Bríd Smith: Demands Justice for Debenhams Workers, Rejects Amendment

I just want to say to Deputy Le Harte when he says no stone will be left unturned, we're not asking you to turn any stones, what we're asking the government to do is to drop their amendment, because this amendment is actually worse than outright opposition. It basically repeats what De Valera, and this minister at least you're being consistent, what De Valera said to Irish workers all them decades ago, Labour must wait. That is what you're saying to the Debenhams workers with this amendment, and it's really outrageous. They have waited, as has been repeatedly said here, over 100 days. But we did call them at the beginning of this, the canaries in the coal mine, because they were flagging it up that many tens of thousands of workers were facing redundancy, and often will face those redundancies in situations where justice has not been met out to them, because the justice for workers in this country is left sadly lacking. And really what we're asking here tonight, of all deputies, is to say which side you are on. That's the words of an old Labour song, which side are you on, boys? And that's what's being asked of you here tonight. We're being asked to accept that somehow liquidation and insolvency and mass redundancies are a natural occurrence, just like the weather. But this is not the case in Debenhams. It didn't occur because of COVID. It didn't occur because shopping and business fell off, or because the stores in Ireland were not making enough profit. This situation was contrived. In the words of one of the shop stewards, it is a contrived insolvency. It happened because of a decision by a consortium of Bank of Ireland, and remember the name, Bank of Ireland, Barclays, and two US-based hedge funds, appointed an administrator to Debenhams UK, and that triggered the withdrawal of support from the Irish arm of Debenhams, and that triggered the withdrawal of support that led to the liquidation and the loss of these 1,400 jobs. It was not a natural event. It was a conscious decision, taken in a struggle over power and money between a consortium called Selene UK, which includes Bank of Ireland, and other shareholders, such as Sports Direct. The workers here are collateral damage of a struggle between extremely wealthy and extremely powerful vested interests. And of course, I too want to commend those workers. They're amazing. I believe Leo Varadkar met them this morning, you met them this morning, and if you're not impressed, then you ought to be. They've taken a hugely courageous stand, and it is only when workers fight and stand up and fight back that we can see any real change in this country. Remember this, 90% of them are women, and over 70% of that 90% are in their 40s and 50s. And that means that they know, and have lived through the experience, of recession at least three times over, and all the talk of retraining and refitting them and purposing them for new employment is not impressing them. They may think that it reads well, but it doesn't guarantee them any help. And I believe that you're going to eventually be forced to do what the Debenhams workers are screaming at you to do. I know that your counter motion calls for review of legislation. Well, you've just gone through the details of Duffy Cattle there, and the Taoiseach must be well versed in it. Pardon me, Friday and slip, the minister, Leo Varadkar, because he was Taoiseach, must be well versed in it, because he sat over it for years and did nothing. So we need to act immediately to take the steps that was suggested by Duffy Cattle. And this is what he said can be done, and I quote, It would be possible for an adjudication officer to take into account a failure to obtain enhanced redundancy payment on foot of an express or implied terms incorporated into the employee's contract of employment. That was written in 2016, and in the years since, neither this nor any other of Duffy Cattle's recommendations have been enacted. The current minister responsible, Leo Varadkar, said here recently that Ireland has very robust workers' legislation. In his dreams, we do not, not for the SEOs, not for the Debenhams workers, not in terms of redundancies, this state and its institutions have utterly failed workers, and since 2015, since Cleary's continues to fail them. Now you have a chance to do the right thing, and now you put in this counter motion, which basically says, go away. That's what you're saying to them. You're saying it's complex, it requires, you have to look at unintended consequences, cost of the exchequer, etc. But let's think back to only last week. We stood in this house, over 140 pages of very, very complex legislation was passed. Even the ministers responsible admitted they hadn't read it or didn't understand it, and that was to facilitate this country signing up to an EU package that would be dispensed to businesses and firms. And in 2008, as Gino Kenny said earlier on, the Dáil sat day and night to pass emergency legislation that was very complex. They have moved heaven on earth for bankers and businesses, and now we're asking you to do that for workers. The workers are just as important, if not more important, than any banker or any businessman. The difference between two weeks statutory payment and the possibility of another two weeks enhanced payment would give a huge amount of comfort to them in terms of servicing their mortgage, paying off their debts, etc. And if the government would accept two points from us, one is tell the liquidators that all money coming to the state in form of taxes, VAT, etc. should be used to pay the enhanced redundancy. And then, to the Bank of Ireland, to tell that institution, call them in and say to them, the taxpayer bailed you out 10 years ago, and now you're playing a game with no thought to the devastation of the families' lives that are involved. Now, you have to do everything that you can, as a key shareholder in that consortium, to make sure that those workers get justice and get their just deserts. And my last appeal, again, is to the Green Party, very noticeable by their absence here tonight. Would they consider themselves progressive and on the side of workers in these situations? Are they committed to what they call a just transition for workers? If they're committed to it in climate, then they should be committed to it in this debate. I'm asking the Green Party, who are not here, who did not speak, to support this motion, to vote with us tomorrow, and to use the position that they won votes for, to defend workers' rights over the vested interests of finance and banking. Thank you.