is making a bad job of it.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand the legislation, and I am an employer. For a political party to be the answer to everything, cause ruckuses and disturbances like that, it should have to pay the price, otherwise we would have bedlam in this House. If I bring in visitors, I am responsible for them, but Sinn Féin Members seem to have their own law. They decided after they lost the election to sulk, obstruct this House and not do any business here for months. Nothing was done, as you know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, in the interests of so-called I do not know what.

The legislation is needed, but we must have some kind of impact analysis which we seldom have here on any legislation. Where legislation is being bedded in, give it a year. All legislation should have some kind of reassessment but very little has. We implement legislation, and it is left there on the books. Whether it is good, bad or indifferent, it is left to plough on and companies, small businesses especially, are trying to continue to trade under that legislation without any kind of impact analysis of the possible downsides to it. In fairness, the drafters of such legislation will not be able to see the all the different impacts it might have. There should be some kind of system where we can go back and amend it or assess it at least with a view to amending it after 12 months.

Today, the Seanad is dealing with a very reasonable Bill introduced by Malcolm Noonan to do something with vacant properties, many of them shops and small businesses that were forced to close, including in the Minister of State's county of Mayo. It would allow somebody, who wants to invest in that property to do it up as living accommodation, hopefully with a small shop or a mixture of both, to go into a pre-meeting with a planner. That needs to be taken so that we are not waiting three or four years for every obstacle in the book. That is good legislation brought in by Senator Noonan. The Government moved an amendment to delay it for a year. Why would it do that in the middle of a housing crisis? At a conservative estimate, there are probably 10,000 of these properties. We have a fierce housing crisis and we are supposed to be throwing the book at it with all hands on deck. However, the Government is going to delay the legislation before us for 12 months. Why? We need those supports.

Small businesses need those supports, and the employees need this legislation. I am not anti-employee. I would not have a business without my employees. I pay tribute to them. Most businesses, certainly small businesses, are the same and have good relationships. However, big businesses - those in the equine business and the big co-ops - have board meetings on yachts at sea, not yachts but cruise liners. They have lost touch with the ordinary people. They often have bogus employees and have powerful ways of dealing with any issues that arise for them.

Tá mé críochnaithe, but it galls me to sit here and listen to a lecture from Deputy Gould and his Sinn Féin colleagues, none of whom, I would say, ever employed anybody in their lives. However, they are good at threatening and bullying people all right.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to this considered debate. I would like to respond to some of the matters raised.

Deputy Guirke asked about what is currently being done to support workers where a company is an insolvency. The State has always been to the fore in providing a safety net for employees in the event that their employer enters insolvency. Where the employer is unable to pay, the State covers eligible employees' statutory redundancy payment from the Social Insurance Fund. Where an employer is legally insolvent, the State covers pay-related entitlements, such as arrears of wages, minimum notice and employment rights awards also through the Social Insurance Fund. In addition, under company law, employees' outstanding pay-related entitlements are given preferential creditor status in a liquidation. Employees also have rights to information and participation as creditors.

Some Deputies spoke about the time it has taken for this Bill to come before the House. The matter was raised by Deputies Conway-Walsh and O'Flynn. This is legislation that Government is prioritising on the basis that it is complex but also it is a cross-cutting issue. The issues raised in the Supreme Court judgment required careful analysis and significant legal advice. That time has been put to good use. We have worked through many issues and developed a workable policy solution. Now we believe that not only do we have workable solution, but its implementation is practical. We believe that this will vindicate the directive-based rights of employees who have previously been unable to access them. We are determined to focus on making it easy to access the process. Employees should not be required to have legal representation.

I was asked whether an application may be made where the employee has deceased.

A person may apply on behalf of that employee, including on behalf of his or her estate. We also had questions raised by Deputy Lawlor regarding the historical cases. Our initial proposal was that historical cases in instances of two years could apply. However, we subsequently decided to change this to allow applications in exceptional circumstances for another two years, which gives a total of four years to apply. This Bill has catered to some of the needs with regard to historical events.

Deputy Gibney also raised the issue of how the requirement to serve notice on employers only applies to future claims deemed insolvent. In recognition of the challenge in tracking down employees from many years ago, this does not apply for historical cases. I am very happy to clarify this.

Deputies Conor D. McGuinness, O'Donoghue and Gould raised issues around the Debenhams workers. To clarify, this Bill is totally separate from the issues that were raised as part of the Debenhams case. This was already a recognised insolvency and liquidation. The Government has always sought to ensure that the concerns of the Debenhams workers were heard. The State's welfare employment and training services responded to the needs but also provided that safety net through the Social Insurance Fund for employees to ensure they received their statutory redundancy. These rights have been honoured and, indeed, in this case, the State honoured the Debenhams workers at a cost of over €13 million.

Deputies Nolan and McGrath raised issues and challenges around small businesses and the importance of trying to keep businesses supported. It is a key priority of this Government. Through the programme for Government, we have a very pro-business, pro-enterprise focus. Within our Department, we are now setting up the small business unit and within that, we will have the cost of doing business advisory forum. That will be very much focused on how we can support businesses with increased labour costs, regulatory burdens and energy costs. We want to ensure that businesses can remain viable while striking that balance with the challenges they face. Government did approve a memo recently around competitiveness and productivity. There are some short-term, medium-term and long-term challenges that we need to address. We have made changes with regard to an incremental increase to the living wage while protecting workers, and we will continue to protect workers around the minimum wage. We await the Low Pay Commission's report in July. However, we have never, ever refused any recommendation previously. We have always honoured employees because we certainly value fair pay for workers. We will continue to do that. While accepting Deputy Nolan's issues with regard to vulnerable businesses within hospitality, food services and retail, it is about striking the balance between protecting the business while ensuring that livelihoods are also protected.

We also want to be very clear with regard to real insolvencies. It is important to note that among the public and in the media, there is much commentary on corporate insolvencies or liquidations, restructuring and closures, and this often gives rise to conflicting figures. Our Department is currently working on analysis of closures in the hospitality sector and is very much focused on ensuring the data is fully accurate in its publication.

I refer to the Bill itself and the positive impact it will certainly make. It will ensure that a new cohort of workers is protected under the insolvency payments scheme. The Bill will provide for a new statutory process for an employee to seek to have his or her employer deemed insolvent. My officials have worked carefully to ensure this process is as streamlined as possible. The Bill is necessarily complex, but the aim is to ensure the process it underpins will not be. We have been very careful to ensure that workers are not burdened with an onerous process to navigate. The customer journey should enable workers to vindicate their rights through a clear and easy to understand pathway. We have balanced this with safeguards for employers who may still be trading and should not be deemed insolvent. We have also ensured that the system is robust to ensure taxpayers' money is protected. While the Bill itself is quite technical, its intention is clear, and it will require further enhanced protection for employees where their employers become or are deemed insolvent.