Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Feb 2023

Companies (Protection of Employees’ Rights in Liquidations) Bill 2021: Discussion

I remind all those present in the committee room that they are asked to exercise personal responsibility to protect themselves and others from the risk of contracting Covid-19.

Members who are participating in the meeting remotely are required, as they are well aware, to participate from within the Leinster House complex only. Apologies have been received from Deputies Bruton and O'Reilly.

Today, we will consider the Companies (Protection of Employees’ Rights in Liquidations) Bill 2021. It is a Private Member's Bill that provides for the inclusion of redundancy payments among the list of preferential debts provided for by section 621 of the Companies Act 2014. The Bill also proposes to provide for preferential creditor status to apply in respect of employees in collective redundancy situations.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to consider these matters further with the witnesses. I welcome from the Company Law Review Group Mr. Paul Egan, senior counsel and chair; Ms Deirdre Morgan of its secretariat; and Professor Irene Lynch Fannon of Matheson, who is joining us online. From Eurofound we are joined by Mr. John Hurley, senior research manager. From SOLAS we have Mr. Alan McGrath, executive director, and Mr. David Smith, director of construction, quality and green skills.

Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. Witnesses are again reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that may be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such directions I may give.

The opening statements have been circulated to all the members. To commence our consideration of this matter, I invite Mr. Egan to make opening remarks on behalf of the Company Law Review Group.

Mr. Paul Egan

I am chairperson of the Company Law Review Group, CLRG. We are joined online remotely by Professor Irene Lynch Fannon, chair of the corporate insolvency committee of the CLRG, and Ms Deirdre Morgan, secretary of the CLRG is seated beside me. I thank the committee for facilitating Professor Lynch Fannon’s joining the CLRG's presentation in light of her being abroad at present. We might take advantage of the good Internet connection and have her speak earlier in the meeting than later.

The Company Law Review Group is the statutory advisory body charged with advising the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment on the review and development of company law in Ireland. It operates under section 958 of the Companies Act 2014.

The review group consists of individuals with an expertise, an interest and a stake in the development of company law, including: the State, its agencies, and regulators, such as the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Revenue, the Corporate Enforcement Authority and Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority, IAASA, which is the accounting regulator; practitioners such as lawyers and accountants; and users and stakeholders such as business groups and trade unions.

The CLRG is unique and is not replicated in neighbouring jurisdictions. It has the advantage of gathering together all these stakeholders to identify issues, review the law and design solutions for consideration by the Minister. The past two and a half years has seen two particular initiatives that originated at CLRG and which led to the prompt enactment of statutes, namely, the 2020 Act, which amended the Companies Act in the light of Covid thus allowing for virtual meetings, and the Companies (Rescue Process for Small and Micro Companies) Act 2021, which introduced the small company administrative rescue process, SCARP. Ultimately, policy is designed by the Minister, not by the CLRG, but we are very happy to contribute to the development of that policy.

Our statutory functions are specified in section 959 of the Companies Act 2014. These include a requirement to monitor, review and advise the Minister on the Companies Act and the amendment of the Act; the introduction of legislation on the operation of companies and commercial practices; the rules of court; judgments of courts; issues arising from the State’s EU membership; international developments; and other related matters. In so doing we must seek to promote enterprise, facilitate commerce, simplify the operation of the 2014 Act, enhance corporate governance and encourage commercial probity.

The review group operates a two-year work programme, which is determined by the Minister. In the information materials provided to the committee this morning, the current work programme for 2022 to 2024 and the previous work programme for 2020 to 2022 are included. The CLRG works through expert committees that focus on particular aspects of law such as insolvency, governance, enforcement and public companies. We also have a standing committee to deal with urgent items requiring an immediate response.

The busiest committee has been our corporate insolvency committee, which is chaired by Professor Irene Lynch Fannon. The committee has produced five reports since 2018, as well as feeding into other reports. The issues that gave rise to this Bill have been subject to lengthy and detailed analysis by the corporate insolvency committee and the full CLRG. Our March 2021 report is the most relevant. The report reviewed existing legislative provisions regarding the provision of information to creditors generally and, in particular, employees. This took account of the 2017 CLRG report on the protections for employees and unsecured creditors, and the Duffy Cahill report of 2016. In summary, the review group considered but did not recommend what is proposed in section 2 of the Bill, which is the expansion of the class of preferential payments. Professor Lynch Fannon and I will be happy to explain the review group’s reasoning in our question and answer session. The review group has not considered what is proposed in section 3.

We look forward to discussing these matters with the committee. Our responses will aim to explain the consensus, or near consensus, of the CLRG on these matters. The review group has, since its establishment, sought to arrive at a consensus in its reports to reflect the diverse perspectives and interests of company law stakeholders.

Mr. John Hurley

I thank the Chairman and committee for inviting me to this hearing.

I am the senior research manager at Eurofound. I will provide some European and international context for the discussions of the committee on the proposed amendments to the Companies Bill in relation to protection of employee rights in cases of company insolvency. I am not a lawyer but a labour market researcher so I will leave the finer legal details to the other expert witnesses.

Eurofound is a tripartite European Union agency. It is comprised of representatives of EU institutions and bodies, but also member state and social partner representatives from employers and trade unions in each of the 27 member states. Eurofound is based in Dublin. It was established in 1975 in order to assist the development of better social, employment and work-related policies in Europe, and to contribute to the planning and design of better living and working conditions throughout the Union. The organisation employs around 100 full-time staff, including around 40 researchers. Eurofound provides research, information and expertise on working conditions and sustainable work, industrial relations, labour market change and the quality of public services among other subjects.

Of relevance to today’s hearing, Eurofound has developed databases on the employment and working condition impacts of restructuring practices within Europe. These are intended to support the development of policymaking in this area. The European Restructuring Monitor includes online databases. These databases are regularly updated. They detail recent large-scale restructuring events in Europe, as well as providing a database of support instruments and relevant legislation, thus contributing to good practices in restructuring throughout the Union.

The EU has played an active role in establishing a legal framework for better anticipation and the socially responsible management of restructuring for many years. Eurofound’s restructuring monitor can be seen as a complement to the set of EU policies in this area.

Relevant legislation includes the EU collective redundancies directive, the information and communications directive and the transfer of undertakings directive. All of these are designed to ensure that company restructuring, with all of the disruption that these cause for employers but especially for the employees affected, are carried out in ways that are socially responsible with proper notice and consultation with social partner representatives.

This body of EU law includes the directive on the protection of employees in cases of employer insolvency, which is directly relevant for the proposed legislation under consideration today. This EU directive builds on a bedrock of international law in the form of International Labour Organization, ILO, conventions on the protection of worker’s claims in cases of insolvency. As it is an EU directive, it requires transposition into national legislation taking account of differing national legal systems, employment law as well as bankruptcy law. Differences, in particular, in national insolvency law mean that developing a common, harmonised approach acceptable across a wide range of countries, even within the EU, can be very challenging. The EU directive on the protection of employees in cases of employer insolvency establishes a set of core or basic provisions that member states are obliged to follow.

The main provisions of Directive 2008/94/EC are the establishment of a wage guarantee fund at state level - the Social Insurance Fund in the case of Ireland - with funding from general taxation or employer or employee wage contributions; the insolvency situations in which employees can make a claim on the wage guarantee fund; the entitlement of all employees to such a guarantee, including part-timers and temporary workers, and without exclusions based on tenure or length of contract. Very concretely the directive sets limitations on the liability of the wage guarantee fund, notably as regards the periods covered but member states are obliged to guarantee a minimum of between two and three months' pay in the case of non-payment, depending on the reference period post insolvency; and member states are also allowed to cap entitlements. Generally, they do this in terms of a certain weekly or monthly maximum, which is sometimes calibrated in terms of the minimum wage rate or average wage rate in this country. These ceiling limits, however, should be “compatible with the social objective of the Directive”, according to the wording of the directive and so should be revised regularly to reflect changes in the cost of living.

The directive, like many EU directives, allows in practice plenty of room for regulatory divergence across member states. For example, according to an earlier Commission implementation report from 2011, Ireland does not apply the guarantee in cases of examinership nor in the case of winding up partnerships.

Ireland opts for an 18-month reference period for outstanding pay claims, where a number of member states opt for a shorter six-month reference period. This has the effect of limiting the minimum payout to eight weeks of regular pay and benefits in Ireland, where in other countries it is a 12-week minimum guarantee according to the directive provisions.

Perhaps most importantly, especially given the provisions of this Bill, the definition of the term, "pay", is left to the national legislators. There is a diversity in the wage or remuneration elements that are covered by the guarantee, though all should cover unpaid regular, holiday, sick or other leave pay and the directive stipulates that severance pay, "where provided for by national law", should be covered. In practice, some countries exclude severance pay from the guarantee, for example, Greece.

In a summary review of the national legislation carried out in 2021 for the European Restructuring Monitor, there are examples of countries, such as France, where the guarantee covers broader pay elements. The French fiche, prepared by our French national expert, states:

Wage guarantees [in France] cover everything that is owed to the worker on the day of filing for insolvency including indemnification in case of termination of the employment contract, claims from financial employee participation and social plans.

In France, as social plans could comprise collectively-agreed redundancy provisions, this broader coverage of pay elements is reflected in a higher ceiling for individual claims in France, of more than €80,000 in 2019, for claims in cases of employer insolvency.

For comparison, ceilings for individual claims in other member states, such as Finland and Sweden, are in the €18,000 to €20,000 range. In Luxembourg, the guarantee is for six months of pay, which is more than the three-month minimum, but it is capped at minimum wage rates. Thus, an individual claim was limited to just over €13,000 in 2021.

With regard to the other proposed provision in the Bill, that is, the priority of employee claims on the wage guarantee funds over other creditors in the case of insolvency, some countries such as Spain are explicit in their national legislation about the priority of employee claims. Other countries are explicit about the super-priority of employee claims in the cases of employer insolvency.

In the relevant ILO convention, the national law should provide workers with a higher priority than most other claims, notably those of the state and social security system, with the caveat that where a wage guarantee fund is in place, as is now the case throughout the EU, this ranking is reversed and employees "may be given a lower rank of privilege than those of the State and the social security system".

I am sorry for taking up too much of the committee's time, but I tried to be a little bit clear and I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you Mr. Hurley. I invite Mr. McGrath to make opening remarks on behalf of SOLAS.

Mr. Alan McGrath

I thank the Chair and the joint committee for their invitation to address the Companies (Protection of Employees’ Rights in Liquidations) Bill 2021. I am accompanied today by my colleague, Mr. David Smith, director of construction, quality and green skills. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the committee’s discussion of the scheme and to assist in any way possible.

SOLAS has responsibility for funding, planning and co-ordinating further education and training, FET, in Ireland. Through the 16 education and training boards, ETBs, and other providers, the FET system offers access to a wide range of learning opportunities and supports in every corner of the country, regardless of background or formal education level, and a learning pathway to take the learner as far as he or she wishes to go.

The FET system currently serves a base of approximately 200,000 unique learners and students per annum. Included in this figure are specific programmes that are in place to provide upskilling or reskilling programmes for those seeking employment. FET adopts a learner-centred approach and welcomes learners, regardless of background or previous educational attainment, including those seeking a second chance to engage with the education and training system to develop their skills further or gain new skills.

SOLAS is currently implementing a five-year FET strategy, Future FET: Transforming Learning, which is built around three core objectives of building skills for those in employment and out of employment; fostering inclusion, which is about making FET accessible to all, including marginalised learners, and facilitating education pathways for learners.

SOLAS has, over a number of years, co-ordinated and provided specialised training and educational supports to more than 15,000 redundant workers through ten programmes funded by the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. Seven of these applications were submitted on foot of redundancy situations arising from the closure of facilities at Dell; Waterford Crystal; SR Technics; TalkTalk; Anderson Ireland; Lufthansa and PWA International. Three other applications were sectoral-related and provided supports to construction workers and apprentices who were made redundant between July 2009 and March 2010.

In broad terms, the types of supports provided to the workers involved in previous schemes included dedicated support teams; the provision of outreach clinics on a national basis; access to available training grants designed to support reskilling; engaging with public and private training providers on behalf of workers; career coaching and associated well-being supports; financial supports for travelling and childcare and financial support for purchasing equipment for their respective upskilling programmes. However, within this suite of supports each, beneficiary could tailor the supports to maximise the programme for his or her own benefit and the programmes generally lasted two years.

In providing these supports, SOLAS works closely with other Departments, agencies and bodies, such as the Department of Social Protection’s Intreo service, which provides a one-stop shop for employment services and income supports and a range of personalised supports to jobseekers.

In May 2021, the Government announced a training fund to support Debenhams workers who had faced redundancy. SOLAS was tasked with responsibility for implementing the fund. Since then, SOLAS revived the delivery model heretofore deployed under the European-funded programmes and has engaged with colleagues in Departments and Debenhams trade unions, Mandate and SIPTU, to agree the final package of supports. In parallel with discussions with stakeholders and unions, we have held a series of briefings sessions with employees of each impacted Debenhams store.

Based on previous experience, in 2021, SOLAS established a co-ordination unit with the sole remit of designing and implementing additional supports for those impacted by large-scale redundancies. The supports, which SOLAS designed and is delivering, build on what individuals may receive from other State agencies. In addition to overseeing the Debenhams training fund, we established the Debenhams oversight committee. This committee is independently chaired, with agreed terms of reference, and comprises of State agencies, union officials and workers.

The package of measures that are funded for Debenhams workers can include occupational guidance and career planning support; education and training programmes, especially to address digital skills and enterprise and self-employment supports. To help inform potential beneficiaries, a number of information sessions, online, in person and one to one, where required, were held throughout the country in late 2021 and through 2022, to help explain the process and types of supports available. A number of additional information sessions will recommence from March.

The supports available can be broadly categorised as training grants, to allow eligible clients to avail of upskilling and training options from the private and State providers; a career transition grant, which is designed to permit eligible clients procure the services of HR practitioners, that is, to assist with CVs, interviews and mentoring; other services such as start-your-own-business supports, with referrals to the local enterprise offices, LEOs; course equipment and materials, by supporting clients to procure equipment and materials required for their course such as laptops, iPads or related forms of equipment and materials to enhance their employability. The supports available also include course expense contributions, which can cover travel and accommodation, toward the cost of attending courses or interviews; childcare, towards the costs of childcare to facilitates parents to attend training or upskilling programmes and stationery and associated costs.

SOLAS also provides support and guidance to clients daily, in completing fund applications and required supporting documentation reimbursements and by booking courses directly with the training provider on behalf of the client.

This provides a brief overview of the FET supports in place for those in the unfortunate position of becoming redundant. I thank the Chairman and the committee members for the opportunity to contribute to the consideration of this important legislation and we look forward to contributing to the discussion.

Thank you, Mr. McGrath.

I thank our guests for their attendance. I should declare an interest at the beginning. I am a trade union member and former trade union official. I certainly support this Bill, along with my party, Sinn Féin. I cannot believe this issue is still going on, seven years after the Duffy-Cahill proposals were published. I will start with our colleagues from the Company Law Review Group, by asking about their December 2021 report on the issue of splitting of corporate operations from asset-holding entities in group structures.

Will Mr. Egan outline how companies do this in practice and the damage such practice does to the State and in particular to workers? Can Mr. Egan also outline the recommendations that the CLRG made to the Department regarding necessary amendments to the Companies Act 2014 to further enhance the regulatory framework?

Mr. Paul Egan

I will invite Professor Lynch Fannon to respond to this.

Professor Irene Lynch Fannon

I will respond to this question even though it seems to be outside the remit of the particular statutory provisions that are being proposed. When companies split their asset-holding operations from their operational activities, you can have one part of a group where the corporation would own valuable assets and another part of the group where the subsidiaries would run the operational activities on a day-to-day basis. When the operational activities on a day-to-day basis get into trouble, those subsidiaries can be liquidated. Then the question is whether the group as a whole, which might be quite profitable in other areas, is obliged to contribute. The underlying issue for those of us in Ireland and other common law countries is that we take the doctrine of corporate personality very seriously. It has advantages and disadvantages in all sorts of ways but it certainly has disadvantages in regard to looking for contributions from otherwise profitable parts of a group in its entirety.

I would like to mention two quite radical provisions in the Companies Act, sections 599 and 600. As I have said, they are outside the scope of what is being considered this morning. These provisions were originally borrowed from New Zealand. They allow for what we call pooling and contribution orders, whereby a court can order the pooling of the assets of two companies that are insolvent in a group, or are being liquidated in a group, in order that creditors can be paid. More importantly, a contribution order can be sought by a liquidator from the High Court. We have made some specific recommendations to improve the efficacy of that particular provision. Those recommendations are made in the 2021 report. Our advice to the Government is that we can improve those contribution orders. In my opinion, that is probably one of the most effective ways to address the specific issue that has been mentioned now. I emphasise that it has nothing to do really with preferential creditors under section 621.

Mr. Paul Egan

I made a note in anticipation that this question might be asked. There are two impediments to pooling and contribution orders at the moment, the first of which is cost because it is a High Court action. The second impediment is a particular provision which requires the court to be satisfied that the circumstances that gave rise to the winding up of the company are attributable to the acts of the related company. The nuanced amendment that the review group has proposed is that one of the considerations the court should take into account is the extent to which the circumstances that gave rise to the winding up of the company are attributable to the acts or omissions of the related company. It is therefore a lower bar than what is there at the moment.

In regard to excursions to the High Court, a separate standing committee of the CLRG made a submission in relation to the administration of civic justice. It was a standing committee recommendation, and not a full review group recommendation. We requested that consideration be given to an expanded role for the Circuit Court in set locations in Ireland which would deal with particular company law matters.

By way of a supplemental point which is worth mentioning, the legal environment for the governance of companies was materially changed in 2021 with the transposition of the preventive restructuring directive, which imposed new duties on directors. I need to get into the detail on this. It is established that if a company is insolvent, the directors’ duties are to the creditors of the company. In the CLRG's first report, we recommended that this be put on a statutory footing rather than being merely the result of a court judgment. We expanded that in the 2017 report whereby if a company was likely to become insolvent, the directors would have regard to the interests of creditors, which of course include employees, and would preserve the company’s property. In fact, when the directive was transposed it went further by imposing three duties on directors. It provides that where a director has reasonable cause to believe that a company is unlikely to be able to pay its debts, the directors must have regard to the interests of creditors, including employees; to the need to take steps to avoid insolvency; and to the need to avoid deliberate or grossly negligent conduct that threatens the viability of the company. The legal environment is different. There is a proposal out there which, if enacted and implemented, will change it further.

I thank both witnesses for those answers. They are very useful. I wish to emphasise the fact that we have repeatedly seen variations on so-called tactical insolvencies. We have seen at first hand the destruction they caused to the workers at Clerys, La Senza, Paris Bakery, TalkTalk and Debenhams. I am particularly interested in asking Mr. Hurley from Eurofound to tell us a little more about how collective redundancies are dealt with by our European neighbours. Will he give some broader examples of what constitutes best practice in this particular area?

Mr. John Hurley

I guess the main requirements of the European directives in the area of major restructurings are that workers and their representatives have to be informed of the intention to make a collective redundancy in all firms above a certain size; there has be information and consultation with the employees and the worker representatives; certain time limits and administrative processes have to be gone through before any redundancies can be enacted; and, at the far end of a restructuring process in situations where employers are insolvent, there has to be the institutionalisation of some type of wage guarantee fund to make sure that workers are not left high and dry in terms of forgone wages or entitlements. These European directives are transposed differently based on the different legal traditions. We have a common law approach in this jurisdiction but in most of continental Europe there are different legal structures. The directives set out a minimum set of provisions for all of the agents in a restructuring to abide by. However, the overarching principle is that workers’ rights should be protected as far as possible and that restructurings should be done in a way which is public and involves some degree of consultation to mitigate any negative consequences for workers. In many restructurings, the proceduralisation of large-scale restructurings in Europe often results in fewer people being made redundant than was originally announced by the employers.

It is clear from Mr. Hurley's opening statement that in France, for example, collective agreements can be included in terms of entitlements.

Mr. John Hurley

Yes, I think that is true. I would like to be able to give the committee fuller documentation about how collective agreements, which often include severance pay entitlements that are significantly above statutory entitlements, are dealt with in various countries. In the summary we did of the legislation in the various member states in 2020 and 2021, we found that only in France and possibly Hungary was concrete reference made to the fact that collectively negotiated severance terms were part of what the wage guarantee fund should actually cover in cases of insolvency.

In the majority of countries, I did not find any reference to such an extended scope, if you like, of the wage guarantee coverage.

Sure, but it certainly shows what is possible and what can be done.

Mr. John Hurley

It shows what is possible. Things tend to vary from country to country. That is also reflected in the actual public budget available to cover these particular costs, which is very significant. Across Europe, we are talking about figures of tens of billions of euro per year. In Ireland, it is approximately €30 million. If we do a simple per capita calculation, in some countries and notably in France, the entitlements seem to be higher than in many other countries. That is probably based on the fact that the scope of the guarantee covers lots of extra remuneration elements compared to some other countries.

I thank Mr. Hurley. I am up against the clock. Recent information has come to light regarding the Debenhams liquidation. Workers found documents that appear to show that the Debenhams group, which had been taken over by three vulture funds, including two banks, namely, Barclays and Bank of Ireland, was saddled with a floating charge of €200 million on the Irish operation.

It is safe to say that it should have been clear to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, when KPMG informed it of the liquidation and what was happening, that this demonstrated that this was a cynical, tactical liquidation that was orchestrated one year in advance to ensure that 1,000 workers would lose their jobs and not get a penny because artificial debts were imposed on the company.

An ex-employee of KMPG was involved as a liquidator in this transaction, which took place one year to the day before workers received their notice. Had it been received by anything less than one year, the €200 million debt would not have been there. It could not have been done. It explicitly exploited a loophole in company law, which the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment should have known about and which KPMG should have known about, and I suspect did know about.

Do any of our guests want to comment on how the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment could have missed this or whether it was aware of it? In any event, what do they think should be done to close such loopholes and make it illegal to allow this immoral and most unethical behaviour to prevail?

Mr. Paul Egan

First of all, I am here as chair of the Company Law Review Group. I am not competent to speak on behalf of the Department. I will pick up one element of what the Senator mentioned, which was the one-year rule, and then defer to Professor Lynch Fannon. I believe we have one recommendation in the December 2021 report relating to strict timeframes. I will ask Professor Lynch Fannon to contribute on this point.

Professor Irene Lynch Fannon

This is a complex matter that is in some way tangentially relevant to the issue of preferential creditors, which is the subject matter of the proposed Bill. With regard to the kind of transaction that is being described, these are transactions that take place in the period before an insolvency that seek to gain advantages for particular creditors. There are rafts of provisions in our Companies Act that seek to address particular types of transactions, including the creation of last-minute floating charges. Our period of time is six months, in certain circumstances, and then that is extended to 12 months where the floating charge is created in favour of connected persons.

As Mr. Egan pointed out, however, we considered, if you like, the hard rule that is created within those statutory limitations so that if we have such a very specific period, it is possible to manipulate the period, which I think is what is being described here. I say "I think" because I am not particularly familiar with the documentation that is being discussed. That is what I am taking from what has been said.

We made a recommendation that in certain circumstances, where these periods seem to have been manipulated, the court might have the discretion to apply the core of the provision without attention to the specific time limitation. However, this is again a range of recommendations we made with regard to these kinds of last-minute transactions.

The harmonisation of insolvency law in Europe has already been mentioned by the representative from Eurofound. There is a new draft directive coming from Europe that seeks to harmonise some aspects of insolvency law, which can be very technical across different member states. However, the issue of transactions that seek to deprive creditors of the assets of the company or put the assets of the company beyond the reach of creditors is one of the core subject matters of that directive.

I thank Professor Lynch Fannon. I must make my apologies and leave. I would urge the Government to act on these recommendations, however. We have been waiting far too long to see action in this area.

I thank Senator Gavan. The next person indicating to speak is Senator Crowe, who has seven minutes.

I thank our guests this morning. One of my main concerns regarding this proposal is the potential knock-on impact on SMEs. If a company with an SME as a significant creditor were to go insolvent, this proposal with employees being ahead of such an SME could cause more job losses and potentially even result in the SME failing. Could Mr. Hurley perhaps advise whether scenarios such as this have arisen in other European countries where employees have this preferential status?

Mr. John Hurley

I am afraid I do not have information about that. I am not entirely clear about the scenario the Senator is presenting. He is saying that in situations where employees might have preferential rights in a case of company insolvency, the protection of their pay entitlements and pay claims might result in further job losses. Is that the scenario the Senator is trying to draw?

That is correct.

Mr. John Hurley

I am not aware of any cases where that happens. By definition, these are cases of insolvency in which many people lose their jobs, which is probably the majority of the workforce in the affected companies, whether they are SMEs or larger companies.

Okay. I understand the point Mr. Hurley is making. Mr. Egan mentioned that the CLRG considered, but did not recommend, the expansion of the class of preferential payments, which is in section 2 of the Bill. One of the concerns I have seen is that this proposal would create a special class of redundant worker with legal rights that go beyond those of workers who are made redundant, in general, in the event of the employer being insolvent. Could Mr. Egan perhaps expand on that and outline problems that could arise as a result of this?

Mr. Paul Egan

There are two aspects. I will again invite Professor Lynch Fannon to contribute on this. One aspect is the expansion of the particular amounts that would be preferential for employees and the second is the super-preferential proposal in section 3 of the Bill.

Professor Irene Lynch Fannon

To briefly answer the question that was raised, let us focus in particular on suppliers. The priority system starts with secured creditors. Section 621 inserts a whole class of preferential creditors before unsecured creditors. Unsecured creditors would typically in this case be suppliers of the company. Therefore, we have this whole class of preferential creditors that will take priority at the moment over unsecured creditors, suppliers, SMEs and those kinds of traders.

At the moment, section 621 covers rates, taxes, employer contributions, VAT, local property taxes, all wages payable within four months, holidays, social welfare contributions, contributions under section 13 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, accidents and then two other areas that are relevant to employees' pay and superannuation. Section 621 has been in the Companies Act schema since 1963.

Over periods of time additional preferential creditors have been added, especially where new taxes such as VAT, but also social welfare contributions, are created under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act. Accordingly, this proposal would add an additional enhanced employee redundancy payment over and beyond the statutory entitlement and it will obviously, by necessity, reduce the pool of assets that will be available to unsecured creditors. A typical unsecured creditor would be a supplier and perhaps an SME as the Senator mentioned. That is a brief overview of the concern I think he is expressing. It is a difficulty. The other thing is that typically, where you have a range of preferential creditors, including Revenue, you will find there may not be enough assets to even cover all preferential creditors, so their entitlements are reduced on a pro rata basis at the moment. In acute situations that is often where the assets run out. The SMEs are there behind that as unsecured creditors and typically as suppliers.

I thank Professor Lynch Fannon for that detailed response. I will leave it there for now. I might come in again later in the second round.

I welcome our guests and thank them for their work. I take the opportunity to welcome SOLAS as well and comment briefly on the work it has been doing, which is quite impressive. The one criticism I have is that the organisation is hiding its light under a bushel and many people do not know what it does. I think SOLAS is responsible for local training initiatives, LTIs, across the country. I have come across some of the work being done in those initiatives and have been hugely impressed. This is slightly off-topic so I hope the Chair will give me forbearance. The LTIs are making an impact on marginalised young people in particular and it is really impressive. I have heard some reports recently to the effect that the initiatives are being reviewed or revised and might be downgraded in some way. I hope that is not true. If anything, the staff in those centres should be given contracts whereby they have certainty of tenure and promotion and the contracts do not just go from year to year so the staff can have a career pathway, because the work they do is so challenging. I apologise to everyone else for saying that but I wanted to take the opportunity.

Mr. Egan said that the CLRG "considered but did not recommend what is proposed in Section 2 of the Bill – the expansion of the class of preferential payments". I ask him to expand on why the group did not recommend that.

Mr. Paul Egan

I will quote from our report. We identified four reasons. The first is the one that was just discussed. First of all there was a comment that "modern corporate insolvency policy is generally resistant to the extension of the class of preferential creditors". Leaving that aside, by expanding a preferential class of creditor it "reduces the pool of assets available to unsecured creditors", which are often other suppliers that in turn have their own employees.

There are three other reasons and at this stage I might be better off asking Professor Lynch Fannon to discuss them. They are to do with the difference between legally binding decisions of the Labour Court and recommendations of the Labour Court.

Professor Irene Lynch Fannon

There are other issues surrounding the effectiveness of collective agreements and the incorporation of terms of collective agreements into contracts of employment. However, I am before the committee as chair of the insolvency law committee. The issue with enhanced entitlements under a contract of employment will of course refer to the unfortunate situation the Debenhams workers found themselves in, but we must bear in mind it would also refer to any class or kind of employee where you would have, for example, very highly paid management with very generous redundancy entitlements under contract. That is what the section being proposed refers to.

The idea of enhancing the class of preferential creditors has knock-on effects because of the priority system I have already described. In particular, it pushes down the ladder the cohort of unsecured creditors where you would find SMEs and suppliers. As Mr. Egan mentioned, there is a general resistance in corporate insolvency policy to enhancing the list of preferential creditors because of the knock-on effects. This might not be of concern to the committee but it also changes the lending environment where preferential creditors take precedence over floating charge holders, or lenders with secured debt. That is of concern depending on which side of the stakeholder transactional issues one might stand. We also noted that in other countries, including neighbouring jurisdictions, preferential status had been abolished for some time for revenue because of the consequences of enhancing the preferential status. That is now being rolled back, but there was concern for the unsecured creditors and the SME sector. That encompasses the reasons we outlined, in brief.

Okay, I thank the CLRG. I am interested in Professor Lynch Fannon's point that the preferential status of revenue was changed in some European countries. She said that has been rolled back. Maybe she could expand on that.

Professor Irene Lynch Fannon

Yes. By some European countries we are talking about the UK, which is a European country I suppose, but in the last two years there has been a reconsideration of that because it has been found that the protection afforded to revenue debts is important. Nevertheless, the preferential status for employee payments was retained. We have that in Ireland in section 621 and the various subsections I have mentioned. There is preferential status for some wage payments, holiday payments and so forth. There has been discussion this morning on guarantee funds and usually payments are made out of the employer's insolvency fund and that fund steps into that priority status. That is the guarantee-type scheme Mr. Hurley has mentioned.

I thank Professor Lynch Fannon. Mr. Hurley mentioned the social fund in this presentation. Bearing in mind what Professor Lynch Fannon said, am I right in saying the social fund would be, in some way or other, seen as a fallback? I think I heard mention of a €300 million impact on Ireland. Will Mr. Hurley expand on his thinking on that for a moment?

Mr. John Hurley

I was talking about the amounts that have been spent on these wage guarantee funds in various EU jurisdictions, according to the public records. From recent years, I think it was around the €30 million mark in Ireland.

It was €30 million.

Mr. John Hurley

Yes, not €300 million. In some countries like France, which is obviously a bigger country with perhaps ten times as many persons in employment as Ireland, the amount disbursed by the social insurance fund there was around €1.7 billion. That is many more times bigger per capita than the Irish fund. That partially reflects the number of calls on the fund. I think there were nearly 200,000 calls on the fund in one recent year in France, compared with 2,000 here. It is also possible the payment levels themselves were higher.

Is there a risk that, if such a fund were to exist in Ireland and were to be used in a similar way as it is used in France, it would become a kind of "Get out of jail free" card for companies, employers and people who find themselves in insolvency situations as they would know that there is fallback position in which the State and the taxpayer would pick up the tab?

Mr. John Hurley

I suppose that is always a danger. Companies have the resources to game systems. That is why the likes of the CLRG in Ireland are trying to make sure that company law is adequate to prevent or pre-empt those types of possibilities.

The second page of Eurofound's presentation refers to a European Commission implementation report from 2011 and notes that "Ireland opts for an eighteen month reference period for outstanding pay claims where a number of member states opt for a six month reference period." It refers to the "effect of limiting the minimum pay out to eight weeks [...] where in other countries it is a twelve week minimum guarantee." Will Mr. Hurley give us some practical examples of the impact of this for the benefit of people listening in on this meeting from outside?

Mr. John Hurley

These are just the terms of the directive as it has been transposed into Irish law. There are various options for national legislators in the EU directive. When transposing the law, the Irish legislators chose to take a reference period of 18 months for all pay entitlements and pay claims connected with the insolvency. That longer timeframe was also accompanied by a guarantee of payments for a minimum of two months rather than three, which is the general minimum the directive establishes. In the majority of member states, the pay guarantee that operates is for three months rather than two.

I will come back to SOLAS for a moment. With respect to its work with people who have lost their jobs for various reasons, including insolvency, what kind of take-up is there for SOLAS's retraining initiatives and so on? On the outcomes, does SOLAS keep track of the number of people who got employment as a result of such initiatives? I am talking about people who lost their jobs, went to SOLAS, got training or upskilling and then moved on. Will the witnesses provide an overview on that?

Mr. Alan McGrath

Before I answer, is the Deputy looking for the number of people in general or a specific-----

Before Mr. McGrath comes in, I note that SOLAS was asked a question earlier that did not relate to what we are talking about this morning. I would be happy if the representatives could answer that but, if they do not want to or are not in a position to do so now-----

They should come back to us with an answer at another time.

Yes, they may come back to us at another time.

Mr. Alan McGrath

We can indeed. We can provide that information. On the general further education and training, FET, systems, we are talking about 200,000 learners a year. I am trying to be concise. The framework of qualifications in Ireland goes from level 1 to level 10. The further education and training supports operate from level 1 to level 6. Levels 1 to 3 generally relate to basic and foundational literacy, numeracy and, increasingly, digital skills that people will require. People use this training for their everyday lives but it also provides an educational pathway to continue along. At levels 4, 5 and 6, much of the provision is focused on transitioning from where you are to a new job. The outcomes from such training are very impressive. With regard to the post-leaving certificate, PLC, courses, we work with the Central Statistics Office to track learners and gather data about their movements into or out of the labour market and where they are a few years after their training. I will have to confirm this but, when we last looked at our PLC learners, a percentage in the mid to high 60s had transitioned into full employment. Many then go on to additional education and end up in the higher education system. It is my understanding that approximately 20% of the first-year technological university intake every year comprises PLC students. There is a lot of work going on to join things up. The outcomes are really good.

We are also the national co-ordinator for apprenticeships and the craft apprenticeship system in Ireland. The outcomes in that area are outstanding. These are employment programmes. As the Deputy will know, to be an apprentice, you need to be employed. From surveys and from speaking to apprentices and employers, we know the career trajectories that people come out with. They are very good.

Taking it back to this Bill, I will start and then may hand over to Mr. Smith. At the moment, 388 workers have availed of these services and are availing of the options to get retrained or to have their CVs looked at with a view to making applications and of the associated supports they will require. That is the level of take-up. I will hand over to Mr. Smith, who will have some additional information.

Mr. David Smith

We will come back to the committee in writing on the issue of the local training initiatives, LTIs. On the redundancy side of the equation on the programmes we have outlined - I include Debenhams in this - from 2010 to 2017, approximately 80% of the unique beneficiaries passing through the European-funded programmes were reskilled and retrained into new employment opportunities. There was a massive effort in that area. We operate that fund to provide tailored supports in addition to what the State already provides. That cohort of beneficiaries, including our colleagues in Debenhams, are ring-fenced and managed directly by SOLAS. That is how it works. It is a very different and very focused way of achieving activation. It takes a lot of support because these people have been through something very traumatic. As we have learned over ten years and as we have seen recently with Debenhams, these events cause severe trauma. We are at the coalface. We are the first in. We try to deal with the trauma and allow people to make their own choices, in which we aid them as best we can. As Mr. McGrath has pointed out, more than 954 workers were affected at Debenhams. We engaged with workers before and after the event. There were 388 unique beneficiaries but we are engaging with 516 to 520. The key point in all of this is about how we integrate with the workers' committee, from the trade unions all the way through. We have workers on the committee to represent their members. We can pivot supports based on the advice of that committee. That is what we have had to do in the case of Debenhams. We had to review the grants and expenditure and pivot them towards specific needs. Does that answer the question? We can come back with more information.

It is useful to know how many people benefited and where they ended up afterwards. They may have ended up in better employment than they had previously and now have higher wages, better conditions and so forth. That kind of detail is interesting.

Mr. David Smith

That information is tracked on our internal systems.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. It is important to remember that it is not a matter of debate that there is a problem with the law as it currently stands. We have the example of what happened to the workers in Debenhams. More than 1,000 workers were working for a company that clearly engaged in a cynical tactical liquidation to deny those workers what they had in a collective agreement, that is, an enhanced redundancy package. We have a problem. Every time we asked, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and everyone else would say that what Debenhams did was terrible and shameful but, as it stands, it can happen again. The law needs to be changed to protect workers.

I have a question for Mr. Egan, or whoever chooses to answer. At the end of his statement, he stated that he seeks to represent the consensus or near-consensus view of the CLRG. Is there consensus or near consensus about opposing workers getting preferential status in terms of enhanced redundancy payments?

Mr. Paul Egan

As the Deputy will be aware, there was a minority report from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, representative. I believe that representative was the one member of the review group who did not agree with the proposed expansion of the class of preferential payments beyond what is there in the law.

He did agree with it.

Mr. Paul Egan

Yes.

ICTU is on record in that regard. Other than ICTU, what other representative bodies are part of the CLRG?

Mr. Paul Egan

The representative bodies include: Banking and Payments Federation Ireland; Euronext Dublin, the Irish Stock Exchange; ICTU; the Irish Funds Industry Association; the Institute of Directors in Ireland; the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association; and the Small Firms Association.

Mr. Egan is telling me that the representatives of the bankers, the Irish Stock Exchange, the Irish funds industry and company directors along with two organisations that represent small firms were all against making workers preferential creditors while ICTU, which represents workers, was in favour.

Mr. Paul Egan

It is probably unsurprising.

Well precisely. Is that not the point that class interest is being represented here?

Mr. Paul Egan

I should add, however, that the State and regulators are also represented as well as the Office of the Attorney General, the Central Bank, the Companies Registration Office, the Corporate Enforcement Authority, the Courts Service, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the IAASA and the Revenue Commissioners. Then there are professional bodies that have members who represent all sides, including barristers, company secretaries, accountants, solicitors and insolvency practitioners. They are all represented there too.

Yes, but the ones that represent the workers are in favour of it and all the ones that represent the various business groups are against it. Will Mr. Egan outline the group's mandate under section 959 of the Companies Act 2014 when advising the Minister? What are the things of which it is supposed to take account?

Mr. Paul Egan

We are required to seek to promote enterprise, facilitate commerce, simplify the operation of the Companies Act, enhance corporate governance and encourage commercial probity.

It has no mandate to protect workers' rights,

Mr. Paul Egan

Not specifically. I should mention that an announcement was made during lockdown - I cannot identify the exact date - that proposed an employment law review group somewhat along the lines of the CLRG that would have a dedicated mandate in that space.

My point basically is that the group is against enhancing workers' redundancy. Quelle surprise. The body is overwhelmingly made up of employers' representatives and its mandate is explicitly not anything to do with workers' rights and protecting workers' rights. In fact, legally it has to come up with advice that promotes enterprise, facilitates commerce and encourages commercial probity. Why should we take its advice on board that much when it is so obviously class biased?

Mr. Paul Egan

I do not think I have an answer to that.

Okay. No problem.

Turning to SOLAS, after more than a year of strike action and so on, all the workers got out of it was a €3 million training fund. That is not the fault of SOLAS. How much of that has been drawn down so far?

Mr. Alan McGrath

A total of €420,000.

So the vast majority has not been drawn down. When does that come to an end?

Mr. Alan McGrath

October this year.

Any money that is not spent by that point goes into an overall pot of the National Training Fund and the Debenhams fund is -----

Mr. Alan McGrath

Probably but we would have to confirm that.

That is certainly what the reply to the parliamentary question suggests. How much does SOLAS estimate will be drawn down by the time we come to the end?

Mr. David Smith

The programme is voluntary. We are trying to encourage people to come forward. We would love to spend the €3 million and that is our target but we have to be realistic. Every effort is being put into activate, motivate and encourage people to come forward.

Can Mr. Smith indicate how many applications have been turned down because they do not meet the criteria?

Mr. David Smith

I do not have that to hand. We have changed our policies to reflect an easier pathway for people coming through. Like every organisation, there is an appeals process. If someone is rejected initially, it can go through a process and nine times out of ten they are approved on appeal. We have moved to simplify it. Obviously, we are very conscious of taxpayer funding. We have to be conscious of the Committee of Public Accounts, audits and all of that but I think we have been very fair and we continue to do that across the country between now and the end of October. Then the next step is a policy decision for colleagues in government.

I thank Mr. Smith.

I thank the Chair and welcome all our guests. I will start with the CLRG. Will Professor Lynch Fannon elaborate on her earlier point about expanding the pool of preferential creditors and how it will reduce the pool of assets to unsecured creditors? That could particularly affect SMEs. Has Ireland a higher representation of SMEs than other European countries? Just about 1 million people here are employed by SMEs. Other countries might have a higher proportion working in the public sector. She spoke about where financial companies are holding illegal securities or trusts that this would essentially change their leverage were there an expanded pool of preferential creditors. Will she comment on this?

Professor Irene Lynch Fannon

Mr. Hurley might be better able to answer on the SME sector as it was a comparative question. I do not have figures to hand. I am not entirely clear what the Deputy is asking about in respect of leveraging. Would he repeat the question please?

What I took from Professor Lynch Fannon was that if the preferential creditor pool was expanded, there could be other financial institutions that were unsecured creditors and, therefore, this would affect them in advancing funds to companies.

Professor Irene Lynch Fannon

Yes. I understand now. My apologies. One of the issues that is important in the new harmonisation of insolvency laws directive is driven by this. That is a concern among lenders on the certainty of the lending context. In our priority system, when someone is what we call a secured creditor but with a floating charge, which is a particular kind of security, the floating charge is trumped, as it were, by the preferential creditors. That happens now under our section 621. The more preferential creditors there are, the smaller the pool of assets that will be available to floating charge holders and, therefore, the floating charge becomes less valuable as a security. It affects the flexibility that companies have to offer security to bankers or to lenders. In that sense it does somewhat cripple the lending environment as well. I would like to emphasise that at the moment, employees have protection under section 621 under the various headings I mentioned earlier so it is not as if it is not happening; it is just a question of enhancing those protections. That is the issue. Increasing the pool of assets.

That is very precise. I now turn to SOLAS. We have been unfortunate in County Waterford that we have experienced high-level redundancies. The first was Waterford Crystal many years ago. We still had issues relating to this coming before the committee last week regarding the wind-up of Waterford Crystal. There is also Debenhams. On the funding and redundancy package that was on offer to Debenhams workers and its take-up, is there a fall-off in people accessing retraining and reskilling by age? I have a feeling about this and have spoken to some workers around Waterford. Once people get to their mid-50s they may find it hard to get back and engage in education or whatever because they feel they are at too much of a disadvantage. Can SOLAS comment on that? It did say that there was a transition of approximately 60% among people who were at lower levels of education who had gone onto further education or whatever, which is fantastic, but is there something specific for people aged over 55?

Mr. David Smith

I am very familiar with Waterford Crystal and TalkTalk because I was involved in all those programmes. The Deputy is correct that a pattern emerged around age then. Later, with the Debenhams case, it was similar. Many of the workers there were coming near to retirement. We have, therefore, tried to implement well-being supports, which is difficult to do. For those aged between 50 and 55, we have evidence to suggest that people are securing employment, albeit part-time employment, and it may not be in what they were trained to do initially.

The fund retrained people to do other things like becoming special needs assistants, SNAs, or other hobby-type employments. In all cases of redundancy, including Waterford Crystal and all the other ones, the unseen part is the impact on mental health. Through HR interventions, like Mr. McGrath has spoken about, we provide counselling and specialised support services but we do not broadcast that loudly because they are very personal. We have put those types of interventions in the background to help people move across.

What has been the uptake for IT skills? The people to whom I spoke told me that a lack of IT skills was their biggest difficulty. In particular, people coming out of long-term manual labour situations felt they did not have enough IT skills to get on board with things. I would say they were quite nervous about trying to present themselves for IT classes or anything like that. Is there a specific scheme for these people so they do not have to migrate into CE schemes to get another two or three years of social insurance?

Mr. Alan McGrath

Yes. It is a trend to attract the age group mentioned and there are two initiatives. One is called Skills to Compete, which is an umbrella term for a range of courses. The initiative is generally focused on people who are unemployed and there is a particular focus on increasing digital skills. These are people who are unemployed but seek to go back into employment.

Skills to Advance is another programme, which is for people in employment. It is available to businesses or, indeed, direct to employees. Again, there is a suite of courses, including courses on digital skills and customer service. Digital skills, pharma and those kind of things are very important.

Increasingly, this age group may have worked in areas where a lot of their work, or the businesses behind them, are automated now; these are automated services that we all use every day. Our interventions create an opportunity for these people to get a set of skills that will allow them to stay in that business but maybe in a different role, a different area or in an enhanced role or, indeed, to completely change and transition into a new area of employment. There is dedicated work done with that age group, under those initiatives, to engage with them. There are 16 education and training boards located across the country. I urge these people to reach out to their local education and training board and the board will take it from there.

Mr. Paul Egan

Let me explain the knock-on effects. If you expand the pool of preferential creditors then you disadvantage other creditors. The other creditors include businesses that have employees of their own. We know that where there is a large insolvency then a lot of employers will suffer insolvency themselves with a consequential knock-on effect.

In terms of the review group with all its stakeholders, there is no perfect solution in a situation like this because, frankly, an insolvency is a most imperfect situation. The consistent aim is to develop a nuanced approach to all of this. When the Companies Bill, which became the Companies Act 2014, was being enacted the issue of preferential payments was considered and, in fact, the Revenue advantage was tweaked in a particular way. It is a process all of the time. I wanted to clarify that it is not as though the review group is aligned one way or the other. It seeks to come up with a consensus with a nuanced conclusion.

That concludes our consideration of the matter for today. I thank all of the representatives for assisting the committee in its consideration of this important matter. The committee will further consider the matter as soon as possible.

I propose that we go into private session to consider other business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 10.55 a.m. and adjourned at 11.15 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 February 2023.
Barr
Roinn