I want us to look at a few figures: 175 is the number of days that the Debenhams workers have been on strike and €175 million is the amount that was paid to KPMG to wind down Anglo-Irish Bank by the State. The value of the stock inside Debenhams is €11 million, and €11 million is what it would take to pay proper redundancy to the 1,000 workers and their families, namely the two weeks that were negotiated and bargained for. The fee that was paid to KPMG to advise the Government on the national broadband plan also happens to be €11 million, a fiasco for which the State is paying six times the cost and which we will never own. I want to bring those figures together to illustrate to everybody and particularly the leaders of the Government that what they are doing in terms of their treatment of the Debenhams workers is disgraceful and unacceptable. I walked behind what looked like an army of ordinary working class women towards the Fianna Fáil headquarters this morning, where they were protesting. I was telling them how shameful it looked for the State to be overseeing the 175 days of their struggle without getting justice, and said to them "you are just ordinary women." They said no, and that they have become extraordinary people. I read the article in The Irish Times describing how Jane Crowe, the chief shop steward, sat in a cell having been arrested after occupying Henry Street, with a bed and a hole in the floor for a toilet. She wondered how it had come to this. I am asking the Minister how it has come to this.

The State has no end of largesse when coughing out to companies like KPMG for failures, indeed, as KPMG was supposed to have overseen the accounts of Anglo and Irish Nationwide. It failed to alert us before the bank bailout that there was a problem. Why is it that the State has no end of largesse to treat those big conglomerates in this way but cannot hold up its hands and say it failed to implement the terms of Duffy-Cahill? It has failed to give those workers a mechanism whereby they could receive justice and should admit that the hard-won rights that they fought for having given years and years of service are being thrown back at them. It is five days now that the workers in Waterford are occupying their store. Last night an official from KPMG walked in and more or less asked them what it would take to settle this. They said it would take negotiating with them and KPMG said no way. The State is the best customer of KPMG. Here is the way to settle it. The Government should tell KPMG to sit down and negotiate and that the State, regarding its ability to collect the insolvency money, will take one step sideways and allow the workers to have first preference as a creditor. That is what should have happened under Duffy-Cahill but the State failed to legislate. The Minister is now part of the Government. How can he sit there and say it is not possible to look after 1,000 workers and their families while it is possible to throw the largesse of the State at the big conglomerates? Which side is he on?

I am on the side of every worker in this country. Our partnership process, our model of working with unions, employers and the various interests, is critical. The social democratic partnership model is the strength of our country and vital for our country. If there is one first priority it is social justice and rights. Those rights are preserved when we have law. The rights of the workers are protected in law so that employers are not able to exploit them, which would happen in the absence of that legal system and outlook in a country. We do have to abide by the law.

The role of this House is such that if there are deficiencies in the law in protecting workers, then of course we would look to see if we needed to amend legislation, strengthen law or provide further funds. On us going another way and ignoring the law, even as hard, cruel and significant as the circumstances of workers in any one situation are, including in this case of the Debenhams workers, although one wants to do everything one can, what one cannot do is start going outside the law. Once one does that, some of the protections that exist in the law are lost and it actually undermines and weakens workers' rights. This Government is committed to doing whatever it can within the law. The liquidation is proceeding under the supervision of the High Court. Once it is in that High Court process, we cannot directly interfere. Under the Companies Act, a liquidator is under statutory duty to realise and distribute the assets from an insolvent company as prescribed by law. For State creditors including Revenue, the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and local authorities in respect of rates, their legal frameworks have to be respected. We do not have the discretion to forego debts owed to the State by a particular company. At the same time, we do guarantee statutory employment rights to the workers of Debenhams and if a company is unable to pay statutory redundancy then the State will step in. The first case is that the company has to pursue all possible avenues to provide that its statutory obligations are honoured and met.

The Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection expects to receive claims on behalf of the former employees of Debenhams under two separate schemes, namely, the redundancy payment scheme and insolvency payment scheme. The Department estimates there will be approximately 1,750 claims between the two schemes with some 300 claims arriving per week and that it might take three or four weeks for all the claims to be submitted. As of 18 September, the Department received 600 claims under the redundancy payment scheme and 646 under the insolvency payment scheme.

Members on every side of this House believe it is important to protect and meet workers' rights. We cannot, however, do that outside the law. Where we need to change the law, we have committed to review the various pieces of legislation in this area in the programme for Government. We will certainly commit to do that.

I am impressed the Minister started off his speech by saying his first priority is social justice and social rights. I would not expect anything else from the leader of the Green Party. He finished with more or less the same sentiment. In between, however, he read out some Civil Service claptrap that makes no sense to me. I do not think the Minister understood it. Does he expect 1,000 workers and their families to understand it when we know there is stock in those stores, which those workers are protecting, that is worth the same value of their redundancy payments?

I ask the Minister again which side he is on. If it is the side of social justice and social rights, and the law has not provided for it, then the law is an ass and the Minister and the Government can sit down with KPMG reminding it that the Government is its best customer. The Government pays KPMG millions for every other project it wants to engage in. Therefore, KPMG must listen to the Government. Tell KPMG to negotiate with the workers and that this State will step aside in terms of what it is owed as a creditor and allow the workers to be first creditor because this State failed to implement the Duffy Cahill report. Now, the Minister is making a promise to do it. That is great. Do it. However, it will be too late for the Debenhams workers so the Minister needs to make a special case. He can do somersaults for vested interests in this country. Do somersaults for the workers in this country. There are 1,000 of them and their families and they must be looked after.

I read out those details which were given by the public service because I want to let people know the facts of what people are entitled to under the law. With regard to the Duffy Cahill report, as I said, the Government is seeking to implement a whole series of measures and is reviewing whether the current legal provisions surrounding collective redundancies and the liquidation of companies protect the workers' rights effectively. It is reviewing the Companies Act 2014 with a view to addressing the practice of trading entities splitting their operations between trading and property. I am aware that is more relevant to the Clerys case but it will have a result where any trading company is trying to separate out its operations. We will examine the legal provision that pertains to any sale of a connected party following the insolvency of a company, including who can object and allow grounds for it.

Recently, I understand the Irish Congress of Trade Unions allowed two further proposals it believes will assist workers where a collective agreement is in place. The Government is committed to ensuring those proposals are considered and this will meaningfully involve engagement with all stakeholders. We cannot, however, say to an auditor that because we are working with it on some other line of business we will not pay it or use it unless it treats stock in a certain way. That would be completely outside the law.

I did not argue with that. I am telling the Minister what I want him to do.

In the long run, it will undermine the strength of workers when it comes to the need for legal protection in any such instance.