asked the Minister for Industry and Energy the steps he proposes to take in relation to the letter dated 1 February 1983 which was sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs by the Commission of the EEC informing him that the Commission considers that the Fuels (Control of Supplies) Order, 1982, contravenes the Treaty of Rome.

In accordance with the normal practice in relation to such letters I am arranging, in consultation with the Attorney General, for the preparation of a reply expressing views, on behalf of the Government, on the points raised by the Commission.

It will, for this purpose, be necessary to seek an extension of the time proposed for a reply.

I take it no reply has yet been sent.

Beyond a request for an extension, there has not been a substantive reply.

What is the general line the Government propose to take in replying?

The Deputy will appreciate that if the general line of the Government's reply were to be enunciated to the House today in advance of its being communicated to the Commission, they might well feel that they were being dealt with in a less than courteous fashion and could make the valid point that if the reply were available to the House there would not be need for the Government to seek an extension of time. The formulation of the reply is still being worked on and I am not in a position to outline it to the House, in the same way as the Government are not yet in a position to send the text of the full reply to the Commission.

Can the Minister indicate whether the Government accept or dispute the points made by the Commission in this letter?

The Government dispute them.

In the light of this letter and of the fact that the Government dispute the statements made by the Commission, do the Government propose to prosecute the oil companies who are not currently taking the required 35 per cent of their needs from Whitegate?

That is going a little further than the subject matter of the question. It is really a question of the interpretation by different bodies of the various articles of the Treaty, particularly the interpretation placed by the Commission on Article 36.

It is not. It is a question of whether or not the Government want to try to enforce the Fuels (Control of Supplies) Order, 1982. Is the Minister aware that there are admitted breaches by a number of companies which have been reported in the newspapers? Do the Government propose to endeavour to enforce the order? Will they prosecute people not complying with it?

If the Deputy would care to table a question in relation to that specific matter I would be only too pleased to reply.

The Chair feels that this concerns a letter of 1 February.

The letter of 1 February deals with all the matters about which I am asking supplementaries. It is a pity that the Minister will not reply because it puts the whole Whitegate situation in considerable doubt. Nobody knows whether the Government are committed to enforcing that order and the arrangements made in relation to the reopening of Whitegate.

The Chair has no control over the Minister's reply but he is concerned with debate and does not wish to have a debate on this question.

I know the Deputy is as anxious as I that nothing should be said in the House which might in any way prejudice the reply the Government might make to the Commission. There is a certain restriction placed upon what I might or might not say in anticipation of the reply being sent to the Commission.

When the Minister was on this side of the House he did not consider that point.