I move:
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for—
1. inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance:
(i) allegations regarding illegal activities, fraud and malpractice in and in connection with the beef processing industry made or referred to
(a) in Dáil Éireann, and
(b) on a television programme transmitted by ITV on 13 May, 1991;
(ii) any matters connected with or relevant to the matters aforesaid which the tribunal considers it necessary to investigate in connection with its inquiries into the matters mentioned at (i) above;
and
2. making such recommendations (if any) as the tribunal, having regard to its findings, thinks proper."
This motion establishes a tribunal of inquiry of a judicial nature to examine the many and serious allegations made in this House and on a recent television programme in regard to the beef processing industry.
The tribunal is being established under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 and 1979. It is only the fifth occasion since 1975 on which this procedure has been followed. As such, the establishment of this inquiry reflects the absolute priority being attached by the Government to establish in the most open, authoritative, independent and comprehensive manner available under the laws of this country, the truth of the allegations to which I have referred.
The President of the High Court, the Honourable Mr. Justice Hamilton, has agreed to preside over this inquiry. The Government are extremely pleased that such an eminent member of our Judiciary is prepared to undertake this important assignment and express their deep appreciation to Mr. Justice Hamilton.
The Minister for Agriculture and Food will make the relevant Order under the Acts, as soon as the motion setting up the tribunal has been approved by both the Dáil and the Seanad, and the work of the tribunal will commence as soon as practicable thereafter. The costs of the inquiry will be borne by the Department of Agriculture and Food, and will involve a Supplementary Estimate coming before the House in due course. Other practical details relating to the organisation of the work of the tribunal will be a matter for Mr. Justice Hamilton.
The terms of reference have been deliberately drawn in a way that will allow as wide-ranging an investigation as may be necessary to take place. Not only will all allegations made in the Dáil and in the television programme be investigated: the tribunal will also be empowered to inquire into "any matters connected with or relevant to" those allegations which the tribunal consider it necessary to investigate.
I, therefore, emphatically reject various criticisms made by Members of this House, when the terms of reference proposed by the Government have been made public. The language of the terms of reference is clear, their scope very wide-ranging and I cannot comprehend how anyone can contend otherwise.
There have been other criticisms that the tribunal will be unduly protracted and that some time limit should be set. It is inconsistent for Deputies to demand the fullest investigation of all relevant matters, while at the same time seeking to impose a time constraint on the work of the tribunal. The tribunal will be its own arbiter of the time required. It will be aware of the need for expedition but cannot be constrained to any preconceived time limit from investigating matters which it considers require examination. The all-embracing terms of reference which the Government propose, the absence of a time limit and the wide-ranging powers of the tribunal itself, all taken together ensure that no time will be lost in reaching conclusions and every opportunity provided to have all relevant issues and matters fully examined.
This tribunal is an extremely powerful legal forum within which the allegations are to be investigated. The tribunal may make such orders as it considers necessary for the purposes of its functions and has the wide-ranging powers, rights and privileges of the High Court or a judge of the High Court. It has full powers to subpoena witnesses and call for documents. The law regarding attendance and conduct of witnesses is precise and detailed. The 1979 Act, which amended subsection (2) of section 1 of the original 1921 Act, provides, for example, that it is a particular offence to disobey a summons as a witness, not produce documents, or by act or omission obstruct or hinder the tribunal in the performance of its functions. Persons found guilty of an offence under the Acts are liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or up to two years imprisonment or both.
There has been a certain amount of comment in recent days on the question of privilege and the invocation of the Official Secrets Acts as grounds for withholding relevant information from the tribunal. Let me assure this House that there is no intention whatsoever on the part of the Government that the Official Secrets Acts should be used in any way to limit or impede this inquiry by withholding from the tribunal evidence relevant to its terms of reference. However, where third party or contractual interests may be involved, it would be a matter for the judge, as it is in normal court procedure, to have regard to any requirement for confidentiality to be maintained.
As well as full official co-operation the tribunal must receive the full co-operation also of all those inside and outside this House who have over a long period felt free to make allegations of all kinds about the affairs of the Goodman companies and about political favouritism. This is the moment of truth. They must now come forward with their evidence or have the decency to say publicly that they cannot substantiate their allegations and withdraw them. Members of this House in particular have a clear and unequivocal duty to make available to the tribunal any information or evidence relevant to the inquiry, and to answer questions by the tribunal as freely as they have made allegations in this House. They must also indicate the source of such evidence as they put forward and how it came into their possession. The inquiry is specifically intended to separate fact from fiction, reality from hearsay, and to subject allegations to the essential tests of evidence and cross-examination under due process of law. Nothing less is acceptable: the very economy of this country is largely tied up with the good name and continued expansion of our beef industry, and any practice that damages it or any allegation that causes that good name to be called in question must be dealt with rigorously and authoritatively.
No Irish Government can ignore the major importance of the beef sector to the entire food and agricultural industry in this country, its key contribution to the balance of payments and employment. Very many of our people, whether farmers or factory workers, depend on the beef industry for their living. It is an industry that has developed very rapidly, and it has now reached a stage where it is poised to develop further, but it is also facing major market challenges. In Brussels, the European Commission has proposed a very substantial weakening of the beef market support arrangements, to which there are fundamental objections. But the Government recognise that the beef industry must become more market-led. It was in order to assist in this transformation that we provided, this year, additional funds to CBF for marketing development and promotion to back up the efforts that the industry itself must make.
Becoming market-led is not just a matter of persuasion, advertising and sales technique. Quality and confidence are vital. Overall, the beef industry is making progress, but there is an absolute need to maintain and spread consumer confidence in our beef products. That is why the sort of allegations which we have heard in recent days and weeks cannot just be ignored but must be probed and tested until conclusions are reached.
I do not consider it appropriate, now that the inquiry is about to begin, to go in detail into the various allegations made in this House as recently as last week, in the press in recent days and in other ways regarding the beef industry in recent years. That all now moves into the domain of the inquiry. However, it is in my view necessary that at this stage a few very important matters be referred to and placed on the records of this House.
During the debate in this House on 15 May 1991 Deputy Spring said that he had been told by a number of sources that Mr. Goodman had been guaranteed immunity from civil prosecution as part of his settlement with the banks and from criminal prosecution. I want to state categorically that no such immunity can be given or was given by any member of the Government or by the Government collectively as part of his settlement with the banks or in any other connection.
Deputy Spring is stated to have found it possible apparently to find these terms of reference unsatisfactory. I doubt if it would be possible to find terms which satisfy him and others in his party for the simple reason that they do not wish to be satisfied. I do not believe that Deputy Spring is interested in establishing the facts in an impartial manner in the best interest of one of our major industries. His only real interest is in seeking to harm this Government by continuing to make allegations of all kinds without regard for their truth or otherwise, and with even less regard to their effect on the country's standing and reputation. Deputy Spring has a great capacity for the double-think, for trying to have us ignore or forget the actions he took, and the policies he pursued or supported, when he was a member of that ignominious Fine Gael-Labour Government that brought this country to the verge of bankruptcy.