Seanad debates

Wednesday, 6 May 2015

Appointment of Receivers: Motion

 

2:30 pm

Photo of Rónán MullenRónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the contributors and thank the Minister of State for his response. Of course the following is not his fault as his statement was prepared for him and he was asked to carry the brief for the senior Minister in his Department. During his contribution it struck me that I was listening to hand-wringing which was followed by hand-washing and it appeared that the Government was not taking this major problem seriously. I commend Senator Hayden, in particular, on her fine speech which was gripping, compelling, knowledgeable and informed, as her contributions are always. If there was a free vote, Senator Hayden would back this motion.

Notwithstanding the hand-wringing, followed by apparent hand-washing, it turned out that the Government was just being mean-spirited. The Minister of State's response carried the tone and reflected the Government's amendment that it was not taking these concerns seriously at all. In fact, what he tried to do is hide in plain sight that he recognises there is validity to what is in the motion. The Minister of State has given a commitment that the Minister will undertake an analysis of the issue to look at the conduct of receivers. He also acknowledged the problem that receivers appointed need not be members of regulated professions. Those are the two issues at the core of the motion. He would garner a lot better PR for himself if he congratulated us on being right on the issue and saying the Government does mean to act on this. If he had done so, he would have been congratulated, and deservedly so. Instead, we experienced a schoolboy debating tactic, and I refer not to the Minister of State's speech but to the Government amendment. The pathetic claim was made, rightly contradicted by Senator Hayden, that there is no compelling evidence that this sector requires the introduction of regulations to govern conduct. If there is no such compelling evidence, why is the Minister committing to looking into it? Do Ministers talk to each other at all?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.