Richard Bruton
Ceist:5 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Energy whether he will lift his ban on the INPC appearing before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-sponsored bodies.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - INPC Examination.
There is no question of a blanket ban by me, or, indeed, by any of my predecessors, on the INPC appearing before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-sponsored bodies. Normally, I would insist that my Department or the State bodies for which I am responsible would facilitate the committee in every way possible. It is very difficult, however, if not impossible to see how the committee could examine the activities of the company without touching on issues which are sub judice at present. An examination in these circumstances could prejudice the interests of the State.
I have recently written in full explanatory terms to the chairman of the committee.
Would the Minister not agree that the European Court has ruled in his favour with regard to the mandatory regime? Would he further agree that the offer from the committee that should the INPC feel at any point that matters that remain to be settled were involved in their evidence they could feel free to turn down the question but address the other matters concerned?
I wish to avail of the opportunity to convey to the members of the committee my desire to try to facilitate them if at all possible but I have been very strongly advised that it would be highly improper of me to authorise the INPC to appear before the committee until the issues which are sub judice are dealt with.
In order to help the members of the committee I will go over the decision of the European Court on 10 July 1984 when the court gave its ruling on the question which was referred to them by the High Court. In effect the ruling of the European Court stated that while the mandatory regime amounted to a positive restriction on imports, an exemption from the prohibition was justifiable under Article 36 of the Treaty on grounds of public policy and security, if certain conditions were fulfilled — that is important — and the decision on that was a matter for the Irish High Court. Since that ruling, no further action has taken by the six companies to resume the High Court case. The European Commission, which had also challenged the mandatory system, withdrew their proceedings finally in May 1987 in the light of the European Court ruling. The current status of the legal proceedings is as follows: in the aftermath of the European Court decision, the six companies have not resumed proceedings in the High Court and with the exception of an offer made in late 1985 to abandon the matter if their legal costs were paid by the Department, the case has been effectively abandoned by them. The State, on the advice of the Attorney General, wants the case dismissed, even by default, the issue would then be res judicata and the issue could not be contested further. I would be very happy, if that was achieved, for the company to appear before the committee.
May I again appeal for brevity?
I was attempting to be brief. Is the Minister making the net point that the issue of costs is all that remains in dispute, and that while he is free to talk about present and future plans for Whitegate, the joint committee of the Oireachtas appointed to do so is debarred on spurious grounds?
That is not true. The case is not dependent on the cost being paid and it remains for the High Court to interpret the European Court's decision. If these companies wish to proceed, they still have the option of doing that. On the other hand if they withdraw their case, the matter is resolved as far as I am concerned. However, they have done neither. They have merely said they are prepared to abandon their case if we pay their costs, which is a situation I could not entertain.
The cheek of them.
Exactly.