Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Feb 2022

Vol. 1017 No. 4

Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Bill 2022: Second Stage

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

I am very pleased to introduce the Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Bill today. The Tánaiste was very anxious that we get the legislation in place. I thank all involved in the Labour Employer Economic Forum, LEEF, process who have been working on it for the last year and everyone who was involved in my Department and in the Department of Social Protection. I want to single out Ms Clare Dunne, an assistant secretary general who retired before Christmas. She was instrumental in making sure this legislation and many other pieces of legislation were brought through the Houses. I want to recognise her work and retirement. I want to thank Dara Breathnach for her assistance here today. I am conscious that many colleagues across the House will have raised this as an issue that needed to be dealt with in a timely manner. The Bill reflects the concerns that most people have raised with us in the last year.

This short and technical Bill will resolve an issue arising for some employees who were laid off during the period of greatest Covid-19 related restrictions or who may be laid off over the next three-year period. The Tánaiste was clear that this had to be dealt with clearly and this Bill sets out to do that.

This Government has provided an extensive range of supports for businesses and employees affected by sometimes prolonged closures during the pandemic. We have made every effort, with significant cross-party support, to assist workers and employers. We have provided the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, to workers who were laid off. We have supported businesses in maintaining the employer-employee relationship, first through the TWSS and then the EWSS. When restrictions have eased and businesses have reopened, we have supported them by providing extensive sector-specific guidance and reopening grants. While we all recognise that these supports go a long way to help maintain businesses and jobs we recognise that no matter what supports we put in place, they cannot replace all the lost revenue and all the grief and hassle that businesses and employees have gone through over the last two years. I want to recognise again the efforts by all those in the work environment, employers and employees, who went to great lengths to try to provide services and reach their customers and maintain business as much as they possibly could during the Covid pandemic and who followed all the procedures set out by the Government and the Department of Health in trying to protect themselves, their employees and their customers from the virus. That came at a great cost to businesses and I want to recognise that.

Despite a difficult few weeks after the arrival of the omicron variant, the results are clear. Many sectors of the economy have bounced back remarkably quickly. Our public finances are in a far better position than we could have reasonably expected last summer, although they are still under pressure and we have had high costs to deal with Covid. However, conditions are certainly improving. Government supports have played their part, but most of all this is a credit to the resilience of businesses and workers, especially in our domestic SME sector. Omicron was a setback. The number of people in receipt of PUP increased from 55,000 at the end November, to almost 67,000 in early January. This was an inevitable result of the new precautions to reduce the spread of omicron when the scientific information was not available to tell us how serious it would be. However, we should put this in context. The highest-ever number of people on PUP was more than 600,000 back in May 2020. The highest number last year, back in February, was more than 486,000. The reduction in PUP claimants late last year was not just because the payment level was being tapered off but was mainly because of people returning to employment. The most recent figures available show that in quarter 3 of last year we had the largest number of people ever in employment, at more than 2.47 million people. As we move in the coming days and weeks to ease the omicron precautions and back towards full reopening, we have good reason to be optimistic for recovery.

However, we acknowledge that the recovery will not be universal and sustained over all businesses in all sectors. Some businesses will not resume with their previous capacity. Some may fail entirely. Some of this is simply a normal part of the economic cycle but some will be the result of the fall-out from Covid over the past two years. Whether it happens as part of the normal economic cycle or because of the pandemic, business downsizing or closure usually leads to redundancies. This takes me to the point of this Bill.

As it stands, a person who qualifies for redundancy under the Redundancy Payments Acts is generally entitled to two weeks' pay per year of service, plus a week extra. This statutory entitlement is capped at pay up to €600 per week. This is known as statutory redundancy, and is the minimum owed to the employee by the employer. Periods spent on short time imposed by the employer are counted as normal service for these purposes, and do not reduce the amount owed to the employee. However, and here is why this Bill is needed, periods spent on lay-off within the final three years of an employee’s service do not count as reckonable service for the purposes of statutory redundancy payments. This means that a person who was laid off because of the essential Covid-19 related restrictions will not have that period counted as reckonable service if they are made redundant within three years of the end of the emergency period. This Bill addresses that issue. It strikes a careful balance. We could simply deem the period to be reckonable service, but that would make the employer liable for the redundancy payment in the first instance. That would not be fair, as the Covid restrictions were completely outside employers’ control. We have had legal advice that explained that not only was it unfair, it would not be correct legally either. Furthermore, making an employer liable could potentially risk their viability. Everyone across the Houses wants to support businesses to support those jobs, not jeopardise them. If we do not support businesses and put too much pressure on them, the knock-on effect can be job losses. Instead, we provide for a payment by the State to the employee. This will be known as the Covid-19 related lay-off payment. The payment will cover the difference between the statutory redundancy payment due to the employee, and the amount to which they would have been entitled had they not been laid off due to public health restrictions during the emergency period. The "emergency period" is the period from 13 March 2020 to 30 September 2021, inclusive. This is the period during which restrictions were at their greatest.

Employees were also restricted from invoking their normal right to trigger a redundancy to help preserve the employer-employee relationship. That right was restored from 1 October 2021. The criteria for accessing the Covid-19-related lay-off payment will be first, that the employee qualifies for redundancy; second, that the employee was laid off due to Covid-19 restrictions for a period or periods between 13 March 2020 and 30 September 2021; and finally, that the employee is made redundant before 30 September 2024.

There is an in-built sunset clause in the legislation by virtue of the fact that only periods of lay-off in the final three years of employment are disregarded as reckonable service. That is why the date of 30 September 2024 has been selected.

The Department of Social Protection will administer the payment scheme on my Department’s behalf, as the funds will be coming through the Social Insurance Fund. I want to thank the officials in both Departments for their work on this over the last 18 months or so and all those who fed into the conversation. I recognise that employers and unions were anxious that this was resolved. In the early stages of restrictions, when section 12A kicked in, no one expected that the emergency would continue for as long as it did. We probably all assumed that it would be temporary and that it would not arise as an issue.

They are at an advanced stage in the development and resourcing of the necessary systems. I would like to take the opportunity to thank them and the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, for the tremendous work they have put into this. They hope to have that system up and running in quarter 2 so that they can administer payments from there. The scheme will be employer-led in the first instance. This should not be onerous for them as many employers are already very familiar with Department of Social Protection processes. There will also be provision for an employee to make direct application if, for whatever reason, their employer fails or refuses to do so. This includes, for example, where an employer may already have closed permanently. There have been some casualties over the last two years already from the pandemic.

We expect that payments should be able to commence in the first half of this year, after the passage and commencement of this Bill. It is very difficult to say what the costs of this will be, as they will be demand driven. We will not see the full picture until September 2024. Hopefully, the numbers will be much less than any of us would have feared at the start.

As I noted at the outset, our businesses and employees have shown themselves to be remarkably resilient in the face of a very challenging period. We have many reasons for optimism that suggest the costs should be manageable.

Initial funding of €10 million has been allocated for 2022. However, the costs will be demand-driven, and funding will be available to match the drawdown. The Department of Social Protection and my Department will monitor the position carefully as applications come in.

This Bill is short and technical but it will make a clear and positive difference to people's lives. It acknowledges and compensates for reckonable service that employees have been unable to accrue due to pandemic closures. It protects businesses from additional costs as they strive to regain their footing in a still-difficult environment. It is business and worker friendly and recognises the tremendous impact of Covid-19 restrictions on everybody concerned.

I intend to amend the Bill on Committee Stage or Report Stage to correct a cross-referencing error in the recently enacted Companies (Corporate Enforcement Authority) Act 2021. The Government will be asked to agree to that amendment. The relevant provision has not yet been commenced. I would like to use the early opportunity presented by the Bill to make the necessary minor amendment. I will talk to Members when I have the wording for them.

I look forward to Deputies' contributions on this Bill. I thank Deputy O'Reilly and others who have contributed to the conversation on this challenge over the past two years as we have tried to find the best way to deal with the issue arising from the temporary lay-offs.

I am sharing time with my colleagues. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. It involves a short but important piece of work, which we in Sinn Féin will be supporting.

The Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Bill is a specific response to decisions taken at the beginning of the pandemic whereby section 12A of the Redundancy Payments Act was suspended. This was done to protect workers from being made redundant. Employers were also protected in that they would not have a deluge of workers applying for redundancy payments. However, with this decision several technical difficulties arose for workers, specifically workers laid off or on short time, such as those in receipt of the pandemic unemployment payment. The Minister of State will know this because he and I have spoken about it on more than one occasion. Some of the workers were concerned that they would not have the fair calculation of reckonable service if they were unfortunate enough to be made redundant, and as a result they were genuinely afraid that they would then lose out on significant sums of money regarding a redundancy claim.

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, and the trade union movement in general spotted this very early on in the pandemic. I introduced a Bill last March, the Redundancy Payments (Lay off, Short Time and Calculation of Reckonable Service) Bill 2021, the aim of which was similar to that of the Bill before the House, namely, to ensure workers would not lose out on time when it came to the calculation of a redundancy entitlement.

The Bill before us is very welcome. It was dealt with by the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment last year. Many concerns were cleared up by the departmental officials in attendance, whom I thank for their time and patience on the day. I was not at the meeting myself because I was isolating with Covid, but I followed the proceedings online. My colleague, Senator Paul Gavan, had queries answered on the occasion.

The main aim of this Bill is to provide for a once-off redundancy payment to workers in respect of certain lay-off periods during the period beginning on 13 March and ending at the end of September 2021. Under the Redundancy Payments Act, statutory redundancy is based on duration of service and a qualified employee is entitled to two weeks' pay per year of service, plus a bonus week, subject to a cap of €600 in earnings per week, payable by the employer. Under the existing Act, periods of lay-off in the final three years of service do not count as reckonable service, meaning that redundancy entitlements will not factor in those periods. Therefore, that would result in a loss in regard to redundancy payments. Thankfully, that is addressed within the Bill. It ensures affected workers can access a tax-free State payment of up to €1,860, financed by the Social Insurance Fund, to compensate for the break in their service caused by the pandemic and associated public-health restrictions.

There are some additional issues I would like to raise with the Minister of State and that I hope can be addressed in the future. I introduced the Redundancy Payments (Lay off, Short Time and Calculation of Reckonable Service) Bill 2021. This Bill went further than addressing the fair calculation of reckonable service alone; it sought to clarify some workers' rights issues that had arisen. One such issue concerned where an employer tried to hoodwink a worker and have them declare themselves as having resigned, thereby involuntarily forgoing their entitlement to a redundancy payment. I spoke to several workers - many of them women and migrant workers - who outlined how unscrupulous employers tried to con them into making themselves redundant by telling them they could resign, unbeknownst to them against their wishes. This would have resulted in the workers losing out on any redundancy entitlement. Perhaps the Minister of State could look into making it an offence for an employer to treat an employee as having resigned, thereby forgoing his or her redundancy entitlement, where he or she did not mean to resign. It has happened on several occasions that people felt they had no choice but to resign. In fact, it would be a redundancy situation in many instances. The employers were evading their responsibility. I am not referring to all employers and it is not a massive issue, but it is certainly an issue for the people who have contacted me, who are predominantly women and migrant workers.

I want to raise some operational matters with the Minister of State. The scheme cannot be launched until the legislation has made its way through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am aware that the Department of Social Protection will deliver the scheme. It is establishing the necessary application system. Has the relevant information technology work been concluded? Will the system be ready to go live soon? Could we be given a date for when it is expected to go live? I ask because several workers who have been in contact with me are very anxious to know when it will happen, as the Minister of State can imagine.

As I have said throughout, I will work with the Minister to get this legislation over the line as efficiently and effectively as possible, given that the application process is largely intended to be employer led in circumstances where employers have had to make people redundant over the course of the pandemic or will have to make them redundant in the coming years. I know this is expected to become part of the termination process, but, as regards the provision in the legislation for a worker to make an application to the Minister where an employer has refused to make an application for him or her, how is this going to work in practice? Will it be the same as always or will there be a separate line or a set of forms to be filled out?

The legislation states that an application is to be made in a manner to be determined by the Minister. Will it be directly up to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, or will it be up to the Minister for Social Protection? Will it fall between two stools such that it will not be anyone's responsibility? It would be helpful if the Minister of State could clarify whether the application will be online or paper based and how it will work in practice? The details on that would be very helpful.

We will support this legislation. It contains many of the aims and aspirations of the legislation I introduced . I will be happy to work with the Minister of State to get it through the Houses as quickly as possible.

I too am happy to speak on this Bill and to say Sinn Féin will be supporting it. Being made redundant can be one of the most traumatic experiences in a person's life. It can be especially difficult if it occurs all of a sudden, if the employee has been a long time in the job or sector and if the employee has huge commitments, such as rent, mortgage or family commitments. An older worker may find it very hard to get another job. The redundant person wonders whether he or she will get another job with equal or better pay or any decent job at all that reflects his or her skills and experience in the workplace.

This Bill deals with a time of particular trauma for workers and small local employers, including the family businesses on which our economy is broadly built. In north Kildare, workers and small businesses were extremely worried about what lay ahead. We in Sinn Féin set out immediately to help them. This Bill deals with matters under the Redundancy Payments Act to allow for a once-off redundancy payment to workers with regard to certain lay-off periods from 13 March 2020 to 30 September 2021. It is fair to say that, on New Year's Eve 2019, nobody could have imagined that the whole of Europe would be in lockdown within three months. The Covid lay-offs were extremely worrying.

As the Minister of State knows, we immediately recognised a legislative issue and proposed our own legislation to protect workers and employers and counteract any difficulty, as my colleague Deputy O'Reilly has already outlined. I am very glad to see this Bill closes the loophole whereby newly redundant workers would lose out on reckonable service while laid off due to public-health restrictions. This was a big worry for many workers in north Kildare. We were very anxious to reassure them that we would do what we could to protect them. We were approached by several workers who told us about employers who were trying to force them into redundancy on the sly or against their wishes. They were worried about their reckonable service.

The Bill makes sure that one can access the special tax-free State payment of up to a maximum of €1,860, which is financed through the Social Insurance Fund. While this is quite a short Bill, it is a really important one in that it looks after workers who have sacrificed so much during this pandemic, especially those who had to sacrifice their jobs.

We are happy to support the Bill. We will do all we can to assist in its passage through the Houses.

I also welcome the Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Bill 2022. I thank Deputy O'Reilly of Sinn Féin, who brought a similar Bill forward on 18 March last year. Many hundreds of thousands of workers have faced a terrible time during the pandemic, especially during the periods when most businesses were ordered by the Government to shut down their operations. This caused enormous stress for workers. It is to be hoped this Bill will ensure that no workers will lose out through no fault of their own. I also welcome that the payment will be set at €1,860, as per the legislation on redundancy payments.

I will raise a point about the employers. I am concerned that the taxpayer will be picking up the entire cost of the redundancies, with a possible bill of up to €150 million. This is at the higher end of the estimates, but we will have to make provision for such sums of money. The paragraph on this in Oireachtas Library and Research Service resource on the Bill states, "The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment received legal advice to the effect that imposing the cost of the lay-off period [...] on employers would give rise to the constitutional issues and is fraught with legal risk". Will the Minister of State publish that legal advice and provide a briefing on the constitutional issues involved? We all know that many employers will do whatever they can to avoid paying a fair redundancy package to their employees even if they can afford it. I am not convinced that this provision will not be exploited by employers to allow them to get away with not paying their fair share of redundancy packages. It should not just be a matter of the statutory payment if employers can afford to contribute. Many Deputies have been on the picket line in support of workers, most recently the Debenhams workers. In that case, we saw a major multinational company do its utmost to avoid paying its workers a fair redundancy package that had already been agreed.

I welcome the Bill. We will do our best to ensure it passes as quickly as possible so that workers can get their rights and redundancy packages.

The Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 suspended a worker's right to seek redundancy payments when laid off or put on short-time work due to the pandemic. Deputy Nash of the Labour Party tabled an amendment that would have dealt with this issue at the start of the pandemic and, perhaps, saved the State some share of the burden that may now be necessarily placed upon it. At the time, we agreed not to pursue the amendment as we were assured that the issue would be dealt with and we did not wish to delay emergency legislation. The unamended Covid legislation meant that any employee who ended up being made redundant would have had time during the pandemic excluded from any calculated period of redundancy if time spent laid off or on short-time work in the final three years of redundancy was not included in the original legislation. This Bill is being introduced to ensure there is a scheme to provide a State payment to make up for any time not counted because of time spent laid off during the pandemic. The fact that workers' minimum statutory payments will be made up by the State through a payment from the Social Insurance Fund in such cases should ensure that the worker will not be out of pocket with regard to their minimum payments in the event of being made redundant having been laid off during the pandemic. This is to be welcomed.

Normally, under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, when a redundancy payment is made from the Social Insurance Fund to an employee on an employer's behalf, a debt is raised against that employer. The Department of Social Protection is legally obliged to recover such debts from the employer. If this remains the case, the State will be able to pursue solvent employers. If there is an exemption, we will unfortunately have to put an extra burden on the State, which would not have been needed if this problem had been fixed immediately.

In supporting the legislation as outlined, we appreciate that, at the time, the legislation was put forward because of the need for emergency measures. However, through Deputy Nash, we made an attempt to improve the original legislation. We feel that, if we had been listened to, there would not be a need for this measure now. Perhaps in future discussions between those of us in the Opposition and the Government, the Government will appreciate that the Labour Party and other parties in the Oireachtas come to this space with the best of intentions and from a place of knowledge. That is particularly true of my colleague, Deputy Nash. In that regard, while we support the Bill, we would encourage the Government to understand that many of us in this House are genuinely here to try to improve the lot of the worker and not to cause the Government unnecessary difficulty. We support the Bill and will be making further contributions as it goes through the Houses.

I welcome the opportunity to have a discussion on this Bill, which will benefit both employers and employees. I commend the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy English, on their ongoing efforts to support businesses and workers across the State. It would be remiss of me not to also acknowledge the work of others, particularly those on the relevant committee, for the work they put into this.

This Bill is symbolic of a suite of measures that Government and my own party have taken to protect workers, while allowing the labour market and enterprises to grow even stronger. These measures include a wide range of improvements in the pay and conditions of workers across the State including, but not limited to, improvements in parental leave and the introduction of a new public holiday on 18 March and subsequently every St. Brigid's Day from 2023 onwards. We have also seen new measures brought in to protect workers' rights to keep their tips and gratuities. That was not only right but long overdue. Auto-enrolment for pensions will soon be introduced and the minimum wage has increased seven if not eight times over the last decade, since Fine Gael entered government. This has had a profound impact on the lives of workers. Furthermore, workers now have the right to request remote working with an option to appeal decisions to the Workplace Relations Commission, allowing for a more flexible and adaptable approach to work. Statutory sick pay will add another layer of protection for employees. It will be one less thing to worry about. A large amount of work has also gone into the introduction of a living wage in Ireland. I note the ongoing work of Deputy Nash on that matter along with the Minister of State, Deputy English, and the Tánaiste, Deputy Varadkar. Fine Gael has also remained steadfastly committed to the reduction of the tax burden on low and middle-income earners. This is an important step that cannot be overlooked.

The Opposition often attacks the Government, and Fine Gael specifically, with regard to workers' rights but, having named just a few recent successes, it is clear these are political charges not backed up by facts or the reality faced by workers every day. Progress must be recognised for what it is. I do not claim that we have got everything right, but I firmly believe that workers in Ireland are better off today than at any other time in the history of the State. We have an unprecedented 2.47 million people in employment. This is a remarkable achievement when one considers how matters stood in March 2011.

The country has gone into a radical recovery and, despite the challenges we have faced throughout the pandemic, we have emerged with strong growth forecasted for the years ahead. We have managed to do this because we entered into the pandemic from a position of strength. Indeed, during the pandemic, we saw swift and comprehensive action to protect both businesses and employees. We saw this in the introduction of the PUP, the wage subsidy scheme, etc. There can be no doubt that these measures made an invaluable contribution to people's lives during the pandemic and ensured that many businesses survived what was an unprecedented period. To my mind, these decisions reflected an attempt to be as fair and all-encompassing as possible in a time of global uncertainty and instability. I note that both Houses collectively supported virtually every measure that was introduced, particularly in 2020. Collectively, we worked extremely well under the circumstances to put in place the measures that were introduced.

This Bill is yet another effort and another example of the Government's continuing commitment to people and businesses. It will help employees recently made redundant who lost out on reckonable service during the emergency period, which has been extended until September next.

It will ensure that employees will be able to avail of a special, tax-free, State payment of up to €1,860. It will allow employees to claim what is rightfully theirs.

The Tánaiste has demonstrated the foresight to ensure that the wave of redundancy claims will not impact on the ability of businesses to recover as we emerge from two years of restrictions and business closures. When the history of this pandemic is eventually written, it will show that the Government and, indeed, these Houses rose to the occasion and led our people safely through the fight against this deadly virus. It will also show that the Government, at every turn, has put people’s health and safety first and spared no expense in supporting people financially in the context of the decision to prioritise health.

This is not an easy time, and many families have endured stress and worry regarding whether their jobs, companies or industries would be there when the restrictions were lifted. Given the numbers in employment and our economic recovery, which has been nothing short of miraculous, I hope this legislation, support for which has been demonstrated in the contributions thus far, will have a swift passage through the Houses and will be enacted as soon as possible.

This is a short but important Bill, which Sinn Féin will be supporting. It will amend the principal Act to provide for once-off redundancy payments for workers in respect of certain lay-off periods from 13 March 2020 to 30 September 2021. My colleague, An Teachta O’Reilly, became aware of this problem early in the pandemic and has introduced the Redundancy Payments (Lay-off, Short Time and Calculation of Reckonable Service) Bill 2021 to the House to address this issue. An Teachta O’Reilly's Bill seeks to deliver a fair calculation of recognisable service for workers on the PUP who may lose out on significant sums of money in future redundancy payments. As matters stand, due to a loophole in the law, workers could lose out on significant sums because time spent on the PUP will not count when calculating entitlements. This Bill seeks to make that time reckonable service, which will ensure that workers will not have a lost year when it comes to future redundancy entitlements. When the PUP was introduced last year, redundancy entitlements were suspended for people who were temporarily laid off. Section 12A of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 was temporarily suspended during the Covid-19 crisis, which ensured that employees were protected from being made redundant. Employers were also protected because the measure meant that a large number of workers were not applying for redundancy payments.

Under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, statutory redundancy is based on duration of the service. Under the existing Act as well, periods of lay-offs during the final three years of service do not count as reckonable service. This means that redundancy entitlements will not factor in those periods. This legislation ensures that those workers can access a special tax-free State payment of up to €1,860, which will be provided for out of the Social Insurance Fund. Employers will not be liable for this compensatory repayment, which is only right. Such an imposition could endanger the viability of some businesses which would otherwise be able to recover.

It was great to see measures being possible during the pandemic that were previously judged to be too socialist or too anti-private property rights to be introduced. I urge the Government to embrace its inner socialist and try to address the housing, education and health crises with a similar attitude.

That might be a bit hopeful.

I call Deputy Catherine Murphy next. She can take some time to gather her materials and take a breath.

I apologise. I have come straight from the Committee on Public Accounts to the Chamber and I had to negotiate several flights of stairs in between.

Like many aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic, the full impact on the workforce is probably yet to be seen. It will likely take years for us to fully comprehend the massive shifts that have and are taking place. The Department’s estimate is that between 25,000 and 56,000 people are expected to be laid off as a result of Covid-19. It is not something that will only be experienced during the pandemic; it is a phenomenon that will continue and that will have residual effects. We are most likely to see these lay-offs in sectors which have yet to bounce back from the impact of Covid-19. I refer to the hospital sector, catering companies, leisure centres and firms involved in large-scale event work. Indeed, a great deal of tax has been warehoused and much extra debt has been accrued in specific sectors. Viability in that context is going to be determined by just how robust the recovery is. We also cannot assume that there will be no further interruptions, but let us hope not. There is a real issue in this regard, however.

From March 2020 to September 2021, thousands of workers existed in a state of limbo. They had either been laid off or shifted onto part-time work during the pandemic. That was understandable. In many cases, they watched as their places of work struggled and they knew that in many cases their jobs were not going to be there for them to return to. I have encountered situations where people had been in a job for 20 years, for example, in a pub, and they were not sure if that pub was going to reopen. If it did reopen, and the people concerned had taken other jobs in the meantime, where would they stand then in respect of redundancy rights? I am talking about matters like that.

The emergency measures introduced in March 2020 suspended workers' rights to seek redundancy from their employer. When that provision ended on 30 September, workers were left in a situation where they could be penalised under the terms of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, which does not recognise lay-off periods in the final three years of employment as reckonable service. Under those rules, Covid-19 lay-off periods would not be counted when workers' statutory redundancy was calculated. Thankfully, this Bill will amend that situation and bridge the gap in redundancy payments for those laid off during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is welcome that the Department is acting on this matter, and that it has engaged with SIPTU and ICTU on the issue. There will be quite a bit of that kind of patching up required in the context of the impact of Covid-19.

I note that the original intention was to have this Bill passed before Christmas. Unfortunately, that has not been the case and we are now in a situation whereby some workers have been left without payments for three months. That is a long time for someone to be waiting for a vital payment, and especially over Christmas when household costs are so high. I accept, however, that it takes time to frame legislation and there is a pipeline of legislation. This legislation would have been put on that conveyor belt of Bills.

Staff at the Celbridge Manor Hotel in my constituency received their redundancy notices last November, with the promise that they would receive payments before Christmas. Their state of limbo continues today, and no statutory payments have issued. Indeed, the hotel’s owner has dangled the idea of an extra 10% gratuity being added to their statutory entitlements in exchange for the workers' being legally bound to a gagging clause concerning the matter. This was reported by The Business Post on several occasion. I find this situation unacceptable. I have continually contacted the various Departments involved to try to get some finality in this case. This legislation is therefore extremely welcome, and it must be passed urgently. I wish, though, that there had been some foresight in the context of having this Bill ready for consideration as soon as the suspension of redundancies was lifted.

As I said, however, we are happy to support the Bill. It is welcome. If there is a criticism to be made, it is that if it could have been done sooner, then that would have made a significant difference to people.

I will be sharing time with Deputy Boyd Barrett and, possibly, Deputy Barry.

I will start by making some suggestions as to how the small but positive reforms contained in this Bill could be improved before moving on to the wider issue of workers' rights. The Bill states that periods of time up to September 2021 during which workers were laid off because of Covid emergency measures will be included in their reckonable periods of service for the purpose of statutory redundancy payments. However, anyone laid off because of Covid since the end of September 2021 will not have those lay-off periods counted. This would penalise night club and pub workers who were laid off because of Government-mandated closures or restricted opening hours between October 2021 and January 2022.

The Government may argue in response that normal redundancy rights were restored at the end of September, meaning that employees facing lay-offs after that date could have claimed redundancy as normal whereas previously those rights were suspended, but this effectively means forcing anyone who was laid off because of Covid since September to choose between triggering redundancy and giving up on getting his or her job back on the one hand and, on the other, being laid off for a period of time that will not be included in his or her reckonable service for redundancy purposes. That is unfair and must be changed, and we will seek to amend it.

It is an issue that the Bill only applies to statutory redundancy, where workers who have negotiated better redundancy terms with their employers will not automatically be entitled to have lay-off periods included in their periods of reckonable service and will have to struggle individually or collectively as groups of workers with a private employer to win it.

I also raise a question relating to profitable companies that may be winding up or making a number of workers redundant for non-financial reasons not having to cover these costs themselves rather than it falling to the State to do so. There is already evidence of profitable companies super-exploiting pandemic-related corporate welfare, for example, companies paying dividends while receiving the employment wage subsidy. The absence of any attempt to deter this and the light touch approach taken in general to policing the billions of euro in corporate welfare that were handed out during the pandemic stands in stark contrast with the punitive approach taken towards those on the PUP. The PUP was the first Covid support to be cut long before anything for businesses. It is not so long ago that workers were claiming they faced having their payments stopped if they were intercepted by social welfare inspectors at the airport.

I wish to make an additional point about the relatively small payout compared to the cost of living and the scale of the oncoming redundancies. The Bill entitles covered workers to a maximum additional payout of €1,860. This is approximately the equivalent of one month's rent in Dublin and much less than the anticipated rise in the cost of basic necessities over the next year. While it is welcome, it is not going to go far. It is a drop in the ocean considering the tidal wave of involuntary redundancies coming our way once Covid payments to businesses are withdrawn.

The EWSS is to end for many businesses from 30 April and for businesses affected by the last round of Covid restrictions - mainly in hospitality, the arts and entertainment - from 30 May. It is only then that we will begin to have a clearer picture of the longer term impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on employment. At the committee yesterday, the Tánaiste trumpeted last December's 7.5% unemployment rate, but that may prove premature. The latest figures show 75,000 people still on the PUP and a further 279,000 on the EWSS, yet the Tánaiste has previously estimated a maximum of 56,000 redundancies over the next three years. The €150 million budget for the expansion of State payments under the Bill suggests that a higher number - perhaps in the region of 80,000 - is anticipated.

However many workers end up losing their jobs, it must be a core priority that not one worker loses out on any of his or her redundancy entitlements, be that from the State or his or her employer. Unfortunately, the Government has not taken this obvious opportunity while it is reforming redundancy law anyway to give workers what they really need and deserve, namely, the right to receive every cent of what they are rightfully owed by employers, including additional redundancy payments, and to be first in line when companies are liquidated.

This was a core demand of the Debenhams workers. They stood on picket lines in all weathers for 406 days during a global pandemic. These heroic and mainly female workers were betrayed time and again, not only by their employer, but the Government, which stood behind them with crocodile tears. Unfortunately, they were also failed by aspects of the trade union leadership. As with the Clerys workers before them, the Government sat on its hands, pretending it was useless for anything stronger than tea and sympathy or a few claps for front-line workers.

What would a left government that actually cared about workers' rights do in this situation? It would immediately legislate to protect workers in collective redundancy situations by putting them at the top of the queue. That could be done by amending the Companies Act 2014 to provide for preferential creditor status to employees in collective redundancies and to include all payments due to workers in the list of payments covered. That is what we proposed in our Private Members' Bill last May. Fearing a public outcry at a time when public support for the Debenhams workers was widespread, the Government took the cynical decision not to oppose openly our Companies (Protection of Employees' Rights in Liquidations) Bill 2021, otherwise known as the Debenhams Bill. Of course, the Government has failed to do anything since to progress our Bill or to improve workers' rights in collective redundancy situations materially. It has a golden opportunity to that now when it is amending the law on redundancies for other reasons, but it has chosen not to. We will be submitting amendments in line with the Debenhams Bill.

The second and even more important thing that a left government with an eco-socialist programme would do would be to carry out a radical overhaul of workers' rights in this country. The Industrial Relations Act 1990 must be repealed and replaced with a charter of workers' rights. It would include the right to establish pickets and workplace occupations, the right to engage in political and sympathy strikes, and the right to mandatory trade union recognition, as proposed in People Before Profit's Trade Union Recognition Bill 2021. Without these rights, the workers' movement is fighting with one hand tied behind its back, which is, of course, the whole point of the 1990 Act. In most other European countries, workers are not legally prohibited from striking in support of another group of workers. In Ireland, though, the Government has banned both political and sympathy strikes. This is despite our proud history of the world famous Dunnes anti-apartheid strike. Nearly 40 years on, parties on all sides of this House would profess to believe that the strikers were on the side of right, yet such a strike could not legally take place today against, for example, Israel despite its recently being declared an apartheid state by human rights organisations from Amnesty International to Human Rights Watch.

The right to mandatory trade union recognition, as proposed in People Before Profit's Trade Union Recognition Bill 2021 and commonplace in most other European countries, is also a fundamental workers' right. Without it, many workers' rights on paper are rendered essentially meaningless. In this situation, it is hardly surprising that union membership fell from 33% in 2005 to 24% in 2018. Collective bargaining coverage is approximately 33%, the seventh lowest of 22 EU countries.

We need to tackle the significant increase in precarious work, gig work and bogus self-employment. The Government has sat on its hands while precarious employment among young people has reached unprecedented levels. Research by the National Youth Council of Ireland found that 38% of people aged between 18 and 29 years were on temporary contracts. A "staggering 82 per cent" said precarious work was the only work available. Over 70% said that their current temporary or part-time contracts were causing them serious hardship. Part-time and temporary workers are also more likely to be low paid. Half of precarious workers under 30 years of age earn less than the living wage. On top of this, workers under 20 years of age are discriminated against by only being legally entitled to lower minimum wage rates. This Dáil term, I will be introducing the national minimum wage (equal pay for young workers) Bill, which will abolish discriminatory lower minimum wage rates for young workers, including apprentices.

To fight for workers' rights, higher pay in a time of soaring inflation and decent redundancies, we need to build an active rank and file base in the trade unions and reinvigorate them as democratic, fighting organisations, North and South.

It is only through an active, rank and file, fighting trade union movement that we can restore public sector pay, reverse cuts and fight for equal and better pay and conditions and decent redundancy pay for all workers, regardless of gender, race, disability or immigration status.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the most high-profile redundancy that took place during the Covid-19 period, to which this Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Bill is a response, was the Debenhams redundancy. Why does this Bill not involve trying to do something to compensate the Debenhams workers for the failure and inadequacy of legislation to protect against the sort of strategic liquidation that Debenhams engaged in with devastating consequences for the Debenhams workers?

I met with the Debenhams workers yesterday and it was interesting just to refresh my own memory of the circumstances. Where is the Government's response to what happened to them? Where is the change in the law on redundancy to prevent that kind of strategic liquidation where workers are denied the redundancy entitlements they should get? Of course, the Minister of State will know and recall that the workers had an agreement that they would receive two weeks' statutory pay plus two weeks' salary for each year of service. They did not get that. They fought an incredible battle for more than a year on the picket lines. As they reminded me yesterday, some of the women had never been on a picket line in their lives. For more than a year, from early morning until late at night, sometimes literally around the clock, in a loading bay at the back of the Ilac Centre in the case of the Henry Street branch and at Debenhams stores across the country, more than 1,000 women were forced to engage in that action because of the law. I have some questions in that regard, as do the workers.

As I and the workers understand it, when someone is made redundant there is supposed to be a staged process of notice, which I think runs for a period of between 30 and 90 days, depending on the particular situation. None of this happened in the case of Debenhams. In early April 2020, the workers received an email from the CEO of Debenhams in which he informed them that they should ignore media speculation about possible redundancies, they should not worry, there was no problem and their jobs were safe. One week later, the same CEO sent an email telling the workers their jobs were gone. They never heard from the company again.

The workers have a question. It is not an allegation; they want clarification on the facts. As they understand it, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has to be notified about such large collective redundancies. I know the Minister of State may not be able to answer the question now, but the workers would like an answer as to when, during that period, the Department was first notified of the redundancies and what the response of the Government was. They would very much appreciate a response to that question and I think they are owed it. Furthermore, how was it that Debenhams could do that when there was a statutory process around it, which seemed to be utterly disregarded?

I am sure the Deputy is going to relate this to the Bill being debated.

I am because it is a redundancy payments Bill. It relates to Covid redundancies. The Debenhams redundancy was a Covid redundancy, where people lost their jobs in the middle of the emergency. The workers lost everything. They did not get any of their entitlements. I am asking whether this Bill addresses that. That is the question. Does the Bill address it? If not, why not? I think the Minister of State needs to understand what happened and needs to tell us what he knows because we cannot prevent this from happening again unless we get answers these questions. That must be done so that there is a legislative response and we have an opportunity to table amendments on the next Stage that could address the deficiencies - if there are such, and it would seem to me that there are - in respect of what happened in the Debenhams case.

The other question is how, in this circumstance, could a company that goes into liquidation then move €50 million out of the Debenhams online business, Debenhams.ie, which is clearly part of the Debenhams consortium and which is directly linked to the stores and so on? What is it about the law that would allow that to happen? How can that happen? What are we going to do to stop it happening, so that the just redundancy entitlement that the workers should have is not stolen from them, through what are essentially accountancy tricks, by the company moving assets that should be available for the redundancy payment?

What are we going to do about the fact the Debenhams consortium was able to load the Irish company with a whole series of debts that it did not have and which properly belonged to the British company? It loaded those debts on to further remove, as it were, assets that might have been available to pay the redundancy for the workers. These sorts of loopholes can be exploited and there is a sharp practice that follows from it from companies in order to avoid paying workers their just entitlement. It should be noted that all that value that Debenhams.ie built up and all those assets were essentially assets that were created through the labour, hard work and decency of good workers who were loved by the customers of Debenhams. All of that goodwill that Debenhams had, and which gave it its value, was robbed from the workers through accountancy tricks. What are we doing to prevent that happening so that workers get their just redundancy and the State and the taxpayer are not on the hook for the sharp practice of companies engaging in what clearly looks like and is, in my view and that of the workers, a strategic liquidation?

The workers have issued an invitation to the Minister of State. They are making a documentary about this historic struggle of women workers, which has inspired workers the length and breadth of the country in their determination to fight the injustice they face. They are asking that the Minister of State participate in the documentary they are making. Perhaps he will consider that. The workers will probably send him a written invitation to participate.

Everybody at the time, including the Government and the Opposition, accepted that a great wrong had been done. The case that was always made by the Government was that its hands were tied because the law is the law. What are we going to do to ensure this never happens again and that workers robbed of their redundancy entitlements will have them guaranteed? What we are going to do to ensure we have the laws in place to prevent the absolutely appalling and disgusting behaviour that Debenhams engaged in from ever happening again? I am keen to hear the Minister of State's response to those points, as are, more importantly, the Debenhams workers.

The Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Bill is welcome. It is a short Bill. We support it and we support what it sets out to do. However, there are other issues in this area that also need to be examined. I am sure the Minister of State is aware that many workers face redundancy and a very uncertain future.

It is a difficulty that arose in this particular situation. Section 12A of the Redundancy Payments Act was suspended during the Covid-19 crisis. As a result employees were protected from being made redundant. It also had that knock-on effect at the time they were either off work or whatever that a significant number were concerned that they had lost up to a year of reckonable service in the calculation of any future redundancy payment due to the time they spent on the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP.

The time spent by workers laid off or on short time, such as in receipt of that payment, is calculable as reckonable service in the calculation of redundancy entitlements. That is what this Bill is attempting to do. It is welcome and it is what we want to see happen as soon as possible.

The experience of so many workers, and our colleague referred a few moments ago to the Debenhams workers as an example, is that it is a crisis in their lives. This week we have an issue in County Sligo in Collooney where B. Braun Hospicare Ireland, a company which produces dressings, has decided that it is going to cease production and will be closing down over a period of 18 months. There are 89 workers there, 80 of whom are going to be made redundant. While their company is assuring them that it will be 18 months away, as Deputy Boyd Barrett said, the Debenhams workers were told initially that their future was secure and that there was restructuring and not to worry. Very quickly, things change. Things can change for workers and the great fear is that workers are not sufficiently protected in those circumstances. Everything that needs to be done should be done. While this Bill is very specific in what it is doing, and I appreciate and understand that, there needs to be much more done to ensure large companies of this nature, in particular, deal fairly with their workforce who have been loyal to them for so long.

In respect of this company in Sligo, it began in 1984. Decades of service have been given to the local community and economy which has built that company up to being very profitable over that time. Many of the workers feel that they are being cast aside at this stage. It is most unfortunate.

This legislation is looking at a very small piece of this issue but there is so much more that needs to be done in that entire area to ensure that workers' rights are upheld.

Deputy Michael Collins is sharing with Deputy O’Donoghue.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. While this Bill is welcome, it comes very late for many workers who have worked hard in the workplace, and have been let very badly down. The Bill is technical in nature and comprises four sections. The purpose of the legislation is to provide for the making of a once-off State-funded payment to workers facing redundancy who have lost the opportunity to procure reckonable service due to layoffs caused by the Covid-19 restrictions. The proposed legislative change is intended to ensure that such workers will receive full redundancy entitlements, as though they had not been laid off during the emergency period of 13 March 2022 to 30 September 2021 and to ensure that employers are not burdened with that cost to enhance their recovery viability. Government-mandated restrictions have caused workers to lose the opportunity to procure reckonable service through no fault of their own or their employers. For this reason, a reckonable service Covid-19-related payment is to be funded by the State based on the duration of the Covid-19 restrictions. The maximum State payment to which a person made redundant will be entitled to is €1,860 tax-free if they were laid off for the entire period of the restrictions and were earning €600 or more per week. Payments for periods of layoffs arising from Covid-19 restrictions will be made by the Department of Social Protection out of the Social Insurance Fund.

It is envisaged that payments through the scheme will be operational for a period of three years until 1 October 2024. People who have already been made redundant since March 2020 and who have been laid off due to Covid-19 will be covered under the scheme.

When we are talking about workers' rights, I have many constituents who have so many issues in respect of pensions and miscommunications between the various Departments. I have one lady who can prove she has made 520 contributions and yet she cannot receive her pension. Mind you, she received it initially but it was then taken from her.

I know of another very ill man who was self-employed for years. When he applied for illness benefit he was turned down. He then applied for invalidity benefit and he was again turned down. The problem was that he did not have enough contributions from the previous years and the reason for this was that he was too ill to work or claim any welfare payment.

This system is not good enough and measures need to be put in place for exceptional cases and to allow deciding officers to use a little bit of discretion for extreme cases. Let us face it, a little bit of cop on should be used for people in extreme circumstances and for people who have worked extremely hard all their lives and deserve a break. There is nothing more upsetting than having to tell somebody who is very ill and has a large number of bills and overheads and a family that they are entitled to nothing. It is terrible to have to say that to them. Their social welfare office will try every measure from every angle, even contacting the Minister, although not personally but her Department, to see if there is any possibility a payment can be made to a person who is very ill and is a deserving case. Proof from accountants, doctors and medical people are provided but this still does not work as it falls between two stools, which is a terribly unfair situation.

This Bill probably comes too late for Debenhams workers. Much has been said about them today, with, in fairness, well-voiced concerns expressed about the way these workers were treated, which was appallingly. I know some of these workers who are from my end of west Cork and I was in contact with them during their crisis. To be honest with the Minister of State, there was little compassion shown in here for the Debenhams workers. Some of these workers had worked all their lives and knew nothing about protesting. They only joined the protest because they were in extreme circumstances and were left there by the State. The State sometimes needs to stand up with a strong voice coming from its leadership. That might send a message. Perhaps Debenhams is above listening to the people.

We have the same situation in west Cork with Cara Lodge residential treatment centre where 27 employees working in west Cork’s only addiction treatment centre for teenage boys was closed in September 2020 due the Covid-19. Given that this was the only addiction centre, one must ask whether addiction ended and whether people need that service anymore. Of course, they need that service. There were teams of professionals there who worked with the teenagers. There were administrative staff, cooks, cleaners and maintenance crews. The redundancy situation which arose from that was a nightmare for these workers. They lost their jobs and they could not understand why. A great deal of shenanigans were going on behind the scenes and nobody had the decency to put their hand up and give the full reasons the centre was closing. Mind you, I hear it has reopened recently under another heading but it is the people who spent years working with these young people there that we must consider. I spoke to many young people who had come out the other side. The users of the service were so hurt to think that others who could be in the same circumstances could end up not getting that service and that the employees had lost their jobs after spending many years working there. On top of losing their jobs then, redundancy became a nightmare for them.

Unfortunately, no constituency escapes redundancy and it reaches every one of them. It certainly leaves a sting in the tail, however, for many people if back-ups or supports for workers are not there. To lose one’s job is a daunting experience for many when the right supports are not there and it leaves people feeling extremely vulnerable.

I plead with the Minister of State to address the issues I have mentioned, namely, extreme illnesses and pain. He may not be the Minister of State in charge of that area but he might sit down with his colleagues and look at a situation where a payment can be made to people in those circumstances.

This amending Bill will recognise that no newly-redundant workers will have lost out on their reckonable service while they were temporarily laid off due to Covid-19 regulations. It also highlights these employees were not necessarily laid off and that they had not qualified for a State payment - the PUP or the jobseeker's allowance. The objective of this amending Bill is to address that gap. It allows the person to qualify for a Social Insurance Fund payment of €1,860. Employers are not liable for this shortfall in the period from March 2020. I understand the significance of the gap highlighted in this amending Bill and what this entails.

The Debenhams workers in Limerick and the way they were treated by an international company that moved its assets out of the country to another international company has already been mentioned in the Chamber. The company did that to get away from what it should have given the Irish Debenhams workers for the loyal service given to my county of Limerick and families and people who live there. They worked hard looking after the shop and the people of Limerick and the surrounding areas. Debenhams used a different international company to transfer the assets before the Government could do anything and that cannot happen again.

With rising fuel costs and costs of living in general in this country, how many more companies will fall short? How many of those will be small and medium enterprises, SMEs? We might see the same position with redundancies and although international companies might have many millions of euro, 51% of workers are employed by SMEs. There is currently a high cost of living and cost of running a business; there are high insurance costs across the board. These SMEs are being crippled as a result. International companies and those operating across the water can get stuff into this country much cheaper and they can be resupplied at a much cheaper rate than our SMEs. What happens to the people who will be forced into closure due to rising costs, which the Government could help with? I have already highlighted how this could happen with fuel costs.

There are also people in this country who through no fault of their own cannot work. I know one person who because of a late diagnosis of mental illness could not turn up to work. He did not qualify for a jobseeker's payment or any medical support. He cannot now get any funding while his wife and two children are trying to fight fires that are dropping all around him. They are trying to quench those fires so the family can survive but there is no recognition that the person has not worked at times over the past two years because of mental illness. They now know what was wrong but the family qualifies for nothing because it was not recognised when he was working. The period in question is two years and exceptional cases must be allowed for people to qualify in such circumstances.

I have been self-employed for more than 30 years. I look at my local publicans, shopkeepers and people in small industry around me who are like me. The legislation and criteria being put in place by us aimed at multinational companies will cripple our own economy, particularly the people who keep our children in summer jobs during college, for example. These people are trying to feed their families but we are crippling them with enforcement of regulations in this country. I need the Minister of State to help me get the Departments to understand what it is like to be somebody in an SME. Last night I spoke to such matters and I was corrected on one of my comments. I accept that. Nevertheless, I spoke as somebody in the Rural Independent Group, where most of us are self-employed. We bring to this Chamber real-life experience of people running a business outside this Chamber. We can see first-hand how other businesses struggle with insurance and the day-to-day running of their business while trying to keep the doors open. They are trying to compete with multinationals.

I have an example. In a city there are massive supermarkets but in my parish, which includes Granagh, Ballingarry and Croom, we have good sized shops but there is a smaller population. As a result the figures for food costs are slightly higher than what may be the case in the cities. What is in place to help SMEs outside a large populated area, as the costs for running the business are the same? If a business operates in a small parish, such as Granagh, and it is ratable, it provides for the community around it, including items such as fuel. That may be gas, coal, briquettes or whatever people want, but it needs them in large quantities so they can be some way affordable for those people. The business must stock all these different products to cover the area, which might have 400 or 500 people within a radius of five, six or seven miles. The rates paid in the county are the same as those paid in the city, despite such businesses not having a fraction of the footfall. These businesses are working for the community, however, and I can get my loaf of bread or milk without having to travel 20 miles or 30 miles to the nearest supermarket.

They are also a point where people can meet their neighbours; the hub of a parish. Years ago we had a pub in every parish but in some parishes we are lucky if there is a shop. There should be a hall, a church and facilities for GAA and soccer but the shop or SME is the hub. In our areas, they are so important to the communities. They are also important as they provide employment and a service to older people in our communities, including getting basic food items for the week.

I want us to consider what we can put in place for SMEs in this country that are providing a service for the rural people of Ireland in the likes of my county. What can we do to advise the Government and show what such companies can do on the ground? I mentioned Ballingarry, which has a supermarket used by people all around it. Again, that business does not have the same footfall as a business in the city. A shop in a city might have three or four different items and the neighbouring shop might have three or four different items and they can survive because of footfall. In the countryside, a shop must have everything people want in one shop.

A business is rateable on the size of a property and if there is a bathroom on the premises. That is a facility for somebody who may be passing through on their way to Kerry or Cork but it means the business is rateable if that person wants to go to the bathroom. All these elements must be examined and we must consider how we can keep our communities together and help them grow.

I support the legislation but it must go much further. I need the Minister of State's help within the Government to get people to understand rural living and the work of SMEs. It is not all about international companies. We can see what an international company did to the people of Limerick with the example of Debenhams. The action was too little, too late in that respect. I appreciate any help the Minister of State can give me in helping to protect SMEs.

In fairness, we support this legislation, which is clearly necessary. It addresses a shortfall that Deputy Louise O'Reilly would have pointed out at a very early stage. There is support for this right across the House because it does not make sense that there should be a scenario where workers would lose out on reckonable time relating to redundancy on the basis of being on the pandemic unemployment payment for a time. All the supports provided by the State to workers and businesses were about ensuring we could keep the show on the road for society and businesses. It was about ensuring workers and their families would be okay during the pandemic and everyone would be able to do the right thing during the period of restrictions.

This is literally us following up on one of those gaps that have appeared between stools. It is necessary work that needs to happen. Obviously, there will be a Covid-19 payment from the Social Insurance Fund just to ensure there is no shortfall. We all accept that. We all accept that there are significant shortfalls across the board in the context of redundancy as a whole.

Recently, 100 workers have been made redundant from National Pen in Dundalk. There have also been redundancies at Hilton Food in Drogheda. I am going to speak about National Pen because the Tánaiste has stated that a generous package will be given to workers. I have spoken to some of the workers at this company. Negotiations, or at least meetings on negotiations, have started, but no timeline in respect of the redundancies has been provided. We know it is approximately a year, but we do not know exactly what the timeline is for specific workers. We are not entirely sure what package is being proposed. The Tánaiste stated that he is not sure about it. I know there cannot be direct engagement but there has not been a good history in the context of National Pen. Its communications with its workers were absolutely dreadful. This is something we will all have to keep an eye on. Beyond that, once again we are talking about a non-unionised workforce. We really have to get to grips with the right to collective bargaining because, otherwise, we will have more of these situations.

If I had more time, I would address the need to consider the issues relating to insurance. I have spoken before on that matter. There is also the issue of the regional skills forum. We have a wider piece of work to do in respect of lifelong learning, retraining and such.

Last May, the Debenhams workers bravely ended their 406-day dispute when they accepted the Government's offer of a €3 million training fund. They were only on the picket line because this Government and previous Governments failed to implement the Duffy-Cahill report, yet here we are, 258 days later, and the Debenhams workers are still waiting for that training fund. This cannot be yet another promise broken by Fine Gael, which has never managed to put workers first. There is a need to work with the workers, iron out the details and ensure this fund is delivered. The Debenhams workers stood on the picket line through freezing winters and through scandalous treatment by Debenhams, KPMG and this Government that did not care about them. Government Deputies and councillors stood on the picket lines and made promises to these people but those promises were never delivered on. There were no champagne parties for the workers, no trips to Dubai for wellness and no €81,000 pay increases. These workers were left without redundancy by a company that was very profitable and hived money away to England and other places. Instead, the Government has not even delivered the training fund it promised. It is shameful.

What is even more shameful is that these workers were only in this dispute because the Government never implemented the Duffy-Cahill report. I refer to redundancy loopholes. We have seen it with the Clerys workers, the Coca Cola workers in Cork, the Vita Cortex workers in Cork and the Debenhams workers. These situations have been occurring since the report that would finally see workers put first was published, but the Government has still not delivered on it.

Why is it that when workers, the backbone of the economy, come looking for the most basic level of respect and protections, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Green Party look the other way? This legislation is welcome but it does not go far enough. It does not go where we need it to go. When the pals of the Government are looking for pay increases, ambassador roles or confidential documents, the Government delivers, but it has not delivered for workers and that is why the Bill needs to go a lot further.

I invite the Minister of State, Deputy English, to respond.

Do I have a speaking slot?

There are no Sinn Féin slots remaining. The Deputy had not indicated and I do not have her name on the list.

My name is on the list that was circulated.

I am afraid the Deputy's name is not on the list. I am sorry. Let me look again. I am afraid her name is not there. My apologies. Once I have called on the Minister of State, I cannot let other Deputies in.

I thank the Members from various parties for their contributions and the issues they raised. This is a short Bill that tries to focus on one category of people who are missing out due to lay-offs during the Covid restrictions and the reckonable service on which they have missed out. I have discussed the matter in the House with various Deputies during the past two years. We said we would have a response ready to deal with this and that is what the legislation before the House is doing. I am conscious that it has given rise to much discussion on other issues. I will try to deal with that briefly in a moment.

I get the impression that Deputy Gould has been working on his speech for the past two years, trying to cover bits and pieces. I wish to be clear. I have repeatedly stated in the House, whether here in Leinster House or down in the convention centre, and at committee meetings that it is not true to say that if the recommendations of the Duffy-Cahill report had been implemented, what happened to the Debenhams workers could have been prevented. The latter is not true and we have to face up to that. The authors of the report stated that at the committee. I met the Debenhams workers and their union representatives at a very early stage, along with the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, and others, on a few occasions. We gave two commitments and they had two asks for their campaign. The first was that they wanted to see their collective agreement honoured by the company. The agreement went beyond the statutory payments. The State can only guarantee statutory payments. That is what we do. I am happy to have a debate on whether those statutory payments should be increased. That is something we could do. They have been there since 2002. I am open to that. However, the State and the Social Insurance Fund that everybody pays into can only honour statutory payments. They cannot go beyond that and honour agreements that are reached individually between companies and employees. That is above what the State can guarantee because such agreements could be different in every situation. Deputies have to be honest and fair about that.

I have said it before and I will say it again that the Debenhams workers were wronged by that company. They missed out on their collective agreement. They were also wronged by others and were given misinformation and false hope. I never try to do that and never would do that, but I did commit to work with them where we felt we could strengthen the legislation. That was a commitment we gave. We worked with the unions to try to help them get their entitlements and packages. The State did get involved in respect of a certain package relating to training and supports and so on. I believe that is there and should be there and tapped into. I am happy to work with others on that. The last time I checked, everybody who applied for a statutory payment had received one. The State does protect workers in redundancy situations and it stands behind those statutory repayments. It is wrong to keep alluding to other issues.

Deputy Boyd Barrett raised issues that I am happy to tease through with him again. I will meet the workers if that is what they want. That is fine. However, he and other Deputies have repeated this link to assets and money. The courts do not agree with them on that. I have asked on many occasions for Deputies who stand up in the House and make such claims with authority to show us the evidence. No one has come to me with anything. Deputies make statements in the House that they claim are factually correct. The courts judge these matters and those judgments are not in agreement with the Deputies in question, or have not been as yet. The receiver has a job to do. If assets were moved, the law does provide protections in that regard. However, that is not what has come through in the courts and no Member of this House has provided me with any proof in that regard. I want to put that out there. We would act on such evidence. The law is there to act on it.

Some Deputies constantly link this back to the Duffy-Cahill report or the Clerys workers. Those are different situations and nobody has given me evidence to show any different. I would certainly work on that if I had it. I did commit to the workers that if we could, we would strengthen the legislation in respect of workers' rights in redundancy situations. The Tánaiste also gave that commitment. We are prepared to do that. We announced an update in that regard which I will also provide to the House. Following the engagement with the Debenhams workers, I said I would use my time in this Department, along with the Tánaiste, to strengthen the legislation to make it better for workers in the future if we can do so and if the need is proven. That does not mean that we said the recommendations in the Duffy-Cahill report are the answer to that issue. That has been well teased out at this stage.

Following extensive engagement with the social partners in the context of the debate arising from the treatment of the Debenhams workers and other situations since then, the plan for action in respect of collective redundancies following insolvency was published in June 2021. It sets out several commitments to safeguard further the rights of workers in these circumstances, including a range of amendments to company law and employment law, setting up an employment law review group on a statutory basis and the provision of an accessible guidance document to help workers and their representatives to navigate the existing legal framework. Again, there was a significant amount of misinformation. Workers were given misinformation at a very early stage in the context of Debenhams. That guidance document is very important in the context of people's rights, but also to make sure that people can pursue their rights. We will help them with that as well.

The guidance was published on the Department's website in December 2021. The document aims to ensure that employees are aware of the protections that exist for employees whose employment is ending in redundancy. The most relevant pieces of information have been brought together to ensure that employees are fully informed of their rights and can act accordingly.

Other recommendations, such as the rescue process for small and micro companies, were progressed in the Companies Acts. The remaining company law recommendations will be progressed this year. Work on drafting amendments to the Protection of Employment Act 1977 will commence in quarter 1 of 2022.

The independent employment law review group that we agreed to establish will be established this year. It will comprise expert stakeholders and will help to shape the formulation of policy and legislation to ensure that Ireland's employment law framework remains fit for purpose and adapts to the evolving contemporary workplace.

This complementary range of measures will promote the provision of quality information, enhanced participation and transparency for those workers facing collective redundancy following a company law insolvency. It will also provide for the continued development of company law in general, which is what I committed to when I met the Debenhams workers. That was one part of their campaign, and another was the achievement of the terms of their collective agreement. That was a matter to do with the company; the State could not get involved because the State can only honour statutory payments from the Social Insurance Fund in order to be fair to everybody.

I have no issue with having a debate on whether the statutory entitlement should be increased. The figure was set in 2002, and I am happy to have that debate. It is a separate discussion that we all have to feed into. Whatever is agreed has to be level and fair for every employee. It does not mean that collective agreements that are independent are included. They are separate, and we have to recognise that. We discussed options for companies to set money aside to honour personal agreements. That is something I am all for, but it is beyond the involvement of the State.

I thank colleagues, most of whom agree with the Bill, and rightly so because it will make sure that employees do not miss out. Some people asked why employers should not pay for this. That would not be right, because this is about enforced restrictions on employers and employees. It is important that we step in quite quickly to put the legislation in place to make sure that nobody misses out due to retirement or reckonable service.

On why the Bill was not ready in the autumn, we clearly said we would make these payments. We committed to that and it went through Cabinet in time, before section 12 was related. There are complications in developing a system to make these payments possible. That was always going to take a period of time. While it is to be hoped the legislation will be ready first, work has started and has continued over the past number of months regarding the systems needed to make these payments. Deputy O'Reilly asked about that. That work is nearing completion and will be finished before the end of quarter 1. We will be in a position for the Department of Social Protection to make these payments from quarter 2 onwards. The payments are guaranteed. People know they will get them. They will be paid to the maximum of people's entitlements. People who were fully laid off right throughout will receive a little over €1,800. For many others, the figure will be lower. It will be 20 September 2024 before we can judge the full impact of this.

While the figures show the cost could potentially be €150 million, we are setting aside €10 million now and we believe it will be a lot less than €150 million. Thankfully, due to other supports for businesses, employers and jobs, which everybody here agreed with, we are in a position whereby we are having a stronger recovery coming out of Covid than people could have predicted. It is to be hoped that will reduce the number of redundancies due to Covid and, therefore, the draw on this fund. The timeline will mean payments can be made in quarter 2

The matters raised by Deputy Michael Collins were not related to this Bill, but I am happy to have them checked out. I have covered most of the points raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett. Deputy O'Donoghue raised some issues, and I want to assure him that even though I am a Government Deputy, I still meet people who work in businesses and are out there on a daily basis. As Deputies and Ministers, we meet the same people with the same issues and queries, and we are all equally committed to working through them, whether we are in opposition or in government. On the image that people try to portray that Government Deputies never get to talk to real people, people need to look at themselves in the mirror. That is part of our everyday job. That is why we committed to this Bill a long time ago. We recognised that businesses and employees would need something like this. We meet people every day of the week.

Regarding SME supports, we have shown that response over the past two years. There was cross-party support for the measures for the SME community because we recognised that SMEs are massive employers in the State and create jobs throughout the country. When we support SMEs, we support jobs. We want to have a jobs-led recovery so that we can put in place the resources we need to provide all of the other services across education, health and so on.

I again thank Deputies for their support for the Bill. I have dealt with most of the issues raised. If I missed any, I am happy to correspond with Deputies individually.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share