Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his response. He said that the examiner is obliged to consult the relevant parties that are privy to this process. Does he agree that the level of consultation with the workers in this case has been minimal? Subsequently, and on foot of what has been said to Deputy Mulherin, does he believe and will he acknowledge to us that NAMA has a social obligation and responsibility to seek to pursue the retention of as many jobs as possible? Does he think NAMA is doing that in the proper fashion in this instance? He acknowledged that the directors agreed with NAMA's recommendation that the company should enter this process. Can he go a step further, following on from what he said about TUPE, and make it clear that the representatives and the staff should have a better engagement with and involvement in assessing the bids that will ultimately determine their future? Progress should be made in a way that meets the responsibilities to creditors and leads to a settlement with which they can be happy.

If NAMA is the lead creditor, it must be obliged to respect the mandate it has from this House. In other words, NAMA has a social responsibility as well as an economic responsibility. Will the Minister reiterate for the House that these responsibilities must be applied in this instance to the full letter of the law? This is necessary if staff are to be sure that every effort is being made to give them the best possible opportunity to retain their jobs. As has been said previously, this company is in a profitable situation and cannot be allowed to be drowned as a result of being dragged down by loans that are not specifically related to the business. As I said earlier, this is the first indication the Minister can give on behalf of the Government that he will not stand idly in this instance or any future instances that relate to how banks deal with debt associated with small and medium-sized enterprises.

See this speech in context