Protection of Employees (Employers' Insolvency) (Amendment) Bill 2025: Second Stage
Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-04
============================================================

Aubrey McCarthy (IND), University of Dublin

I thank the Minister of State for being here. When we were here last year and there was the big debacle about Fastway and the protests outside, my heart went out to the employees caught in the middle of all that. Even running a business myself, I was thinking of whether there was any mandatory insurance or similar requirement that could be placed on the employer to ensure an employee can never be caught in that situation again.
I know the Supreme Court found in 2018 that Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2008/94/EC was not properly transposed into Irish law. That had created a situation whereby employees of employers who ceased trading without formally winding up could not access the Social Insurance Fund to obtain reimbursement. I know this Bill is well intended and is to allow eligible employees a limited time to recover pay-related entitlements from over the previous 40 years. The claims process will cover various employee entitlements, including arrears of wages and sick pay, capped at eight weeks, outstanding holiday pay, also capped at eight weeks, unpaid statutory minimum notice moneys, certain arrears of pension contributions and various statutory awards made by the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and the Labour Court. This legislation is definitely going in the right direction and is most welcome.
There are some issues, though, that I want to highlight. The current statutory ceiling is classified as €600 per week that will be recoverable by an employee. That seems a little bit outdated. If enacted, the Bill will provide welcome additional protections to employees. While there are no additional debt burdens on employees who are subject to employee applications, some degree of resources will be required to engage with this application. According to the Bill, the Minister may deem an employer insolvent if there is no evidence of continued trading, like in the case of the flower shop example given, and there is satisfaction that amounts are due to the employee. Employees should not be required to provide supporting documentation evidence for this test. This was determined by the working group and the recommendations given in that regard. I think, though, that we will be able to find some way to streamline that.
The working group also said that where an employer is a sole trader, the test to verify the employer trading status should have an appropriate modification so that it is not a requirement for the a sole trader to have fully ceased trading. However, the phrase, "sole trader", does not come up once in the Bill. This issue was brought up by the working group. Will sole traders be required to cease trading under this legislation? It is much harder for any entrepreneur in Ireland to come back from a business failure compared to the United States, where it is possible to start off again at 85. I fear that this aspect is going to compound the situation. Some sole traders also trade as part of private, limited private companies because they have liability. I hope this is something that can be addressed on Report Stage. The working group brought up the suggestion of the establishment of an appeals mechanism as part of an Article 2(1)(b) process, which is a good suggestion.
In conclusion, I recommend the Bill, and I will certainly back and commend it. In the context of its introduction, the findings of the 2023 working group should be taken into account.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-03-04/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:43+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-03-04