asked the Minister for Energy if he provided a letter of comfort to the banks before they resumed funding of the Dublin Gas Company; whether all creditors both secured and unsecured will be paid in full; and when they will be paid.

I issued a letter to the banks setting out the Government's intentions relating to Dublin Gas, including its early nationalisation. The purpose of this letter was to enable the receivership to proceed in an orderly fashion, without any interruption of supplies to consumers in the Dublin area. As to the payment of creditors I can only repeat what I said in response to his Private Notice Question on 23 April last that when proper claims exist they will be met. The timing of such payments is primarily a matter for the receiver.

Would the Minister answer the first part of my question? Was a letter of comfort issued to the banks?

I told the Deputy I sent a letter to the banks setting out the Government's intentions in relation to the Dublin Gas issue and that letter was obviously considered adequate for Dublin Gas to proceed.

Was it a letter of comfort?

That is a matter of interpretation.

This is a very unsatisfactory reply in view of the fact that we are dealing with vast sums of taxpayers' money. The Minister said he sent a letter to the banks, but did the banks return that letter because they were not satisfied with what it said? Did he issue a subsequent letter to allay the banks' fears and give them comfort in relation to the future?

I should preface this reply with caution: to my best recollection there was only one letter.

Was it returned?

No, not to the best of my knowledge.

Was it a letter of comfort?

It was a letter of soothing.

Banks do not accept letters of soothing.

The Deputy is familiar with financial matters. It was necessary when the receiver had been appointed to Dublin Gas. As the Deputy is aware, the receiver seems to be in full control and the Dublin Gas Company are now operating, as I said they would, and the gas is flowing in Dublin.

Let me ask the Minister one final question. Can I now take it that this was a letter of comfort and that this runs contrary to Government policy in relation to letters of comfort enunciated many times in this House by the Minister and the present Minister for Finance on many occasions? No more letters of comfort would ever be issued, and that is going back as far as 1983. Has a letter of comfort been issued now? I must accept from what the Minister says that that is so. I am well aware that in financial matters banks will not proceed without it.

That is argument.

The Deputy is arguing.

I am not arguing. I am stating the facts. Have all the creditors been paid now?

As long as they have stopped coming to the Deputy I assume they are quite happy.