|
|
|
|
Appendix II(i) IRISH SHIPPING LIMITED(a) August, 1984: The Department of Communications refused to submit particulars of the five year corporate plan of Irish Shipping Ltd. (b) November, 1984: The Chairman of the company was invited to attend a meeting of the Joint Committee for the purpose of giving evidence and he was furnished with a list of draft questions which the Joint Committee wished to discuss with him at the meeting. In a reply dated 12 November, 1984, the Chairman informed the Joint Committee that it appeared to him that it would be necessary to obtain legal advice before he could respond and that, in the circumstances, he believed that it would not be appropriate for him to attend the proposed meeting. A further invitation to the Chairman to attend a meeting with the Joint Committee was declined by his legal advisers. (c) December, 1984: The Departments of Finance and Communications informed the Joint Committee that it would be inappropriate for their officials to attend to give evidence during the enquiry into Irish Shipping Ltd. In the Joint Committee’s Report on Irish Shipping Ltd. in April, 1985 [Pl. 3091] it was stated that “the Joint Committee had been unable to complete to its satisfaction its examination of the Company. To enable it to complete its examination it recommends to the Houses that legislation be enacted as a matter of urgency which would empower it to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production to it of all relevant documentation”. (ii) BORD GAIS EIREANN(a) June, 1985: Officials of the Department of Energy did not attend a meeting of the Joint Committee for stated reasons (i.e. short notice, further clarification of issues to be discussed). (b) September, 1985: The Tanaiste and Minister for Energy was invited to meet the Joint Committee but did not attend. In the Joint Committee’s report on Bord Gais Eireann in December, 1985 [Pl. 3638] it stated that “the Joint Committee is gravely disappointed with the negative response of the Department of Energy. The Department’s stance undermines the credibility of the Joint Committee and it has serious implications for the effective discharge of its functions by the Joint Committee. It also has implications for the Committee system generally”. (iii) IRISH NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.March, 1989: During the lifetime of the present Joint Committee and its immediate predecessor, the INPC indicated that it had been directed by the respective Ministers for Energy not to attend. Sub-judice considerations were cited as the substantive reasons for non-attendance. However the present Joint Committee felt that it was a very shallow argument in view of the specific and limited nature of the outstanding proceedings (in abeyance) in the High Court. Following correspondence with the present Minister for Energy, the Joint Committee reported its difficulties to the Houses of the Oireachtas in July, 1990 (Pl. 7381). Paragraph 11 of the Report states: “The Joint Committee understands that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of Dail Eireann is reviewing the operation and application of the sub judice practice in parliamentary proceedings. In that regard the Joint Committee wishes that its experience of the application of the practice to its proceedings be taken into account in the analysis and appraisal of the current practice. While not wishing to be acrimonious, the Joint Committee considers that a clearly defined practice should be established by both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as possible which, inter alia, would delineate clearly the sub judice criteria and more significantly establish that the arbiter of the sub judice practice in the parliamentary process shall be, in cases such as the present, the Joint Committee.”. (iv) SIUICRE EIREANN(a) April, 1989: Siuicre Eireann - the members of the Board were individually invited to attend but declined. (b) September, 1991: The Minister for Agriculture and Food declined to attend before the Joint Committee. (v) AN POSTFebruary, 1991: Witnesses declined in correspondence and during attendance to discuss the published Viability Plan or matters connected therewith. the operation and application of the sub judice practice in parliamentary proceedings. In that regard the Joint Committee wishes that its experience of the application of the practice to its proceedings be taken into account in the analysis and appraisal of the current practice. While not wishing to be acrimonious, the Joint Committee considers that a clearly defined practice should be established by both Houses of the Oireachtas as soon as possible which, inter alia, would delineate clearly the sub judice criteria and more significantly establish that the arbiter of the sub judice practice in the parliamentary process shall be, in cases such as the present, the Joint Committee.”. (iv) SIUICRE EIREANN(a) April, 1989: Siuicre Eireann - the members of the Board were individually invited to attend but declined. (b) September, 1991: The Minister for Agriculture and Food declined to attend before the Joint Committee. (v) AN POSTFebruary, 1991: Witnesses declined in correspondence and during attendance to discuss the published Viability Plan or matters connected therewith.
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
