I am indicating to speak.

Sentiment score: 0.00

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

Sentiment score: 0.08

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

Sentiment score: 0.10

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

Sentiment score: 0.27

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

Sentiment score: 0.23

-----of the protection of workers.

Sentiment score: 0.00

Does the Ceann Comhairle think that is okay?

Sentiment score: 0.23

I do not think it is okay.

Sentiment score: 0.23

It is so ignorant.

Sentiment score: -0.41

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

Sentiment score: 0.00