I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, together.

A private firm of consultants with wide international links has been engaged to assist in an up-dated evaluation of the Bula mine project in conjunction with a State agency who have done similar evaluations in the past. Projections of the economics of any mining operation require periodic re-evaluation in relation to changes in metal prices, exchange rates, operating costs, the willingness of commercial interests to invest, and other factors which can significantly affect the outcome of the operation.

The firm of consultants in question have considerable experience in the evaluation of projects of this nature and their input will usefully supplement the work done already on the Bula project by other bodies to which the Deputies refer. Their report has not yet been completed.

It was provided in the agreement of December 1975 between the State and Bula Ltd. that the Minister would use his best endeavours to secure Government agreement to a State guarantee not exceeding £10 million in respect of the major financing required by the company to develop the mine. Such guarantee has not yet been given and any question of extending guarantees or other financial support for the company remains to be determined.

I am aware that from time to time various foreign companies have expressed interest in acquiring the private shareholding in Bula Ltd. and that there has been considerable speculation about this. The Deputies may be assured that the Government in considering all aspects of this matter will have as their primary objects the protection of the State's investment and the launching of the project with the consequent significant employment involved.

The total indebtedness of Bula Ltd. now stands at some £27 million. The bulk of this indebtedness comprises of principal borrowed with accrued interest thereon. My understanding is that the company's main expenditures have been in connection with their planning permission applications, mine development studies and company administrative expenses; in addition, a considerable amount of interest has been rolled up on the outstanding loans.

A number of questions arise from that reply but I shall deal first with the report that has been asked for by the Minister. Is it not true that the ICC were asked by the Department of Energy to undertake a study of the possibilities of the Bula mine and to assess whether the mine is a viable proposition? Did that ICC report not state specifically that they had reassessed Bula's viability as an independent mine and are still of the opinion that it is not viable commercially? Has the Minister asked for the report from the internationally known accounting firm with a view to overthrowing the ICC estimate and getting their view that the mine is viable? We are talking about what is a very expensive report.

We commissioned ICC Corporate Finance Ltd., a subsidary of ICC, to carry out a report on the viability of Bula. The Deputy must understand the necessity for an examination of the ore body in the light of changing circumstances — for example, the rising price of ore, lead and zinc, the value of the punt and various other matters which would either make the mine viable or otherwise. It is in that connection that we have engaged the firm of consultants to assess the project. As I have said, my objectives are simple; to have the mine put into production, to provide employment and to ensure that our natural resources are exploited properly. These will continue to be my objectives.

Have this firm been asked to investigate how Bula incurred such huge debts? Their borrowings have reached £18 million while their debts total £26 million. Are the firm of consultants to assess the management structure of Bula in view of the fact that after 12 or 13 years no work has commenced at the mine?

It is not unusual for the bringing into operation of a mine to take quite a long time. In tandem with ICC Corporate Finance Limited the company are examining the viability of the Bula project. They are evaluating a number of development proposals that are being pursued. I should not like to say more at this stage because the House is aware that negotiations are in progress and I should not wish to jeopardise the outcome of those negotiations.

When the report becomes available will the Minister place it before the House?

Ministers, Departments and State bodies often require consultancy reports on major matters of policy and on matters of a technical nature. It would not be my intention to put this or any other report pertaining to the Bula ore body before the House.

Will the Minister of State tell the House if the cost of this additional survey will be borne by the company or by the State? Secondly, will the Minister not agree that ultimately the decision of whether or when the mine will be brought into production will rest with the 51 per cent owners rather than with the State as a minority 49 per cent owner?

The report has been commissioned by my Department. The question of the mine coming into production and State involvement would be a matter for me, for the Minister and for a Government decision. I am a little perturbed to hear from some Deputies — not the Deputy who has spoken but members of The Workers' Party — who seem to be emphasising that the mine is not viable. I would have expected they would be anxious to encourage the State to ensure that the mine comes into production. Instead, they seem to condemn the mine which is rather unusual for The Workers' Party.

We are taking over their debts.

I do not know how The Workers' Party want to assess the viability of Bula mines but I have very definite criteria as to how that viability should be assessed. Did the Minister say that he has got additional studies and that they have completed assessment of those studies? Are we finished now with assessment of studies?

We have a company of international accountants assessing the position in the light of a number of proposals that are being examined. They are the subject of negotiations and we hope they will result in the establishment of a project.

From what the Minister of State has said it appears we have passed the stage of assessment of deposits and so on and we are now in negotiations regarding the future of the Bula mine as a "stand alone" operation. I put it to the Minister that he must have satisfied himself that it was viable as a "stand alone" operation before entering negotiations with the company and other parties whose names fly around from time to time. I do not pay much attention to them until I get the facts.

The Deputy will be aware that things have changed rapidly in the price of minerals, especially lead and zinc. He can be assured that my Department made every effort to bring Tara and Bula together because we saw that as a logical and simple solution to the problem. However, despite our best endeavours — and the Deputy, as Minister, was involved in this also — we failed to bring the parties together. The position now is that unless something else happens we have a "stand alone" project. In the Department we examine if a project is viable as a "stand alone" project and if we are satisfied we put the matter to Government in the normal way. If we are satisfied it is not a viable project we say no. It is as simple as that.

Will the Minister of State tell the House when he expects the report will be available and, secondly, how long will it take the Government to make a decision on the viability of the mine? Unlike some other Deputies, we are very interested in this matter and hope that if there are 300 jobs involved they will be provided in the next few years.

It will take some weeks before a full assessment will be made. I hope the matter will be determined before Christmas but I cannot be definite in that regard.

I will allow a final question from Deputy Reynolds. I have allowed about ten supplementary questions already.

This is a big issue and it will be a bigger issue——

It could be too big for Question Time.

It was too big for Question Time on the last occasion. I hope Deputy Farrelly was not referring to me. I am only interested in viable projects and I give such projects my blessing.

I was not referring to the Deputy.

Having put aside the reports, evaluations and assessments that have been done by the two parties involved — I do not know what view the Minister takes of either of them but I know what view I took — can he tell me truthfully and honestly that the overwhelming evidence available to him is not totally against a "stand alone" operation apart from one final report probably by Cooper and Lybrand? I ask the Minister to accept that is not sufficient ground in view of the other reports by semi-State bodies and the entire history attaching to this matter to go ahead with this project. There is another matter I wish to clear up with the Minister. This arose during Question Time when I was not in the House. I refer to the decision to pay £665,257 in recent loans. The Minister seemed to indicate to Deputy O'Malley that that was a decision I took when I was Minister. I want the Minister of State to clarify that and to accept that the decision I took as a holding operation accounted for £166,000 because there was the promise of a deal at the time. Neither I nor my Government took any decision to pay £665,000 to the bank.

The viability or otherwise of any project can only be assessed when I have seen on my desk the terms of a project and have it assessed from a financial and technical point of view. I have not seen that assessment yet in this case and I cannot say if there is a viable project in prospect. When I have all the data I will examine it and make a decision. With regard to the Deputy's other query, I hope I did not impugn his character in any way. The moneys paid were £502,000 in October 1983 and £163,000 in February 1984 and both periods were within the term of office of this Government. I want to make that quite clear.

This will be positively the last supplementary on this question.

I asked only three supplementary questions. Can the Minister confirm that the four private individuals who have already received £10 million from the State will not be bailed out of the £26 million debt they have since incurred without anything to show for the money? That is my first question. Second, when the report of the international firm is received finally will the Minister show it to the ICC for review and analysis?

Regarding the existing debt of the company, £27 million, the Government are not responsible therefor. We would be most anxious to ensure that the project would come to fruition. I am sure the House will understand that I do not want to say anything that would jeopardise present negotiations.

In reply to the second part of the Deputy's question. I might say that on any feasibility study or report I would be anxious to involve the ICC in having it examined.