asked the Minister for Energy (1) the date of the Government decision to nationalise the Dublin Gas Company; (2) the action he has taken, since then, to implement that decision; (3) the method he is using to nationalise that company without introducing legislation; (4) if the Dublin Gas Company are subject to, and governed by, the Companies Acts of 1948 and 1963; and (5) the action he proposes to take to protect the taxpayers' money should liquidation proceedings be successful.

The decision to nationalise Dublin Gas was taken by the Government in April 1986 and I refer the Deputy to the Government statement issued on 22 April 1986. As to the action taken since then the receiver embarked on a programme of reorganisation of the workforce and of operations as a necessary first step to the return to viability of the company, and this programme has been substantially realised.

As to the method of nationalisation, I hope to make a statement on this at a very early date.

As to part (4) of the question, Dublin Gas Company, as an unregistered company, are subject only to certain provisions of the Companies Act.

Finally, in all matters and actions affecting the company I am keenly aware of my duty to protect the taxpayers' money and to achieve a successful viable gas utility for the citizens of Dublin.

The Minister has stated, as it appears from the interpretation I put on it, that Dublin Gas are not subject to the Companies Acts of 1948 and 1963. Is that correct?

As an unregistered company they are subject only to certain provisions.

Are they not an old company under charter not subject to the normal Companies Acts?

They are subject only to certain provisions of the Companies Acts.

So the normal procedure does not apply in relation to what can and cannot be done with them? Why did the Minister not reappoint his own appointed chairman and four directors of the Dublin Gas Company when they resigned? For whatever reasons they resigned, obviously they were not in agreement with what was happening. Why did they resign? Why did the Minister not replace them to keep his strength in the board of directors of Dublin Gas? Maybe by so doing he would have stemmed the decisions taken recently that could land the whole company in the High Court looking for liquidation.

The matter of reap-pointing directors to the Dublin Gas Company is the responsibility of the Minister for Energy. I made a decision not to reappoint directors on the receiver being put in situ by BGE. I did not believe the appointment of new directors could serve the Government's interests in Dublin Gas in any manner because the company are now in receivership.

Certain actions are being taken to put the company into liquidation. I suggest that if the Minister had held his power in the boardroom the resolution to proceed in that direction could not have been passed and that it was neglect on his part that allowed it to happen.

As I said, my opinion on the advice available to me was that that would be of no benefit whatever. I have no worries in relation to activities in the boardroom at present because the receiver is in place carrying out the job he was charged to do by BGE since April of this year.

Does the Minister consider that he is now in full ownership of Dublin Gas? Seeing that he ignored the board of directors, does he now consider he is in full ownership, or what steps is he taking to take the company into full ownership?

I am sure the Deputy, given the briefing that he had from one of the directors of Dublin Gas yesterday, is fully aware that the Dublin Gas Company are in receivership and that the receiver is in control and will remain in control until the nationalisation process is completed.

When will that process be completed?

As early as possible.

When is the Minister going to do something about it?

I know the Deputy is kept briefed on a daily basis——

No, weekly.

——and I must question at times whether he is acting in the interest of the taxpayer as he is meant to be doing in this House——

The Minister would have put back the directors——

In fairness, he cannot have it both ways, with private meetings with the directors looking after their interests and then coming in here on behalf of the taxpayer, as he so alleges.

I have to get the information somewhere.

I do not mind apologising to the Minister or anyone else to find out the truth but he is not telling the truth. Is that letter of comfort in the taxpayers' interest?

The Deputy should ask Mr. Kinsella.

That is a totally misleading and untruthful statement.

I will not accept the continuous barracking I get from this Deputy in relation to misleading statements. I have made no misleading statements to the House and I will stand over that in any forum.

It is customary to take another Deputy's word on a matter of fact and if that is not acceptable the matter should be raised in another way.

I have already said I am going to raise it in another way. I do not accept what the Minister said, and I regret that I must say that, because he has misled this House on several occasions in relation to the Dublin Gas Company. He made a statement to us the last time I was in here. The Minister had better tell the truth——

Order, please. The Ceann Comhairle does not want this Question Time to go out of hand and it is heading in that direction. He has a particular reason for not wanting it to get out of hand at this time on this day.

Particularly today.

36.