I propose to take Questions Nos. 494, 495 and 501 together.
The Duffy Cahill report, which was commissioned by the Government in the aftermath of the Clery's closure, highlighted how the issues raised by the event and the subsequent legal cases are highly complex.
The Duffy-Cahill Report was sent to the Company Law Review Group (CLRG) in 2016 for its consideration as part of the work of that group in advising the Minister for Business Enterprise and Innovation on any changes that it considered necessary with respect to the protection of employees and unsecured creditors. (The CLRG is a statutory body comprising members drawn from regulatory, legal, business and employee interests).
The CLRG, as part of its deliberations, also considered related amendments proposed by Deputy Nash (then Senator Nash) to the Companies (Accounting) Bill in April/May 2017.
The CLRG's ‘Report on the Protection of Employees and Unsecured Creditors’ was presented to the Minister for Business Enterprise and Innovation in June 2017 and published on the website of the CLRG. It did not include the implementation of the Duffy-Cahill Report or the Senator Nash proposals in its recommendations.
It is clear that the implementation of the recommendations in the Duffy-Cahill Report give rise to a host of complex issues and that any proposal to progress them would require further careful consideration involving consultation with many stakeholders.
The intention of this Government, as set out in the Programme for Government’s commitments regarding employee protections is to:
- Review whether the current legal provisions surrounding collective redundancies and the liquidation of companies effectively protect the rights of workers;
- Review the Companies Acts with a view to addressing the practice of trading entities splitting their operations between trading and property with the result being the trading business (including the jobs) go into insolvency and the assets are taken out of the original business;
and
- Examine the legal provision that pertains to any sale to a connected party following the insolvency of a company, including who can object and the allowable grounds of an objection.
Further consideration of the employment rights and company law context, and any subsequent, necessary legislation, will be progressed in due course by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Mr Leo Varadkar T.D.
Finally, I would add that during a recent Dáil Debate on the Private Members’ motion concerning the Duffy-Cahill Report, a number of Deputies proposed the introduction of a ring-fenced insolvency fund, such as exists in certain other European Member States, that would support payments due to workers laid off by an insolvent company. The proposed fund would, it is suggested, be financed by a levy on employers' Pay Related Social Insurance contributions.
As was conveyed during that debate, I believe this is an interesting proposal, worthy of detailed and serious consideration. A similar proposal was made recently by ICTU to the Minister of State, Deputy English. I look forward to Government considering the proposal with the input of ICTU and that of other informed parties. It has to be acknowledged that the proposal will have some obvious challenges that would necessitate wider consideration, not only across Government, but among stakeholders such as employers who would be asked to pay into the fund at this difficult economic period.
I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputies.
