What surprised me yesterday was that the Government did not seem to realise the impact of the programme shown on Monday evening. It is regrettable that the Government had to be dragged screaming into this debate and obviously did not make the decision the Minister outlined to the House until the very last minute, and then very reluctantly. As I said, perhaps it is better late than never that we are having this judicial inquiry because this country needs it and our standing in the European Community demands that it be carried out as quickly as possible.
We tabled an amendment to the Government motion which does not address the problem we are facing. Our amendment states:
That Dáil Éireann demands a sworn judicial inquiry with the power to procure documents, to summon witnesses and to make any and all recommendations it sees fit, into the allegations made by the "World in Action" programme transmitted on Monday, 13 May.
In the immediate aftermath of the "World in Action" programme, my colleague, Deputy Mervyn Taylor, issued the following statement on behalf of the Labour Party which I intend to read into the record of the House because it sums up very effectively our position on this whole affair. It states:
The litany of irregularities and relationships uncovered by last night's "World in Action" investigation into the management of Anglo-Irish Beef Processors demands the most serious and far-reaching response.
This programme performed a valuable public service, and the allegations made in the course of the programme will be convincing to many who have tried to investigate the affairs of this company in the past, in the public interest. The questions that need to be answered fall into two categories — those that need to be answered by the company and those that must be answered by the political system.
In the former category, strong allegations were made by the programme of falsified documents and accounts and official stamps; allegations of strong attempts by company management to obstruct legitimate investigation; allegations of the illegal use by the company of official stamps; and allegations of a host of dishonest and dangerous practices, including improper slaughtering methods, reboxing of old and probably poisonous beef to present it as fresh, altering weights to maximise subsidies, and "under-the-table" payments to virtually all employees.
Where the political system is concerned, the questions are even more serious. Allegations were made that routine tipoffs were received by the company of any investigations, that although criminal proceedings were recommended by customs officials the relevant file was withheld from the fraud squad for 18 months, that an agreement operated between management and the company and someone in the customs service would ensure that every investigation had the right outcome, that the company always operated on the basis that it believed it had the right connections in the right places which could limit any investigation and that the European Commission was persuaded to draw back from a major investigation of the company after it had received false assurances that the Irish Government were already conducting a major investigation. Most seriously of all, it was alleged that the Government were fully aware of the views of the customs officials about extensive wrong doing at the time it was assisting the Goodman organisation in its extensive self-promotion and preparing to commit further large sums of public money to the expansion of that company.
It will be remembered that when the Labour Party first revealed some of these irregularities which have now been so exposed, the party was strongly attacked by both Mr. Goodman outside this House and the Taoiseach, and several days elapsed before the Minister for Agriculture and Food was forced to reveal the truth of our assertions at the time.
Then, and several times since, we have called for a sworn judicial inquiry into this whole affair with power to obtain documents and to compel witnesses. I do not see how the Government can justifiably refuse that request, which they obviously have not done now. In fact, in most other countries allegations of the kind made, unless they could be immediately and comprehensively rebutted, would inevitably lead to ministerial resignations at least.
What we are debating here tonight is essentially the same thing that we debated in this House last August, the future of the Irish beef industry. There have been attempts in this House and outside it to question the motivation of the "World in Action" team and the programme which exposed so much wrong doing.
I do not ever remember the Taoiseach or any of his colleagues questioning the motivation of the same "World in Action" team after any of the three programmes they made about the Birmingham Six, and I cannot understand why he should choose to do so now. For my own part, I want to put on the record my belief that this programme was made with no other motivation than to try to get at the truth of a scandal which has been brushed under the carpet in Ireland for far too long.
The Minister said we had a full discussion on this issue here last August. We did not have a full discussion on the Government side last August, and most of the facts in relation to the Goodman problems would not have been revealed by the Government if they could have avoided doing so.
It is the scandal, and not the uncovering of the scandal, that has done so much damage to the reputation of our beef industry both nationally and internationally. If British customers are less willing to buy Irish beef today than they were last Friday, it is not the "World in Action" programme that is to blame — it is those who have perpetrated the things that "World in Action" uncovered, and those in authority who have done nothing about it.
We have to accept the duty of ending the scandal, and we will not accomplish that by banal and dishonest attacks on those who have made the programme.
It is absolutely essential to our fundamental economic interests that we address this issue as a scandal and that we address the basic question of what we need to do to root out those people who have turned our beef industry into an object of scandal and disgrace.
That is why I have to say now — and I say it with care — that the Government bear a huge responsibility in this whole matter. I believe they have neglected that responsibility in the most shameful and irresponsible way.
At the behest of the Government, the Minister for Agriculture and Food has put before us tonight a motion which lacks all credibility. It lacked credibility before the Minister's statement and, in view of the Minister's conclusion, it certainly lacks total credibility. Even if it is passed unamended it will only make the situation worse without a sworn inquiry.
There is virtually nobody in this country other than, perhaps, Mr. Goodman or his senior management who believe that the regulatory and control procedures for the Irish beef industry are satisfactory. If the Government had produced a motion which even expressed some concern about the allegations made and which undertook to review the procedures, then perhaps one would be more sympathetic about the difficulties which the Government are facing.
Unfortunately, over the last number of years there has been an attempt at whitewash in relation to the beef industry. This motion itself is part of the cover up because at all times the Government have known far more than they have been prepared to tell us. The same applied last August. It is pointless for them to huff and puff that they never covered anything up or that they have no case to answer when they are prepared to vote for a motion like this. If they are seriously putting their reputation on the line, then the Minister should withdraw the motion and let the judicial inquiry take its course.
One has to question why the change of heart at the last minute. I do not like speaking about absent friends, but I wonder yet again have the Progressive Democrats put down the line that they will not support the motion unless there is a judicial inquiry. My own suspicions tell me that is the reason the Government have caved into the requests by the Opposition parties first made last August, and now agreed by all the Opposition parties, for a sworn judicial inquiry. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what happened during the day between the Government parties. Why the late change? Why no script from the Minister? Why was nothing prepared in advance? Why the late change of heart for the sworn judicial inquiry? The Government must know, and everybody in this country knows, that the regulatory procedures for the Irish beef industry, not just for Mr. Goodman but for the whole of the Irish beef industry, leave a lot to be desired. The irregularities, if one wants to call them irregularities, amount to criminal activity. That is what it is. There are no two ways of putting it, and it should be stopped and stamped out once and for all.
The Department of Agriculture and Food have over the years refused to reveal any detail of the investigation they carried out into individual companies on the spurious grounds that they did not want to affect the competitive position of these companies. Not only has there been a failure to investigate thoroughly, but the entire ethos of the Government in this area has been one of complacency — and I regret to have to say that — since they discovered these problems back in 1987. Because of that complacency about control, because they were unwilling to take action, the Government must stand accused of this cover up of illegal and improper activities in the beef industry since the day they took office. History will judge the motivation behind that. In the final analysis, any damage done to the future prospects of the Irish beef industry, to farmers, to the workers and to consumers must be laid at the door of the Government.
We have never received — though perhaps we will in the course of the judicial inquiry — any satisfactory explanation of why the Government extended such favourable treatment to Larry Goodman in the middle of 1987, within weeks of their return to office. All we know is that favourable treatment was extended to him against the best advice available to the Government at that time and that the decisions made by the Government have proved to be disastrous in terms of the beef industry.
Two important decisions were made in 1987 by the then Fianna Fáil Government. The first has been discussed in this House, that was the decision to grant a virtual monopoly of export credit insurance to Mr. Goodman's company. The second involved a commitment by the State to invest £30 million in a grandiose scheme for the development of the beef industry being undertaken by Goodman International, and to help to secure a further £30 million from the EC's Agricultural Fund.
It may be worth recalling some of the details of the project outlined in that famous press conference on 18 June 1987, the video film of which was subsequently used all over the world by Mr. Goodman's public relations experts to sell Goodman and their beef.
There was to be £20 million for a new processing facility in Louth; £5 million was to be spent on the group's activity in Ballymun, Carlow and Waterford factories. A new high technology plant employing 140 people was to be built in Tuam on the site of the old sugar factory and new factories were to be developed on greenfield sites in Cork or Kerry. All told, the projects were to employ 1,150 people and, in the words of the Minister for Food, Deputy Joe Walsh, they were to put the Irish meat industry in the first division of meat processing. We all know what happened. I do not accept Deputy Deasy's explanation about the close association because when people are that close and there are problems, the problems are all over the place.
We all know how meaningless those promises turned out to be. We do not know and we have never been told why the Government decided to embark on that course of action and why they applied so much pressure to ensure that it happened. Perhaps the Minister will confirm to the House that the advice available to the Government when the export credit insurance was reinstated was that it should not have been reinstated to the Goodman company.
These questions are important. It becomes far more important now that we are being told by a reputable investigative team that almost precisely at the moment when the press conference was being held, the Garda Fraud Squard was being asked by the Department of Agriculture and Food to investigate serious irregularities in Goodman's Waterford and Ballymun Plants. According to my information the situation is even more peculiar. I am told that a memorandum went from the Department to the fraud squad in June 1987 asking for the investigation. In Civil Service parlance, it was a CYA file. I shall not explain that because of the restrictions on parliamentary language. It was sent from the Department to the fraud squad in June 1987.
The essential matters to be inquired into by the fraud squad were, in the case of the Waterford plant, the false altering of weights on cartons, both before the Customs investigation and during it, and the inclusion of beef trimmings in the cartons to maximise the weight; and in the case of the Ballymun plant, the false altering of case weights on documentation.
After that memorandum there was a deafening silence from the Department of Agriculture and Food. I understand reliably that the fraud squad made innumerable requests for the Department's file — a file which included every detail of the Department's investigations — but all of these requests were ignored until December 1988. In the end, the fraud squad got the file no more than two or three weeks before the Department wrote to Anglo Irish Beef Processors informing them of the penalties that had been decided upon in the case of Waterford. For reasons that are far from clear no investigation in fact appears to have been carried out by the fraud squad in relation to the Waterford plant, although a file was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions's office in respect of the Ballymun allegations in December of last year or January of this year.
The famous letter from the Department to AIBP, outlining penalties in respect of Waterford is, of course, at this stage a matter of public record. It is also a matter of public record that the Minister for Agriculture and Food initially attempted to deny its existence, thereby making it all the more difficult for us to take seriously anything he might have to say about rigorous controls.
Of course, at the time that news of the major irregularities in Waterford emerged, it was revealed — despite the reluctance of the Minister — that the Goodman organisation were to be penalised to the extent of just over £1 million.
Mr. Goodman at the time blamed the whole affair on a subcontractor, a Mr. Marks, who traded under the name Daltina, and announced that he was commencing legal proceedings against Mr. Marks. In the last couple of days Mr. Goodman has announced that not only did he pursue those proceedings, but he also won a judgment in the High Court agianst Daltina, thereby vindicating his stance at the time. That was a most interesting case, and I shall give the House some details of it.
I have established that Mr. Goodman did enter a claim against Daltina for £904, 184 in the High Court. On 14 May last year — almost a year ago on the day — Mr. Goodman secured a judgement against Daltina, as a result of the complete non-appearance of the defendant. That judgment was not for the amount claimed, but for an amount to be determined by a judge at a hearing to be held subsequently. Surprise, surprise, despite the lapse of a year, that hearing has never taken place, and as a result no damages have ever been assessed, according to High Court records, checked this afternoon. Mr. Goodman might have got his judgment, but it has not cost Mr. Marks one penny. A cynic might well smell a rat in that case yet again.
The House will also be delighted to know that Mr. Goodman would not have been able to write off any penalties incurred on him against the profits from his business. If he succeeds in persuading the Revenue Commissioners, however, that he had to suffer the loss of nearly £1 milion because of an uncollected judgment in the High Court he will be able to write off the cost of all those penalties against taxation of his profits.
It will also be remembered that at the time of the Waterford irregularities, and as a result of them, up to £20 million in bank guarantees were withheld by the Department. Without the Department's approval Mr. Goodman has been unable ever since to secure release from those guarantees. However, I understand — and perhaps the Minister will comment on this — that approval has been given to release the bank guarantees, perhaps, according to my information, as part of the overall deal of last autumn. Apparently, the Department's enthusiasm for Mr. Goodman continues unabated.
But Waterford and Ballymun were not all that the Department knew about irregularities in the Goodman empire at the time it was busily assisting in the international promotion of Mr. Goodman. For example, I have discovered that very much earlier in the eighties — and the Minister has admitted to this — before the Minister even came into office, counterfeit stamps were intercepted in Cork by the Customs authorities. These stamps were duplicates of South African customs stamps and were on their way to the AIBP plant in Cahir when they were intercepted. The only possible purpose of such stamps is to enable documents to be falsely stamped in order to convey the impression that meat had been received in South Africa, thereby qualifying that meat — on a totally illegal basis — for EC subsidies. This was known to the Department and the Minister — there is no way it could have been hidden from them since it featured to a minor extent in the prosecution of one Mr. Nobby Quinn — and it makes the Department's enthusiasm for Mr. Goodman all the harder to understand.
Mr. Goodman at his press conference last night referred to various tax schemes in operation for the employees of his company. He referred to them as "bona fide" schemes, and advised the media that they had been brought to the attention of the Revenue Commissioners and that the situation was now fully regularised.
Deputy Bruton went on at length in saying that perhaps the taxation arrangements one can arrive at depend upon one's status.
I understand that what happened in this case is that following intensive negotiations with the Revenue Commissioners the Commissioners agreed not to take proceedings against Mr. Goodman or his company in respect of large scale tax evasion practices going back over many years. In return, Goodman International paid the Revenue Commissioners £4 million in respect of all outstanding liabilities and penalties. That, I am told, is by far the largest settlement of its kind in the history of this State. Quite frankly, I find it very difficult to understand how anyone can effectively admit to tax evasion on that scale and still escape scot-free from any kind of prosecution. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the figures, if he has them from the Revenue Commissioners.
I now come to a question I feel should be put on the record of the House. I have been told by a number of sources that Mr. Goodman has been guaranteed immunity from civil prosecution as part of his settlement with the banks and from criminal prosecution. We all know that the only people who can give immunity from criminal prosecution are the Government as a whole. I should like to know — and perhaps the Minister would be so kind as to put it on the record of the House — if that immunity has been given, why it was given, when it was given and on what basis it was given. In view of the facts I have outlined, it would strike me as being a crazy decision if that is what has been decided.
As I said in the House last August, the reality of the Goodman affair will not go away. As a good test of the strength of democracy, perhaps the House has taken steps this evening that will go some way towards putting this dreadful saga to bed, if that is possible. The Irish beef industry will continue to be under threat until we, as democratically elected representatives of the people of this country, convince the world that we have cleaned up our act in relation to that industry.
I do not take any pleasure in attacking the Government, in attacking Mr. Goodman, or in attacking the beef industry. I would be much happier to be able to stand up in the House as a rural Deputy and defend the beef industry. God knows, given the unemployment in Ireland, the unemployment figures released in the past few days, and the closures that have occurred right across the country, we need jobs. We need a thriving beef sector. We need the jobs and we need the outlets for what is basically a world-class premium product. Our farmers, in particular, have been let down badly in the past couple of years in the way that all of this happened. They have been treated most unfairly and have been shortchanged by the reputation of the industry that the Government have allowed to grow.
I only hope that it is not too late. I hope that the Minister for Agriculture and Food will pursue with vigour, and with all the resources available to him and his Department, and with the other resources of this States, this judicial inquiry as quickly as possible. The country needs to be reassured in relation to the industry.
Again, I was completely amazed that the Government did not realise the seriousness of the implications of the allegations made on Monday night. Perhaps it is a matter of complacency; perhaps the Government have switched off from such problems. But these problems will not go away. They have to be faced up to. They may be unpleasant, but it is better for everybody that the unpleasantness is dealt with now rather than allow it to continue for years. The industry needs to be cleaned up.
My colleague who raised the matter for the first time in the House, the former Deputy Barry Desmond, who is now a member of the European Parliament, should feel vindicated in relation to his statement made in the House. The chances are that if those statements had not been made we would never have been the letters that subsequently had to be put on the public record. It is a sad day when letters have to be procured from agents of the State when they are available to people in senior positions but are not worked upon. It is a very sad day for all of us that we have to come down to a sworn public judicial inquiry. It is essential that we protect this vital industry. There is absolutely no consistency in what the Minister is about to do when we call a vote on this matter. There is no consistency in saying everything is in order and then saying a sworn public judicial inquiry will be set up. If he wants consistency let him withdraw his motion and get on with the public sworn judicial inquiry.
