Vol. 384 No. 7
asked the Minister for Energy the basis on which a decision was taken to dispose of State shareholdings in private companies that were held by him; and if he will further provide details of the recent financial returns of the companies involved and of other companies in which he has a shareholding.
29.
asked the Minister for Energy if, in view of recent disposals by the State of its shareholding in some mineral exploration companies it is now Government policy not to seek equity participation in such companies when mining leases are negotiated in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
40.
asked the Minister for Energy the reason the State has sold off its shareholding in a number of oil and mineral exploration companies; the total revenue raised by the sale of these shares; if the sale of these shares indicates that the Government will no longer require State participation in the form of equity holdings in exploration companies; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13, 29 and 40 together.
These shares, which were acquired at no cost, were in fact registered in the name of the Minister for Finance.
The shares were sold at their quoted market value, with a view to realising funds which would help to put the nation's finances in order. To date, their disposal has raised revenues of some £2.7 million.
The sale of these shares does not reflect a change of policy but rather a decision by the Government to dispose of certain surplus assets. Similar disposals are taking place in relation to other State assets, including property, the retention of which in public ownership does not serve a strategic purpose. The Government decisions to dispose of these assets were taken in the context of the 1988 budgetary position.
I do not think that a useful purpose would be served in endeavouring to provide meaningful financial data in relation to assets of the kind encompassed by the Government decision, whether held in my name or in the name of the Minister for Finance. The Deputies may be assured, however, that no assets will be sold otherwise than for their full value.
Is it not the case that these shares were sold for 50 per cent less than the value reached during the course of 1988 and that there was widespread criticism about the manner in which they were sold which effectively cost the taxpayer £1.2 million?
The question of using hindsight to decide when is the best time to sell can be never ending and unproductive. For instance, if we were to go back a few years earlier, to 1983-84, and if the then Government had decided to sell these assets, they would have realised figures considerably higher than those which were eventually realised. The decision was taken in the context of the budget and it was put into effect as soon as possible. We are happy that the best possible deal was made at that time.
Is it not the case that the shares were unloaded on the market over a short period and that given the shallow market it was inevitable that such losses as occurred would have occurred for the taxpayer?
I do not accept the Deputy's contention.
First, I congratulate the Minister on becoming a member of Government. Arising from his reply, may I ask if there is now a change in Government policy on State participation in the future? Further, may I ask if the terms of mining leases are now going to be confirmed at the time the exploration licence is granted? At present exploration licences are taken out without knowledge of any of the details that will apply whan a mining lease is finally granted by Government.
It is not the practice in this House to disclose details of that kind. Obviously, the Government will take decisions on an ongoing basis as to the appropriate action that is required to be taken in a given situation. I would not be at liberty for good sound commercial reasons to disclose such details.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his appointment and to wish him well in his work. Have any discussions taken place with the companies concerned in advance of the sale taking place? Would the Minister accept that the hasty action taken by the Department in selling these assets put at risk the viability of some of those companies and reflected badly on them?
Unfortunately, Deputy, as was the case in Deputy O'Malley's question, I cannot disclose those kinds of details. However, I do not think the Government could be accused of making a hasty decision. The original decision was taken in 1987 so the action was in no way hasty. We will have to review its effects on an ongoing basis and as I have said earlier, it would not be possible to disclose what action might be taken.
I want to deal with other questions to the Minister also.
Why was there a delay from October to later in the following year before the decision was implemented?
I am not at liberty to disclose the reason. The decision was taken by Government at the time and it would not be appropriate to disclose the lead in or the Government's reasons for it.
I am calling Question No. 14.
May I ask a brief supplementary question?
I will facilitate the Deputy.
I know the Minister has responsibility to the Government but did this sale reflect a loss of confidence by the Government in exploration?
Surely the Deputy will be aware of the steps the Government have taken since coming to office. This indicates the confidence the Government have in this area. Indeed the response to Government action indicates the confidence of people in the exploration business in what is being done. Of all the conclusions the Deputy could reach, loss of confidence in this instance is not one.
You will not put your money there.
