Richard Boyd Barrett: Demands Justice for Debenhams Workers

The last time yourself and your party were in government faced with a major crisis back then caused by the greed of bankers and developers, working people got it in the neck. Hundreds of thousands lost their jobs, saw pay cuts and a decade of austerity followed. Now I think for most people the test as to whether you have changed and that you are going to be the government of change that people voted for on February the 8th is how working people fare under your government and a key and immediate litmus test for whether you are going to bring that change and whether ordinary working people are going to get a fair deal and the support they need under your government faced with another crisis is the situation faced by 1,500 Debenhams workers who have been out protesting after Debenhams treated them in the most despicable way, without consultation, without notice, moving the company to liquidation in April of this year. A company who has refused to negotiate at all with the workers and which is orchestrating a situation even though there are probably tens of millions worth of stock in the shops in Henry Street, Black Rock, Cork, Talla and Blanchardstown, apparently this is a company with no assets. And of course, this is because conveniently the company lent itself, one of its subsidiaries lent itself some money and made the Irish business a co-guarantor on money that it lent to itself, eliminating all assets effectively from the balance sheet of the company. Now that is despicable treatment of workers and the question is because you said you were focused on legislation, Taoiseach, what are you going to do in order to support these Debenhams workers? And what needs to happen is that Debenhams cannot be allowed siphon off assets as they are trying to do to prevent a fair redundancy deal for these workers. The legislation to reorder the priority creditors in situations of liquidation has to be amended immediately so that workers in this situation are not treated in this despicable way as was done with Cleary's workers before. This issue has been well flagged. That where companies are contravening employment legislation or treating workers in this way, they will suffer serious penalties for treating people in this way. And that you will use all the sections available to your government in the Companies Act, particularly section 599 and 608, to make sure that the company does not run off with the assets and the workers get the fair redundancy and decent treatment that they deserve. In conjunction with the Debenhams workers, we are this afternoon putting a motion to the effect of what I have just outlined on the order paper of the Dáil. And they are hoping that your government and all parties in here will support that motion and take those actions necessary to get a just settlement for these women workers who are out, as we speak, picketing to prevent the assets being physically taken out of Henry Street by a cynical company that has treated them with contempt. I think Debenhams have treated the workers very poorly and in a very shabby way. And we are wrong to do so. And you are correct in saying they have availed of the legal framework within the Companies Act, solvency is winding up, governing all of that, to leave the workers extremely short. And the state through statutory redundancy will essentially have to, you know, do its bit to provide within the law, you know, within the framework what the state can provide in terms of statutory redundancy. But it is unacceptable. And yes, in my view, the legislation would have to be re-examined in terms of the devices that companies may use, separating out assets from trading income in particular, to deprive workers of their just entitlements in relation to redundancies. It is not simple, because any reform of any legislation can have unintended consequences. But in the programme for government, that issue is referenced. And it is an area that work will commence in terms of examining the overall company law situation with a view to reducing capacity of companies to deny workers their entitlements. In terms of redundancy and workers' rights generally, when a company is winding up. And that it happened in the context of COVID-19, I think was particularly regrettable, that the sense is that the COVID-19 situation was used as a basis for closing the company, and leaving 1500 people out of work. I'm sure the Debenhams workers will welcome your words of sympathy and your condemnation of how Debenhams have treated them. But the test is, what are you going to do about it? And we need to act urgently to do everything we can to make sure that Debenhams do not get away with manipulating the law as it stands in order to siphon off these assets. Their failure to consult with workers, the fact that the state may have to pay out the statutory redundancy, gives us certain leverage under that legislation for the insolvency fund to go after the assets of Debenhams. And we should do that. They've tried to siphon those assets off, but because of the heroic protests of those workers, and I have to say, they're really echoes of the South Africa Dunstor strike battle on those picket lines. And I'd encourage you to go down and meet with them because the women are an absolute inspiration and they are not going away. They are going to fight for justice. So I would appeal to you and your government to do absolutely everything now to ensure justice for them. The assets are in those shops. Debenhams must not be allowed to take them out. And those assets should be liquidated to the benefit of the workers to ensure just settlement for them. And there is a lot at stake because this isn't just about Debenhams workers. We are facing potentially tens of thousands of similar redundancies. So this is a test. Are we going to stand with workers faced with this kind of treatment and possibilities of mass redundancies in this country to prevent that sort of shoddy treatment and to protect workers who have given decades of loyal service as these workers have? Thank you Deputy. Again, I'm not going to raise expectations that one cannot deliver on in terms of interfering in the liquidation process or having interventions which would not sustain legally. So in terms of the existing workforce, the liquidation process and how we can leverage the remaining assets to secure the rights of workers, that's a very challenging and complex issue. You know that deep down. I accept your bona fides obviously, of course, in terms of what you want to happen on behalf of the workers. And I understand where you are coming from in relation to that. But I think there are two dimensions to this. One is how can we support in the most practical way the workers themselves who have been laid off? And how do we prevent the exploitation, if you like, of the company's legal framework, the law framework, to prevent such exploitation of workers into the future? And how we can build in greater protections for workers in such eventualities that they would have greater claims, clawbacks in terms of closures of this kind, engineered in this way into the future? And that's what I certainly would like to examine with my colleagues in government.