Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 1991

Vol. 411 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sale of Shareholding in Tara Mines.

Tomás MacGiolla

Question:

46 Tomás Mac Giolla asked the Minister for Energy the total amount paid to NCB in respect of services it provided in connection with the sale by the State of its 25 per cent shareholding in Tara Mines in 1989; if he will outline the manner in which it was determined to award this contract to the firm in question; if he has introduced any new procedures for the awarding of such contracts in view of suggestions by experts in the area that the fees paid to NCB were three times the going rate; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

John Bruton

Question:

57 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Energy whether the consultancy in relation to the sale of the State's shares in Tara mines was put to tender.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 46 and 57 together.

The total amount paid to NCB was £662,000 and withholding tax of £170,000 was deducted from this amount at the time of payment. The amount also included VAT of £132,000.

It is, of course, normal practice in the Department of Energy to appoint consultants or financial advisers after a competitive process in which price, track record, specific expertise are all taken into account. For the sale of the State's 25 per cent shareholding in Tara, however, competitive tenders were not sought. I am informed that the reason for this at the time was that there were very specific legal and tactical reasons, arising from the original 1975 Agreement with Tara, that no hint should in any way be given to the majority shareholders as to the Government's intentions. These reasons have been made public in great detail at a number of meetings of the Public Accounts Committee and indeed as recently as 6 June this year when there was a specific debate in this covering the issue arising from the second interim report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the Appropriation Accounts 1987.

The view was taken at the time that a public tendering process would send a clear signal of the State's intentions and would have quickly weakened the Department's negotiating position. This would have put the State and ultimately the taxpayer at a clear disadvantage.

In the event, therefore, the financial advisers were selected on the basis of qualitative criteria; in particular it is important to recall that NCB are the largest independent corporate finance and stockbroking house in Ireland without an association with a bank or other financial institution. There was, therefore, no potential conflict of interest arising from the existing or past lending relationships with Tara, its parent Outokumpu and associated companies.

I see no reason to change the standard procedures for the engagement of consultants by my Department. The normal practice for any Government Department is the competitive process which I have already described. Indeed an upcoming EC directive on public procurement is likely to make our practice mandatory. The decision to depart from the practice for the sale of the State's shareholding in Tara was taken by the then Minister in the very particular circumstances which surround this complex transaction.

A number of issues arise here. The Minister has addressed the issue of how the contract was given out without going to tender, a legal and complex issue, but no one can judge that. Would the Minister say whether the Minister made the decision himself or was it made by Government? Second, in his reply the Minister did not address the scale of the fee paid to NCB who got this contract — I take it from his reply that the company got a net figure of £492,000. Would he agree that the average fee for such a job would be about £120,000, which is a very substantial fee indeed? Would he give some indication why such an enormous fee was given in this case?

I think I have already answered the question. My information is that the Minister made the decision, but I was not there. The Deputy asks why the fee was so large but the relevant question is whether value was received for the money paid. The services rendered by NCB were way beyond what would be involved in a normal brokerage transaction. It was unique in that it required sustained input and advice on the approach, the valuation, internationl commodity prices and a large amount of legal work together with intensive work at the negotiation stages. From January 1988 NCB Corporate Finance Limited gave a full working commitment to a review of the Minister's rights and powers under the State-Tara shareholding agreement and mining lease and detailed financial analysis of Tara's performance and future prospects.

The main component of the work done by NCB in the first half of 1988, aside from the strategic advice on the emerging positioning by the Department relative to Outokumpu, was the preparation of a preliminary report of the State's objectives and expectations in the sale negotiations. This involved an exhaustive review of the company's operations, up-to-date research into the zinc and lead metals and concentrate market, currency exchange rate forecasts, operating costs and revenue estimates. The approach called for widespread and discreet discussions with Department officials and other sectoral interests in Ireland and overseas. This work culminated in the building of computer models to value the State's shareholding in Tara Mines. The fee reflected all this work.

The Minister raises the question of value for money, but how are we to judge that? I do not think anybody but the Minister at the time, and possibly the current Minister, believes that the £35 million paid for the State's interest in Tara Mines represents value for money. The State never got a penny out of it for over 20 years, but sold its stake for £35 million; that is all the State ever got. That is not value for money. The justification for a fee of three times the norm to the company that sold our stake has not been explained. The Minister gave a long, detailed and complex statement which is all we got in regard to Tara Mines for all those years. I have been questioning this every six months——

The time available for priority questions is exhausted.

——and all I have heard were references to the complexity of the situation.

Perhaps a brief reply from the Minister.

I wish to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied, or if he had been the Minister at the time if he would be satisfied that the fee of £500,000 net to this company was justified for the work done.

Of course with hindsight one can argue whether the fee structure might have been different. The fee was based on 1½ per cent of the total price for the State's share plus VAT. The ad valorem fee structure, in the Minister's view, gave the company the incentive to achieve the maximum return to the State.

Would not 0.5 per cent be the norm?

This must be the end of questions for today.

Top
Share