asked the Minister for Energy when he will make a public statement in reply to the State appointed and now resigned Directors of Dublin Gas on their many criticisms of his handling of the Dublin Gas situation as he has stated publicly he will do.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Gas.
3.
I have replied to the communication referred to in the question. I did not state that I would publish that reply, but the recipients are free to do so if they wish.
Can the Minister explain to the House why he did not reply in public, having made the specific statement in Killarney that he would reply in public?
I will quote from The Irish Times, which I assume the Deputy will accept as authoritative. The report in that newspaper was as follows:
Mr. Spring said he intends to write a letter in reply in the next week or so. His response, he said, would probably be made as publicly as the directors' criticism of him had been but would be carefully considered.
I asked the Minister if he had made a specific statement in public. I do not want to hear what the newspapers reported. Did the Minister make a specific statement in public that he would reply in public? They were Government appointed directors. The chairman and three directors resigned and criticised the handling of Dublin Gas problems. They made their criticisms in public and the Minister made a public statement in Killarney saying he would reply to them in public. Is there some reason why he did not reply in public?
There is no reason whatever. The letter of reply went to the former chairman of Dublin Gas Company and I asked him if he would convey copies of it to the other directors who signed the letter with him. I have no problem. If the man wishes to make that letter public, he can do so. I have no worry about it whatsoever.
Did the Minister say he would make a public statement?
I did not. I am telling the Deputy what I said in Killarney. I have quoted it from The Irish Times.
Is the Minister convinced that the technique of receivership is the correct one in this case? Would he comment on the notion that is now circulating in a number of areas that he is saying to the Dublin Gas receiver that, no matter who the bidder is, when the receiver offers it for sale he will be the highest bidder? Is that not a cumbersome procedure?
This is a completely separate question.
The question asks about replying to a letter, and all of what I am saying is about that correspondence. I am asking the Minister if he accepts that receivership is the best technique, having announced that he will nationalise the company? Is it not ridiculous to suggest that the receiver will be told that any price will be paid for the company?