Vol. 402 No. 8
17 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Labour if, in relation to his reply to Parliamentary Question No.23 of 23 May 1990 regarding primary legislation, he will outline the authority which prevents the making of a regulation to give effect to the intention of the Oireachtas when section 4(2) of the Employers Insolvency Act, 1984, was enacted, for special purposes, in view of the provision in that enactment for a resolution of the Oireachtas following the making of regulations.
As I explained fully in my reply to the Deputy's question of 23 May 1990, the conclusion I reached was that it would not be feasible to extend and implement any definition of employer's insolvency beyond those categories set out in section 1(3) of the Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) Act, 1984. The decision was taken following detailed examination of the matter and on the basis of legal advice received by me. That advice was that it would not be feasible to extend the scope of the 1984 Act by regulation and that primary legislation would be necessary for that purpose. In fact, any legal amendments necessary would be appropriate to more general legislation governing the circumstances in which an employer is deemed to be insolvent rather than to the 1984 Act, which is not primarily designed to define insolvency situations.
The provision in the 1984 Act to which the Deputy refers was an enabling one which, on further examination by my predecessor as Minister for Labour as well as by me, led to the same conclusion — that the provision concerned did not allow for the extension of the scope of the Act in the manner suggested by regulation.
In view of the fact that the legislation has proved to be deficient, would the Minister be prepared to introduce the necessary legislation to encompass all the sectors about which Deputy Bell is concerned?
I have already raised this issue and as I understand it, it will have to be taken up in insolvency legislation, which I think is being considered. The point is that primary legislation would be required to introduce a scheme which covers informal insolvencies. The then Government tried to do this in 1984. I was spokesman for my party on that occasion and I remember the debate on this issue. The important point is that any scheme to deal with informal insolvencies could not be looked at in isolation from bankruptcy and winding-up law which, apart from the implications for the individual companies involved, would entail a whole range of complex issues and procedures. I think this matter would have to be provided for in insolvency legislation because it is not possible to deal with an employer's insolvency under the 1984 Act on its own. A new definition of insolvency for this purpose would have to be written into an insolvency Act. I will communicate that point to the relevant Minister.
What position did the Minister take up in 1984 when he was in Opposition?
I can tell the Deputy my exact position as I had the opportunity to read it only this morning. I supported the Minister of the day in trying to take a chance that this might work. Unfortunately, it did not work and it will now have to be changed in an insolvency Bill.
