asked the Minister for Energy if he will now give the full details of the takeover of Bula Mines Limited by Tara Mines; and if a new company is being formed to operate the mine.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bula Mines.
11.
While agreement in principle has been reached on the purchase of the State and private shareholdings in Bula Limited by Tara Mines Limited a number of aspects remain to be settled and formal agreements concluded. Until these agreements have been executed, I will not be in a position to provide the information sought by the Deputy, but I would be quite happy in due course to provide information relating to the agreement to the House.
Is the Minister saying no information is available about the terms on which the Government have agreed in principle with Bula shareholders?
No, I am not saying that. I said that agreement in principle has been reached but until the legal agreements are concluded I will not be in a position to give the details requested nor would it be appropriate for me to do so.
Would the Minister explain to the House and the people why in these negotiations the private shareholders were given preferential treatment over the State's shareholding?
I refute that allegation. When the information is given to the House, the Deputy will be quite pleased with the State's position in that regard.
Is the Minister saying there will be or that there will not be a separate company in relation to the operation of Bula-Tara.
It would be inappropriate at this stage to make any statement on the agreement.
It is very difficult to get a straight answer—and I understand that—but can the Minister assure the House that the State's shareholding of 49 per cent in Bula Mines Limited is being carried through into Bula-Tara Mines? Will the Minister tell the House if the State will be compensated along the same lines as the private shareholders under this deal?
If the Deputy has patience he will be given the information he requires but, as I said—and I will repeat it because the Deputy does not seem to understand it—it would not be appropriate for me to give this information until the agreement has been formally and legally concluded.
There is no point being evasive about this. Some of the information I am looking for was made available by the Government to the media. Why is the Minister saying here today that it is not appropriate for him to give this information? Does he deny that the private shareholders will get £6 million and the State, with a shareholding of 49 per cent, money provided by the tax-payers, will not get anything?
As I said, at the appropriate time the information will be given to the House. I believe the return to the State will be handsome and will be substantially better than the deal which Deputy Reynolds was interested in in 1982.
This is totally unsatisfactory.
I cannot have repetitive argument.
Perhaps we should get Peter Prendergast in here.
That is what I was about to say. A Government spokesman was prepared to answer all these questions over the Christmas period. All I am saying, on behalf of the taxpayers and the people interested, in Parliament is that——
A question, please.
Does the Minister deny that the private shareholders will get £6 million, as the people were told by the Government spokesman? Will the Minister assure the House that the 49 per cent we held in Bula Mines Limited will be treated in the same way, no more and no less, than the private shareholders? Will he tell us if the Government are writing off the original foolish investment of £9.54 million, which in today's terms represents £23 million of taxpayers' money? Will the Minister answer these three questions which Peter Prendergast answered over the Christmas period? I want an assurance that the facts given are correct.
My Department are fully accountable to this House and at the appropriate time the information will be given. How many times do I have to repeat this for the Deputy?
This is repetition.
A final supplementary. Is the Minister saying it was inappropriate for Peter Prendergast to give that information?
I think we should make Peter Prendergast an honorary Member of this House so that we could ask him questions.