IBRC Operations

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 28 April 2015

Tuesday, 28 April 2015

Questions (125, 126)

Catherine Murphy

Question:

125. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance ,further to Parliamentary Question No. 220 of 16 December 2014, the reason he refused to answer the specific question, which asked if he was satisfied that the sale of a company (details supplied) by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation was done in the best possible interests of the State, instead indicating that he was informed that the board of the corporation considered it so; his views that failing to supply his position on this matter may lead to a reasonable assumption, based on the reply to the parliamentary question, that his Department had no concerns whatsoever regarding the matter; if he will concede that this is a dissimulative approach to take, considering information which later came to light proved otherwise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16657/15]

Catherine Murphy

Question:

126. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance if he will categorically state if the sale of a company (details supplied) by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation was in fact conducted for the maximum return for the State; the reason he has failed to state his position thus far on this matter, even though it has come to light that his Department believed that the sale decision has raised a number of areas where it believes that decisions taken by the corporation resulted in a less optimum return for the bank, as is clearly written in documents marked seen by the Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16658/15]

Written answers

Minister for Finance

I propose to take Questions Nos. 125 and 126 together.

The Chairman of IBRC provided me with strong assurances that the transaction had been thoroughly assessed by the IBRC Board and that they were satisfied that the transaction had been managed in the best manner possible to achieve the best result for the State. The IBRC Board had a fiduciary responsibility to the bank's stakeholders and in light of this legal responsibility the Chairman and the Board would have considered and provided such assurances following serious and careful consideration.  As neither I nor my officials were involved in the execution of this transaction, I must rely on the fiduciary responsibility of the IBRC Board and the explicit assurances provided to me by the Chairman of the Board that this transaction was done in the best possible interests of the State.

It is completely reasonable that I state that I was satisfied with the Board's assurances that the concerns raised had been dealt with in a manner that gave the Board no cause for concern.