andMr. Enright asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy if he will request oil companies to withhold action in respect of eviction of licensees and tenants at filling stations pending (a) the reports of the Restrictive Practices Commission on the petrol retail trade, (b) the enactment of the Landlord and Tenant Bill 1979 and (c) judgment on a relevant High Court action.

I understand that there are disputes in respect of a total of 11 filling stations involving the individual licensees and two of the oil companies. I also understand that in most, if not all, of these cases, court proceedings have been involved and that at least one case is at present before the High Court.

In the circumstances I do not consider that it would be appropriate for me to intervene as suggested by the Deputies.

Is the Minister aware that in the case of one company who have five cases pending the five people involved are members of the executive of the Irish Petrol Retailers Association? Does that not indicate discrimination on the part of the company? This is a very serious matter.

As I pointed out in my reply those cases are before the High Court pending a decision and it would be quite inappropriate for me to intervene or comment.

The Irish Petrol Retailers Association are a recognised body for the purpose of negotiating their rights but it appears that the SIMI is the body that is being listened to. However, the people I am concerned about are not eligible for membership of the SIMI while the oil companies are. The people concerned have no great authority; they are tenants. What action does the Minister propose to take to defend the rights of those individuals?

The Minister's reply was, to a certain extent, sub judice.

The case has been heard and judgment is awaited from a High Court judge. It is because of this that I should like to know if the Minister considers it desirable to ask the oil companies to withhold eviction orders and the procedures for obtaining such orders?

I do not think it would be appropriate for me to intervene in court cases and I am sure that on reflection the Deputy would agree with me.

I appreciate that but I should like to know if the Minister, in view of the fact that the High Court judgment is awaited, would ask the oil companies to withhold eviction orders? Will he use his good offices to ask them to withhold action until the decision is published?

I will convey the Deputy's views through the record.

Is the Minister aware that only one case is sub judice but the others, as far as I am aware, are not before the courts? While that case is sub judice action has been taken which is discriminatory with a view to destroying this association. Surely the Minister must do more than let somebody know something in circumstances such as those?

It is not the practice for members of the Government to seek to intervene in civil cases between parties to a civil action. It is very undesirable that that practice should be urged upon me or any member of the Government.

I have not done anything of the kind. I have pointed out that while one case is sub judice other action is being taken by one company exclusively against the officers of this association. That is clearly something which is discriminatory and a potentially restrictive practice coming within the Minister's competence. Will he look into it from that point of view?

I am not aware that all the defendents are members of the executive of this association.

In the case of one company they are.

Will the Minister accept that one company has proceeded against five people only who are members of the executive of that association? Will he take that as an indication of discriminatory action requiring intervention by him?

I have no evidence that they are members of the executive of that association.

If the Minister receives that evidence and it is conclusive will he take action?

I will consider the situation, but I must bear in mind that the cases are before the High Court. The Deputy should surely appreciate that my right to intervene or take action is very severely limited.

Only one case is before the High Court.

Yes, one case as a test action for the others. Presumably, the result of the others will stand or fall on the result of the case before the court at present.

On the contrary, action is being taken despite the fact that the case has been settled. We will furnish the Minister with the information he requires.