asked the Minister for Energy whether he has been in communication with the INPC or persons acting on their behalf regarding their requested appearance before the Oireachtas Committee on Semi-State Bodies.

45.

asked the Minister for Energy if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the INPC have not appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies for examination, despite several requests to do so having been made; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 22 and 45 together.

The Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies informed the Chairman of the INPC on 21 July 1987 that the committee had decided to examine the reports and accounts and overall operational results of the INPC and requested the corporation to prepare a memorandum on the subject.

While the INPC provided the committee with a memorandum on their role and operations, they also pointed out the difficulties which could arise in view of on-going High Court proceedings in which the corporation in a co-defendant.

I should point out that the corporation are most anxious to facilitate the wishes of the committee but matters which the committee might wish to examine are sub judice and it is considered unlikely that they could be discussed in such a forum without prejudice to the interests of the State.

Is it not the case that what is before the court is simply a decision on costs? The substantive issue has been decided in the European Court. Can I ask the Minister, as stated in Question No. 22, whether he has been in communication with the INPC or persons acting on their behalf regarding their requested appearance?

The answer to the second part of the question is that we have. We are also satisfied on the basis of these discussions that the legal situation is not as clear as the Deputy outlines. Once that matter is cleared up it will be possible to proceed with their coming before the Oireachtas committee.

Is it not the case that the reason as stated in the press is — indeed the dogs in the street will know — that the Minister has told the INPC that while negotiations on the Nigerian deal are in progress the committee of this House that should be looking into this affair are to be denied access?

The Deputy is incorrect in his assumption. While I do not want to go into the nitty gritty of the legal problems which are still outstanding, I can assure the Deputy that there are legal matters which prevent these discussions from taking place and we have established that beyond yea or nay.

May I——

Order. If it is true that there are legal implications, the question of this being sub judice will come into it. I assume the Deputy will be circumspect and will have regard to that possibility.

It is the settlement of costs——

I am not au fait with the question.

Is the Minister aware that INPC have been refusing since 1983 to come before the Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies for the reason he has given us today, that the matter is tied up legally? I support what Deputy Bruton has said, that it is technically sub judice by virtue of the fact that fees have not been paid. Surely the Minister could invite INPC to come before the committee and to be subject to whatever examination the committee wish to carry out in camera. This would not have an adverse effect on the payment of legal fees, which is the reason they did not come before the committee since 1983.

It is not a regular practice for companies to come before Oireachtas committees and be examined in camera. In this case, the Deputy can anticipate that there may be developments in this area soon. On the basis of the examination of the legal matters, they are of such import that the Minister is satisfied that the meeting could be delayed for the time being.

May I ask——

Deputy Bruton offered earlier.

Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the proposed deal with Nigeria has not been one of the factors in the discussions the Minister had?

Yes.

That has not at any stage been mentioned to persons representing the INPC as a reason they should not appear?

Yes.

May I——

The time has come to deal with questions nominated for priority. Priority Question No. 57 has been disposed of.