andMr. O'Toole asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if he will make a statement on the conclusion of the appointment of Mr. Austin Kennan as Examiner of Restrictive Practices.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Examiner of Restrictive Practices.
30.
Section 13 of the Restrictive Practices Act, 1972, provides that:
The Minister shall from time to time appoint a person who shall be known as Examiner.
The Second Schedule to the Act provides, inter alia, that:
the term of office, which shall not exceed five years, shall be fixed by the Minister when making the appointment.
These provisions entrust to me the choice of person to be appointed as examiner and also specify the maximum period for which an appointment can be made. The Act does not confer on any holder of the office any entitlement to reappointment on the expiry of the period for which he has been appointed or reappointed. In 1978 when Mr. Kennan's initial five-year appointment came to an end I decided to reappoint him for one year only. Before the end of that year I had come to the conclusion that I should not further extend Mr. Kennan's term of office. It was then open to him to return to his former civil service post of principal in the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy but instead he chose to retire on pension from the public service.
Certain developments subsequent to the intimation to Mr. Kennan that it was not proposed to reappoint him as examiner have reinforced me in the view that the decision not to reappoint him was in the circumstances the correct one.
Arising from the press statements on 6 and 7 June attributed to Mr. Kennan, and statements made by him on radio and television, I should like to say to the House that
—there has been no attempt to take away from the Office of the Examiner any of the powers conferred on it by the Restrictive Practices Act, 1972, and the Mergers, Monopolies and Take-overs (Control) Act, 1978; if it were proposed to make any such change amending legislation would be necessary and the Oireachtas would have the opportunity to review the position in full, as they had in 1972;
—no pressures were exerted on me from any quarter to have Mr. Kennan removed from office or not to renew his appointment;
—neither I nor the officers of my Department sought to interfere with his independence in the discharge of his functions as examiner;
—the claim by Mr. Kennan that, in commenting to certain journalists on his report to me under the Mergers, Monopolies and Take-overs (Control) Act, 1978, on a recent take-over proposal, he was conveying information that the public had a right to know is something that I cannot accept; Mr. Kennan's action then—less than 48 hours after he had been told of my intention not to reappoint him—constituted a breach of confidentiality which could have serious consequences.
Is it not a fact that the difficulties between Mr. Kennan and the Minister and his Department go back a good deal further than the incident to which the Minister alluded last week?
I have never personally had any difficulties with him.
The Minister never met him.
That is right.
Did Mr. Kennan request a meeting when the Minister was appointed?
I am not certain he did. He used to write to me quite frequently about various matters.
Would the Minister accept that Mr. Kennan definitely requested a meeting with the Minister personally and did not succeed in getting one up to the time he retired?
So he is reported as saying and I am prepared to accept that.
Would the Minister also accept that the examiner is an independent officer, as I think I heard him say during the Mergers Bill last year? Would he tell the House what objection he has to the examiner speaking to the press or disclosing his own point of view about a particular matter which is within his official competence?
As I said, it is deplorable and it could well have serious consequences that a public official should pass public comment on the financial status of a company which had to make application to me under the Mergers, Monopolies and Take-overs (Control) Act, whereupon I decided to refer the proposal to the examiner for a report as envisaged by that Act. The Act itself makes it very clear that all dealings which a company has under the Act are confidential and that the private affairs, whether financial or otherwise, of such a company will not under any circumstances be disclosed.
The occasion I am thinking of was in April 1978. Did the Minister or his Department authorise an entirely unprecedented thing, namely, the publication of a report on the distribution of films from which, contrary to all precedent, the examiner's own report was excluded?
These are not relevant questions.
Is it not the case that in April 1978, when the Minister was in office, contrary to all precedent a report of the Restrictive Practices Commission on the distribution of films was published but it excluded the examiner's report—the first time it had ever happened?
I have no idea whether it happened or not. The report, of course, would have been the report of the Restrictive Practices Commission.
Was it not the practice to incorporate in such reports the reports of the examiner himself? The Minister, of course, has no idea.
The question relates to a different matter from that which the Deputy is now seeking to pursue. I have not got details of what happened in relation to one report in April 1978. If the Deputy wants to know it he is welcome to put down a question.
I have put down a question which the Minister will be answering in a moment.
What were the reasons which led the Minister to decide that he would appoint the examiner for one year but that he would not be appointed this year?
I do not propose to give reasons in these circumstances. I am not obliged to do so and it would be inappropriate for me to do so.