2026-02-18

Only one amendment was tabled for Report Stage, by Deputies Ruth Coppinger, Richard Boyd Barrett, and Paul Murphy. That amendment has been ruled out of order on the grounds of non-relevance to the provisions of the Bill and it does not arise out of Committee Stage proceedings. Accordingly, there are no amendments on Report Stage.

As there are no amendments tabled for Report Stage that are in order, we now proceed to Fifth Stage. I welcome the Minister to the House.

I am indicating to speak.

On the question?

I want to speak on the general Bill and the reason I tabled an amendment.

Yes.

I welcome the Bill in that it seeks to transpose a worker's rights into law. It is something that will assist workers and we can support it. It was, however, an opportunity to go much further. The fact that this right was not transposed into law in the first place speaks volumes about the priority that successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments have given to workers facing insolvency. A court case had to be taken for the Government to bring this in. The Bill should have been an opportunity to bring in legislation that would protect workers in other situations such as that faced by the Debenhams workers. I am sure that everybody here knows the battle that was waged by those workers. During the pandemic they were laid off by their employer. An opportunist liquidation happened using the pandemic as an opportune time. They were, it must be said, also let down by their trade union. They had to organise themselves. They were let down by the Government too. It could have done more to keep those jobs. Many of those stores were extremely profitable, including the one in Blanchardstown. The Government could have fought might and main to see that those workers either got their owed redundancy and, if not, that the laws were changed in order that this would never happen to any other group of workers again. Unfortunately, that opportunity was not taken. We had Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and other political parties calling down to the picket lines at those times, I remember, to get their pictures taken with local workers, but they have never done anything to change the situation. It happened to the Clerys workers, has happened to many others since and will continue in cases of liquidation and insolvency. Why did the Government not take this opportunity? The Debenhams Bill, for example, which was on Committee Stage in the previous Dáil, is effectively frozen. It would ensure preferential creditor status for workers in any liquidation. As well as recognising collective agreements in relation to redundancy, it would treat redundancy payments as a debt that would be paid out first, rather than at the very end of the process. Will the Minister commit to moving that Bill forward? It is there and could be moved. He could amend it in whatever way he saw fit on the next Stage. The workers are keenly watching this. They would love to have a legacy arising from the battle they waged for 400 days. They have had films made about their strike and their situation. The redundancy payments are important but losing a job is a massive financial upset for people. Workers need a buffer to help them adjust and avoid having to immediately worry about bills. The Government brought forward legislation post Debenhams; however, it was a pale reflection of what was needed and demanded by the workers. It did nothing to bring forward the preferential creditor status and did nothing to oblige companies to engage with workers in good faith - something that did not happen for the Debenhams workers. The fines for breaching the legislative limits around consultation are token. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions called for fines of €250,000. The Government legislation did not expand the information provided to employees either, which was cited in subsequent cases the workers took. There was no opening up of the books if a company pleaded it was in difficulty. The payments made under the Social Insurance Fund are often not enough. It is capped at low levels and is part of a regime of minimal social insurance. A number of people who were in power at the time, and who still are, commented. Leo Varadkar said the Debenhams staff were treated "very badly". Damien English said he wished he could, and knew the Taoiseach and Tánaiste wished they could, do more for the Debenhams workers. Micheál Martin, who is actually the Taoiseach, said Debenhams should do the right thing by its workers and pay the redundancy agreed and that the then Government would do everything it could within the law to support the workers and provide resources to enable workers to secure their rights, entitlements and future employment. He said the treatment of Debenhams workers was "shabby, shoddy and unacceptable". Unfortunately, other workers can still face exactly the same situation. While it is welcome that a partial move is being made for workers in certain situations, we need to protect workers who worked for decades, in those cases, paid into unions, paid huge amounts of tax and all sorts. They did everything right and were treated abysmally by multinational companies who would not even engage with them. The Government failed them badly as well. Unfortunately, it has missed yet another chance with this Bill.

I thank the Deputies for the passage of the Bill and the discussions on Committee Stage, which I took and which were robust. The Bill aims to further support workers in the event of employer insolvency, which is an important aspect, and to expand the insolvency payment scheme to include employees of employers who cease trading without formally winding up the business, which is the critical point. The technical nature of the Bill really just achieves that. My officials have been working hard to ensure workers who need to avail of these expanded protections can navigate the new processes with support and guidance. The Bill is a positive step for workers and will ensure the State can protect the most vulnerable. I thank Deputies for their engagement and look forward to taking the Bill through the Seanad.

Workers have often been left vulnerable, especially in times of crisis. When a business becomes insolvent, it is not just about profits or corporate failure; workers are thrown into turmoil. For decades, workers, particularly the lowest paid and most vulnerable among them, have called for support and fairness from the Government. Time and 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. I heard of a case last week where employees showed up for work to find the business they work at closed, with the employer uncontactable. These workers do not know where they stand now and are due wages, holiday pay and fair redundancy payments. They lost their jobs, their livelihoods and their dignity when their employer closed the business and did not have the respect to update them. What is often overlooked is 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, 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 deserve as workers. Time and again, Sinn Féin has stood shoulder to shoulder with them, advocating, fighting and demanding that their voices be heard. We 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 tactics such as tactical liquidations have been used to avoid obligations to workers. It is also worth noting what the Fastway workers are going through currently. Franchise holders that operated under the name of Fastway are being screwed. Many of them had vans on finance, employees working for them and huge overheads. They are being poorly treated and they do not know where they stand as legislation offers little or no support for them. Legislation also does very little and offers no protections for employees of subcontractors or outsourced workers, such as the case involving the Covalen staff. We acknowledge the Bill is about ensuring that, even if a business ceases trading informally and 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 those who have worked hard, often in low-paid jobs, are not left to suffer alone when their employer walks away. Fairness should never be limited by outdated legal technicalities. The Bill extends protections to the most vulnerable, including sole traders and those facing gender discrimination. We have always believed that legislation must prioritise workers' rights, especially during their most vulnerable moments when a company is in insolvency. Insolvency is very often driven by rising costs, costs that the Government has failed to address adequately, such as high gas and electricity prices. This Bill promises that, when businesses shut up shop, employees are not forgotten about and ensures they do not have to bear the burden alone. That is why we welcome the Bill, but we remain steadfast that workers' rights must be strengthened at all times.

Does the Minister want to come back in? No. The question now is that the Bill-----

I asked a question of the Minister. Out of courtesy, given workers and people ask what the Minister replied when I ask him a question, is there any chance he could actually answer it?

I have addressed the Bill.

I asked a question about whether he would allow a moving forward-----

I have addressed the Bill.

-----of the protection of workers.

Thank you, Deputy Coppinger. Please resume your seat.

Does the Ceann Comhairle think that is okay?

I cannot demand an answer. Thank you, Deputy.

I do not think it is okay.

You are out of order even asking that question.

It is so ignorant.

You know that my role is to be impartial and chair the debate. Thank you, Deputy.

It is typical of the Michael O'Leary type that the Minister is, I have to say.