Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 39: To ask the Minister for Finance, further to Parliamentary Question No. 31 of 22 February 2012, if he will explain the reason in his response he stated that neither his Department nor the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, was given notice of the retention agreement between a company and the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, before the agreement was signed, yet in response to Parliamentary Question No. 55 of 29 February 2012, he stated his Department was informed of the bank's intention to engage the company on 1 November 2011; if he will explain the way his Department was informed of IBRC's intention to engage with the company on 1 November 2011 if neither his Department nor the NTMA was given notice of the engagement between the company and IBRC before they had already signed a retention agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12997/12]

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 41: To ask the Minister for Finance if he will detail the exact date the retention agreement between the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, IBRC, and a company (details supplied) was signed; if he will detail the precise date on which his Department or the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, was given notice of this agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13067/12]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 39 and 41 together.

As the Deputy is aware the day-to-day operation of the bank is a matter for the Board of the bank. PQ 31 of 22 February 2012 was interpreted to inquire about the Minister's involvement in the approval of the engagement referred to in the question. In reply, it was indicated that no notice requiring the Minister's approval was received as in the particular circumstances this was not required. This is not to say that the Department, through ongoing communication with IBRC, were not aware of considerations by the bank to engage the company referred to in the question. In order to clarify the situation for the Deputy I asked my Department to review the documentation to provide greater clarity on the order of events leading up to the bank's engagement with the advisors referred to in the question.

Firstly, the Board of the bank was advised, by management in September 2011 of the proposed engagement of the company referred to. It was further noted in the Board papers that it was not proposed to engage in a formal procurement process given the sensitivity of the engagement. This approach is provided for in the bank's own procurement policy. These papers became available to my Department immediately in advance of the Board meeting on 27 October. These papers are provided for information only, and are not, in normal course, regarded as requiring action.

At a meeting with my Department on 1 November 2011 the Bank, as part of on-going communications, noted that it intended to appoint the advisors referred to in the question by end week for a period of five weeks subject to appropriate conflict and confidentiality protection. There was no request for Ministerial consent under the Relationship Framework as the bank deemed the appointment to be ordinary course of business. Based on a review minutes and also on information received informally, my Department issued a letter to the Bank's chairman on 18 November 2011 seeking assurances in relation to conflict protection with regard to the proposed engagement.

In a meeting with the Chairman on 24 November it was indicated that the Bank were close to appointing the company referred to and that under the terms of the engagement It was also indicated that the Company would not be precluded from bidding in the event that it was decided to take the assets to market. The Bank also indicated that any subsequent competition disposal process would be the subject of a competition.

In response to the 18 November 2011 letter from my Department, the bank's Chairman, in a letter dated 30 November, provided confirmation that FTI had been retained to carry out an independent assessment of the advisor's compliance framework and to validate the Bank's reliance on the integrity of the advisor's Chinese wall structures. The Chairman further noted that the appointment of the advisors for a 3 month engagement was imminent and also that the Bank had made it clear to the advisors that any strategy choices arising from the Advisory work would be the subject of an open and transparent process.

We were subsequently informed that the agreement between IBRC and the company referred to was signed by the bank on the 2 December 2011. There was no, and nor was there a requirement for, formal notification to the Department that this agreement had been signed. A weekly conference call was subsequently initiated with the first conference call taking place on the 16 December 2011.

It is clear that the Deputy has concerns in relation to the appointment by IBRC of this company. I have sought here to clarify the timeline and information available to my Department. If the Deputy has further information or requires further clarification I would be happy to address the matter.