Vol. 397 No. 4
11 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will outline the main findings of the investigation of the Fair Trades Commission to establish the ownership of Classic Meats, formerly known as Master Meats; the steps he has taken or intends to take as a result of the findings; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
As I indicated in my public statements on this matter on 19 and 22 December 1989, the Fair Trade Commission concluded that Mr. Laurence Goodman was in effective control of the Master Meats Group. I consider that this control of the third largest meat processing group by an individual with other substantial involvement in the meat trade in Ireland is undesirable and contrary to the common good, and I am continuing my examination of the legal means, including the powers available to me under the Mergers, Take-overs, and Monopolies (Control) Act, 1978, as amended, by which this control can be brought to an end. As the Deputy will appreciate, this examination involves some very complex issues but I am hopeful that it can be concluded shortly.
Can the Minister inform us as to the results of the investigation of the Fair Trade Commission, the extent of Mr. Goodman's control of this company and the extent of his interest in and control of the beef processing industry?
The finding of the commission in relation to the group, as I announced publicly on 19 December last, is that it is clear from the report that effective control over the group has been exercised by an individual with other substantial involvement in the meat trade in Ireland. That was the central or crucial finding of the commission in their investigation into the matter.
Would the Minister not agree that three months after he became aware of that finding, and in view of the fact that Mr. Goodman consistently denied his control of the company prior to the making available of the report, that he needs to do something urgently to deal with the matter? Can the Minister give some indication to the House as to when he will take steps to deal with the matter arising from the reply he has given to the question?
The obligation on me to take steps and make a decision in regard to it expires on 16 April, which is three months from the time of the reply to the queries which were furnished to the company concerned in the early part of last year. The company declined earlier to reply to the queries which were raised but they did reply in mid-January and as a result the three months period runs from then. The matter is one of great complexity. It has been necessary to get the Attorney General's advice repeatedly on a series of issues and the latest and major part of the Attorney's advice only became available towards the latter part of last week. The principal reason for the delay is the attitude of non-co-operation shown by the group concerned.
From the information available to the Minister may I ask if the company are covered under the Mergers, Take-Overs and Monopolies (Control) Act by virtue of the fact that a very high proportion of their business is for export?
They are covered clearly, and obviously they consider they are themselves, because eventually they notified one of those transactions. One of the complexities that arises is that there was more than one transaction, and it may well be that the earlier non-notified transactions were notifiable.
Were they notifiable?
They may well be.
Would the Minister agree that the men and women who died in 1916 did not die for the type of country we have where people like Mr. Larry Goodman can take over huge areas of our industry?
Please, Deputy, let us be careful about reflections of that kind on persons outside the House. I now call Deputy Gilmore for a final, brief and relevant question.
Is the Minister prepared to publish the report of the Fair Trade Commission on the matter? Does he envisage that legislation will be required arising from the consideration he has given it?
I will take the second part of the Deputy's question first. I think it is very likely that legislation will be required, because I have found that the 1978 legislation is not adequate, in my view at any rate — and I hope that is a view the House will share — for the purposes it was intended. For example, one of the things it did not envisage was active non-co-operation by a notifying party. It was thought that the considerable sanctions in the 1978 Act would be sufficient to encourage people to comply with it. That appears in practice not to have been the case, in one instance at least. I propose, therefore, to include in the Competition Bill, 1990, which I referred to earlier today and which is under preparation at present, provisions which will amend the Mergers, Take-overs and Monopolies (Control) Act, 1978.
On the question of publication of the report, the most I would be prepared to publish would be an edited version of it leaving out confidential information which was provided by a number of companies.
Will you be doing that?
I am considering that, but unfortunately if you publish an edited report I am afraid you are liable to be accused of leaving out the most interesting bits and it will not satisfy those who want publication. It is a matter I will have to consider when the decision has been made.
