Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

To be fair to NAMA, there is a bit of a misunderstanding of its role. NAMA was supportive of an arrangement that would have facilitated a management buy-out of a company that was insolvent. Implicit in that was an agreement to have some of the debts dealt with to allow the company to continue to proceed. As I understand it, it was not NAMA's fault that it was not possible for this process to be completed. After an alternative bid came in, NAMA suggested that the best way to protect the company was to seek an examinership process, which allows for a write-down of debt where creditors agree - this answers Deputy Cowen's point - and involves court protection to save the jobs, save the enterprise and try to maintain a going concern. NAMA's role in this process led to the testing of one option, which did not fulfil what was required. Now it has taken another approach as part of the search for a viable outcome. I certainly hope such an outcome can emerge from this approach. It is clear, in response to Deputy Cowen's point, that this process allows viable businesses to survive without their existence being threatened by bad property decisions or property debts that might be burdening them. That is what this process is about. The courts have a role. The purpose of examinership is to save the jobs. The TUPE regime will apply regardless of whether there is a management buy-out or one of the other bids is successful and the business continues. The transfer of obligations undertakings will apply in both cases. The legal security of the workers will be the same in both cases. I acknowledge the point that there might be a preference for one or the other.

Reference was made to the examiner's role with regard to different players, including the creditors or the workers. Examiners are governed by very strict legislation that sets out what they can and cannot do. Essentially, they must try to find a scheme or arrangement that can be put to the creditors and allows for a viable outcome. I am sure they try to keep workers involved to the best extent possible during that process.

They have a responsibility to the courts and the creditors. In this case there are six bids which, no doubt, have to be dealt with as six independent bids and handled confidentially. I imagine the examiner is under considerable legal constraint in the way he deals with this situation. This is the best way in which we can seek to save the jobs involved, which I sincerely hope is the outcome of this process. The examiner was appointed on 4 February and is still at a relatively early stage in the process. I do not have a role in the examinership. Obviously, the examiner must deal with those directly involved and report back to the court, with the outcome of the various options.

See this speech in context