Vol. 404 No. 1
19 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has received an application from the Goodman Group for his approval under the Mergers and Monopolies legislation; if he intends to give his approval; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
44 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has received an application from the Goodman Group under the mergers and monopolies legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Priority Question No. 19 and oral Question No. 44 together.
As the matter of the rescue plan for the Goodman Group and related companies is one for the Examiner and the High Court, I do not consider it appropriate for me to comment directly on it.
However, I have received a notification under the Mergers, Take-overs and Monopolies (Control) Acts, 1978 and 1987, in respect of the proposals by the Examiner.
As I am required to do under the Acts, the notification is being examined in the context of the interests of the common good, having regard to the scheduled criteria in the 1978 Act. These criteria comprehend such matters as the effects on competition in the marketplace, the interests of the consumer, the effects on continuity of supplies or services, the effects on employment and employees, the interests of shareholders, the impact on regional development and whatever economic benefits might arise for the enterprises and industry involved.
The notification is still under consideration. I am, therefore, not yet in a position to indicate what my decision will be.
Would the Minister agree with me that it is now the view that foreign banks who behaved imprudently to the point of irresponsibility are set to exact their pound of flesh at the expense of Irish farmers and workers, specifically that this amounts to a tax on farmers that would be brought about by imposing a reduction in the price of cattle and by giving the international banks a stranglehold on the Irish meat industry?
Deputy Rabbitte has put that in a way that perhaps some of the interested parties in this matter might like to put it but I cannot be taken as accepting that things are exactly as the Deputy has put them. There are pros and cons. I have received representations from different sides. I will weigh them up and bear them all in mind before taking a decision in this matter.
Pros and cons are all right but is not the question that must be posed: have we learned anything from this terrible experience? One man is still set to dominate this industry, the same man, with all of the pattern that has gone before, with references in the Sunday Business Post, for example, to his managing to hold on to his £10 million personal assets for a rainy day. Surely the consequences for the industry, the price exacted by the international banks can be paid for only by artificially depressing the price of cattle and effectively operating a cartel on the price of cattle?
The Deputy has made that point adequately.
May I put the question to the Minister this way: does the Minister entirely disregard the views of the IFA, the ICMSA, the UFA and SIPTU?
Again, we are having an element of repetition.
I certainly do not entirely disregard their views. In fact I understand that I have come under criticism for even giving cognisance to their views. However, the Deputy mentioned three organisations. I think not all three of them hold the same view. The last-named organisation, I understand, approves of this; the second-named organisation are divided on this and the first-named organisation are opposed to it. So there are different views on the matter. The Deputy mentioned that under the proposals, the same man who has dominated the Irish beef industry for some time would continue to dominate it. The details of the proposals would not bear out that statement of the Deputy. First, it is envisaged that less capacity would be involved and, second, it is envisaged that, for a period of seven years anyway, control of this group would not be exercised by the man who has exercised control over it in the past.
Does the Minister give any credence to the alternative view which is that there is the capacity within the industry already to take up the slack, that it would be far better in the interests of both sides of industry, suppliers and workers, if the normal process of market forces was allowed to happen?
There is considerable capacity within the industry. One of the difficulties is that it has been the pattern in this trade in Ireland to carry out a lot of the slaughtering in the autumn each year. If that could be spread more widely throughout the year the very substantial capacity available would be more marked and could be more freely utilised.
We must now proceed to other questions to the same Minister, No. 23.
I appeal on a point of order for some flexibility here. There are three spokespersons in the House. The idea of priority questions was that spokespersons would have an opportunity to ask questions about issues that concern their parties. If this trend continues it is a waste of time having priority questions. We would be far better off taking our place in the lottery. I have had one supplementary question——
Deputy Barrett, when we come to priority questions the Chair invariably appeals to Members to be brief, relevant and succinct and assist him to dispose of the four or five questions before us at that time. If Members feel strongly that the 15 minutes provided for under Standing Orders is inadequate it is in their hands to do something about it. The Chair merely administers the rules of this House. In regard to what the Deputy has adverted to, we have gone three or four minutes over the official time.
Is it in order for me to indicate the support of my party on the position taken up by Deputy Barrett and to reversion——
It is a matter——
It is a joke.
No. 23.
I have answered five questions in the time. Unfortunately three of the questions——
One supplementary on one priority.
——related to a very lengthy matter that I was asked to report on about a conference that went on for six days where a considerable number of economic and social interests were involved.
No. 23, please, in the name of Deputy Michael Bell. I should say the Chair has no responsibility for or control over Ministers' replies——
If I do not answer the question properly or fully I am subjected to criticism too.
——but he does have control over Deputy's questions.
