Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 24 May 1991

Vol. 408 No. 10

Tribunal of Inquiry into Beef Processing Industry: Motion.

The Taoiseach

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.

Mr. Doyle

We saved it from bankruptcy.

The Taoiseach

For a number of years now one of the most persistent and venomous political campaigns ever has been waged in an attempt to discredit the Government over the affairs of the Goodman companies. The whole basis of this attack is, by innuendo and association, to create the impression that Mr. Goodman and his companies enjoyed some unique ill-defined protective relationship with the Fianna Fáil Government of 1987-89, a kind of relationship that they did not have with the previous Fine-Gael Labour Coalition Government. Nothing could be further from the truth as the records clearly show.

One of the very first decisions of the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition Government on coming into office in late December 1982 was to grant export credit insurance for the first time in respect of beef exports to Iraq to Mr. Goodman's company, Anglo-Irish Meats Limited. Concerns were expressed at the time about the unacceptable financial risks in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war, but these were overruled. Incidentally, this was done on the basis of a proposal put to the Government by the Minister for Trade, Commerce and Tourism, the late Deputy Frank Cluskey, former leader of the Labour Party. It will be noted that the decision was made in favour of one particular meat exporting company Mr. Larry Goodman's AIBP, and it was actually only six months later in June 1983 that a general scheme was put in place for export credit insurance in respect of trade to Iraq. I wish to make it clear that I am not criticising the Government of that time for doing what they did in acting for the benefit of a single company belonging to Mr. Goodman. It is the sort of difficult decision that a Government in the very best interest of the economy may have to take from time to time. What I wish to do however is point up the double standards being employed by the people who have been making allegations now for some time.

The views of the last Fine Gael-Labour Government are clearly set out by the then Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy John Bruton in a letter to the Minister for Finance of 27 May 1985 proposing a further increase in export credit insurance to Iraq. I quote:

My disposition is to do what we can to help exports to Iraq. There is no doubt but that Iraq will be a very good market in due course — assuming they win the war, that the war does not go on indefinitely and that they sooner or later manage to complete the oil pipeline outlets. They will certainly remember the countries which have stood by them and this has been a factor which has influenced many countries to offer them financial, military and other support in such large amounts. I believe we have developed a particular relationship with Iraq and that they have been consciously putting business our way. I believe also that this accounts for their excellent repayment record.

The House will also recall that the Fine Gael Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Austin Deasy, accompanied Mr. Goodman to Iran in February 1984 to help secure an £80 million beef contract. The following year Deputy Deasy as Minister for Agriculture, according to a Sunday Independent report of 16 June 1985, was flown out to Egypt specially at Mr. Goodman's invitation to set the political wheels in motion with the Egyptians.

That brings us to 1986. We have heard a lot of misleading talk about the cancellation of export credit insurance to Iraq by the Fine Gael-Labour Government in June 1986 with the implication that somewhere they had lost faith in the Goodman Group. This was not in fact the case. What we have not heard about is that there was first a decision by that Fine Gael-Labour Government to double export credit insurance to Iraq in February 1986. Coincidentally or not, the then Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald had a luncheon meeting with Mr. Goodman shortly afterwards on 17 February, at which export credit insurance was identified as one of the subjects of discussion.

Mr. S. Barrett

What was on the menu?

The Taoiseach

Beef, probably.

The question of export credit insurance tends to be discussed entirely in a vacuum, without regard to the international context, developments in the Iran-Iraq war or the fall in international oil prices, which by June 1986 had severely impacted on Iraq's ability to pay. The domestic financial situation has also to be borne in mind. The budgets of 1985 and 1986 were overrunning disastrously, and it was now being suggested to the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy Noonan, that he would have to meet any losses on the scheme from savings within his own Department. This, and the situation in Iraq, appears to have been the reason that the scheme was curtailed and not any sudden disillusion with Mr. Goodman because the Minister was prepared to contemplate cover being continued, provided his Department would not have to bear any contingent losses.

A further meeting between the then Taoiseach and Mr. Goodman took place on 11 June, in which the Taoiseach promised him every possible diplomatic assistance at the highest level in opening up trade with a particular third country, and at which the issue of export credit insurance to Iraq was also discussed. The Taoiseach urged Mr. Goodman to have further talks with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and about another matter with the Minister for Agriculture. A key member of Dr. FitzGerald's staff on 25 June 1986, wrote to the Private Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, asking to be kept informed of developments in relation to correspondence about the export credit insurance scheme, because, as she said: "As you are probably aware, the Taoiseach meets Mr. Goodman on a regular basis so it would be useful to have some information as soon as possible".

A Deputy

Tell us about that.

The Taoiseach

Final consideration of the matter was given by the outgoing Administration, reduced now to its Fine Gael element, on 5 March 1987. While it was decided not to provide further export credit insurance cover to Iraq at that point, the aide-memoir of the Minister, Deputy Noonan, concluded: “The position regarding Iraq is being kept under review in the hope that sufficient improvement will be identified to enable the above position to be reconsidered at the earliest possible date”. Deputies will note the clear inference to be drawn, that it was considered desirable to restore export credit insurance at the earliest possible date.

The whole tenor of the Taoiseach Dr. FitzGerald's meetings with Mr. Goodman and the background to them confirm quite clearly that under Fine Gael and Labour from 1982-87 the full resources of Government were made available with the Taoiseach's knowledge and approval to assist Mr. Goodman and his companies in their beef export trade with third countries, and also in his dealings with the Commission in relation to the operation of the CAP. Again, a Cheann Comhairle I want to make it clear that I am not saying that the Government at the time should not have made every effort to help the group, as they should help any exporter who wishes to develop and grow and provide employment here. But in the light of the Fine Gael-Labour record it is nothing less than blatant duplicity to attempt to attribute blame to Fianna Fáil for a policy which they initiated and steadily pursued.

The record clearly shows that, contrary to all the false propaganda, when Fianna Fáil came into office in 1987 we did not bring Mr. Larry Goodman in from the cold and place him and his companies in some new specially favoured position as has been so often suggested. He was already inside in a very favoured position and had been since 1982. For the entire period of the 1982-87 Fine Gael-Labour Government, Mr. Goodman had a close personal working relationship with individual members of that Government and especially the head of that Government, Dr. FitzGerald, the Taoiseach. Again, I repeat, I am not prepared to attach any blame or odium to the Fine Gael-Labour Government for that situation. I accept that they desired, just as we did, to promote the Irish beef industry for the benefit of the nation, and to help farmers and those working in the meat business. But they should not now try to distort the record and attribute the blame to a Fianna Fáil Government for a policy they themselves had resolutely implemented.

It was against the background of a long-established position of the previous Government's approval and support for the Goodman Group of companies, that the new Government brought forward what at the time was an imaginative five year development plan for the modernisation of the beef processing industry. Any Government who attached a high priority to the development of the food industry would have felt compelled to accept the proposal for a major investment in modern meat factories strategically placed around the country equipped to produce high-quality, value-added, marketable, meat products for the export market. One would think that it was unusual for the Government of the day to be fully supportive of and be associated with such a plan. As everyone in this House knows, it is common practice for the Government of the day to announce, or to be associated with the announcement of industrial development projects, when these are in receipt of grant-aid from a State agency, especially where prior Government approval is required.

What matters is whether any State grants are appropriately and properly paid. In the case of the Goodman development plan, no State grant was ever paid, since the plan never got off the ground, and no work was undertaken by the Goodman Group in implementing the plan. I should add that no FEOGA grants were paid either in respect of that plan. The Goodman organisation derived no financial benefit of that kind from the plan. In respect of section 84 loans the banks concerned would be answerable for their proper use.

I do not make wild allegations about the relationship between the Goodman companies and the Fine Gael-Labour Government. I wish merely to outline the depth and length of its existence. What I do criticise vehemently is the sanctimonious attitude of Deputy Spring and his colleagues and their hypocrisy on this aspect. He was Tánaiste in that same Government. Deputy Spring must have known all about the Government's support for the Goodman companies and the Government's close association with them at every level. Everything we know about that ill-fated Government tells us that every detail of business was dealt with exhaustively and at length at Government meetings. Yet he has the audacity to level repeatedly at this Government charges of political favouritism. The reality is that the Government of which he was a key member had a far closer and more favoured relationship with the Goodman Group than Fianna Fáil have ever had.

From this by no means exhaustive account it should be clear that all the innuendoes built up about special relationships are directed to the wrong quarter. Deputy Deasy as a former Minister for Agriculture at least acknowledges that all parties in this House, when in Government, have sought to build up our food industry in whatever way seemed best at the time, and to assist our exporters in difficult, highly competitive but potentially rewarding markets. Certainly, the loss of several Middle East markets in the last two years has had a very adverse impact on beef prices and farm incomes. At least some of the difficulties in export markets have been caused or prolonged by adverse publicity, some of it originating in the British media, about such things as the incidence of BSE, and some of it caused by the extraordinary high level of politicisation of the issues involved.

The reputation of the Irish beef industry is very important to us, and it must be quickly restored. Unfortunately, I have the impression that over the past two and a half years that has been of much less concern to Labour and The Workers' Party and some commentators, than their wish to create embarrassment for the Government. Yet the spirit in which the Fianna Fáil Government acted and their reasons based on the best interest of the economy is the same as those which motivated the Fine Gael-Labour Government in their long and close involvement with the Goodman Group of companies. In particular, I would like it to be frankly acknowledged that the Government of which Deputy Spring was Tánaiste worked very closely at all levels with our leading meat exporting company and indeed with other large businesses, as they could have been expected to do, with a view to furthering the national interest.

The tribunal terms of reference are full and comprehensive. I can promise the unreserved co-operation of the control authorities and all Government Departments in the work of this inquiry. The Government have provided a full opportunity within these terms of reference for thorough and detailed analysis of the allegations made. The terms of reference recognise the demands of all sides for an open, extensive, non-exclusive and expeditious inquiry into the beef processing industry. Again, I would put it to all Members that any information or evidence that is available to them now or to become available in the future should without equivocation or delay be made available to the tribunal.

I think all that remains at this time is to wish the tribunal well in its work and to look forward to its findings and possible recommendations being completed as soon as is consistent with the thorough and far-reaching investigations which we all seek.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. J. Bruton

If the House ever needed any evidence as to why the Taoiseach was so reluctant and had to be dragged screaming to the decision to appoint a judicial inquiry, it was provided in his speech. I have never heard a more hypersensitive, defensive, indeed weak-kneed speech.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. Bruton

In all my years in Government — and I have been in Government for a long time — I have never found it necessary to authorise civil servants to spend their time going back over the files of my predecessors and quoting selectively.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. Bruton

In all my years in Government I have never felt the need, nor have I felt so insecure as apparently this Taoiseach does——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy in possession will be heard without interruption.

Mr. J. Bruton

I have never felt the need to engage in that type of selective quotation from the files. I presume the Taoiseach authorised a civil servant on the public payroll to spend his or her time preparing this party political selective examination of the Government files. I presume that now that he is in such a mood of concession that he has conceded a judicial inquiry, he will also give to the other parties in this House the opportunity to go over the files for the last four years.

A Deputy

Now we have it.

Mr. J. Bruton

I think that if the Taoiseach can use Government files in this way, selectively, to prove his case, he would have no objection to Deputies, Spring, De Rossa, or myself having access not only to the files from our own period in Government but also to the files of the last four years. I hope that the Taoiseach, seeing that he has been able to avail of public servants to do this selective research for him, that he will allow us in our own time, without the aid of any public servants to do our devilling for us, to make a similar perusal of the Government files.

As far as I am concerned, I have no worries about that whatsoever. The letter I wrote, which the Taoiseach quoted, is one which I certainly did write, and it is one for which I make no apologies. Indeed, if the House's record is checked over the last four years, members will find that I have made but two allegations in regard to the Taoiseach's relationship with Mr. Larry Goodman, and one of them only directly affecting the Taoiseach.

The first one was — and I stand over it — that when Mr. Goodman was applying for assistance for his major five-year plan for the beef industry, rather than that this examination be undertaken by the Industrial Development Authority in a normal unhurried way where such a large commitment of public funds would be examined carefully and dispassionately, that particular grant package was rushed through by the IDA under political pressure and also rushed through the Department of Finance under similar political pressure, and the responsible authorities in the IDA were not able to assess that application properly because of political pressure.

Furthermore, I assert, the fact that that particular application was approved in that way with the Taoiseach's own personal intervention made it more difficult for other competing firms in the beef industry to apply for funds because, given that there is only a limited number of cattle available for slaughtering, if one firm has been given the go-ahead for expansion along particular lines that, more or less, precludes the creation of capacity in other firms. I contend that, whereas the IDA should have been allowed to assess that dispassionately, looking at not only all the applications before them but all the potential applications that they might receive in the future, as a result of the Taoiseach's almost childlike anxiety to be associated with good news, to appear at a press conference, this application was rushed through the IDA and rushed through the Department of Finance, and that the normal procedures, the normal controls which in my time as Minister for Industry and Commerce were always respected were not respected in this case.

The other allegation that I made was more in the nature of a question than an allegation. I questioned the fact that it emerged in the last few weeks that in respect of under-the-table payments that were made to Goodman employees, it was possible for unpaid tax in regard to those payments to be simply written off and the whole matter to be "regularised".

I do not allege, because I am not in a position to do so for lack of evidence, that there was any political involvement in that decision, but I do contend that it is somewhat anomalous that every last penny plus penalties can be extracted from some small business person or somebody in the PAYE sector who fails to pay all their taxes, even to the point of the sheriff visiting their home to take away all their furniture, but when it comes to a large company it is possible — it would now appear if figures quoted in this House are correct — for almost £4 million of taxes to be simply written off. That creates a sense of injustice and inequity in this country which it is very much in the interests of this House to deal with.

I further contend that neither of the two allegations that I have made, one of improper influence by the Taoiseach and the Government in regard to the approval of that IDA package and also of the unusual decision of the Revenue Commissioners in the matter, will be capable of being inquired into by this judicial inquiry as a result of the way in which the Government have framed its terms. The terms of the inquiry seem to refer only to illegal activities, fraud and malpractice. It will be a matter of interpretation — and I am no expert on the legal interpretation of the term malpractice — to determine whether or not it is malpractice for the Taoiseach to rush the IDA in regard to making a decision of that kind. It would be interesting to know if that is an allegation of malpractice which can be investigated.

Furthermore, I think it would be hardly true that what the Revenue Commissioners did could be construed as malpractice. I am sure it was not. It was a judgment in my view a wrong judgment, made by the Revenue Commissioners. It would appear, therefore, that any examination of that matter is completely excluded from the terms of reference drafted, presumably, by Deputies Haughey and O'Malley. One must ask, if that is the case, why allegations of this kind have been excluded from the terms of the inquiry.

The Taoiseach spent a long time dealing with the issue of the extension of export credit to Iraq and he detailed, I am sure accurately, the fact that my party in Government, in conjunction with the Labour Party, did extend export credit insurance to the Goodman organisation. Of course we did, I know we did. The House knows we did. There is nothing newsworthy about that. What is newsworthy about it is the selective and defensive way in which the Taoiseach chose to quote extensively from files to give a cast of novelty to something that was already well known, for his own rather cowardly parliamentary purposes.

Mr. Cowen

He did not mention it to us.

Mr. J. Bruton

There was no need to mention it. It is well known that I visited Iraq twice. I have already said, if the House will recall, the number of allegations that I made in this matter are quite limited — only two — and I have nothing to worry about in regard to either of those.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us keep the debate orderly. The interruptions shall cease.

Mr. J. Bruton

It seems to me that all this business to which the Taoiseach devoted so much time in his well chiselled masterpiece——

A Deputy

Well done boss.

Mr. J. Bruton

——are matters the tribunal will not be able to inquire into either. It would appear that the decision of, for example, the Minister, Deputy Albert Reynolds, to restore export credit to Iraq — which of course proved to be, at best, not good judgment — a decision which to his credit was reversed by another Minister of the same party, Deputy Burke, is not going to be inquired into because I am sure the judge would not consider that to be malpractice, just maladministration, just a mistake. If that is excluded, all the stuff in this speech will not be examined by the inquiry either.

If I recollect correctly, the Ceann Comhairle said we should not prejudge matters. I noticed no interruption from you, Sir, during the Taoiseach's speech. Certainly he sought to prejudge some matters, and I would like to know if those matters will come within the ambit of the inquiry. It seems to me they will not. If these matters of favouritism in regard to export credit insurance — of which I have not made an allegation — are not to be included in the terms of the judicial inquiry, then one side of the House, because they happen to be in Government, are able to go through the files and look at things to suit them while the other side of the House, who happen to be in Opposition, are precluded from going through the same files and the files of their successors and use them to make their case. Public money is being used in this fashion.

I am well aware that Ministers of other Governments have used this small minded and cowardly technique of going through files in this way.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. Bruton

I am aware that other examples exist including those of parties other than Fianna Fáil, but I have never seen a more extensive, self-serving, hyper-sensitive use of the privilege of Government to override the normal practice of civil servants which is to deny access to the files of one's predecessors and use those files in such a fashion in this House. It is my understanding from my term in Government that it is a practice of civil servants not to show a new Minister files concerning the activities of his predecessor.

From all the files I saw as Minister, and I saw many, decisions or advice tendered to previous Ministers were excluded. From that it is quite clear that the Taoiseach in this case had to give a specific instruction to allow access to him and his speech writer to make this tendentious and selective use of Government files, his speech writer who, I contend, is a civil servant paid by the taxpayer.

Mr. V. Brady

Put the record straight.

An Ceann Comhairle

Civil servants should not be reflected upon. The Taoiseach or the Minister is responsible.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Barrett, do not attempt to shout me down. It is a long standing convention in this House that civil servants or officials are not reflected upon. The Minister or the Taoiseach is responsible and no one else.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. Bruton

Sir, on a point of order, what reflections did I make on a civil servant?

An Ceann Comhairle

There was a reference.

Mr. J. Bruton

A reference.

An Ceann Comhairle

No reflection.

Mr. J. Bruton

A reference. My reflection is on the Taoiseach who instructed that civil servant to use public time in such a partisan, self-serving and mean-minded exercise.

An Ceann Comhairle

Civil servants should be kept out of it.

Mr. Spring

Civil servants should stay out of it.

(Interruptions.)

A Deputy

C.J. rules OK.

Mr. J. Bruton

But not for long. I would like to make a few points in regard to the terms of reference. These are matters which could be the subject of amendments. I do not wish necessarily to press amendments. I hoped we could have had a united decision in this House, without the sort of partisan rancour that has been introduced, to set up this inquiry and let the inquiry make the decisions. However, in that context I have prepared some suggested amendments. It seems to me that the reference in paragraph 1 (i) (a) to allegations made in Dáil Éireann does not specify when those allegations may have been made. Does it come back to allegations that were made in the distant past? It should be clear that it is in relation to allegations made at any time, and I suggest that term be included in the terms of reference for the sake of clarity.

There is a reference here to "any matters connected with or relevant to the matters aforesaid", that is "illegal activities, fraud and malpractice". That phrase could be inmproved by the addition of the words "including matters not specifically mentioned". A narrow intepretation might mean that only specific allegations of illegal activities would be included and matters germane to that or improper without being illegal would be excluded. For that reason the words "including matters not specifically mentioned" might usefully be added.

Paragraph 2 of the terms of reference refers to the making of recommendations. The House should do more than simply ask the tribunal to make whatever recommendations they think proper. There are matters of public policy here upon which the House should specifically ask the tribunal to make reommendations. I believe the programme in question did very great damage to the image not just of Irish beef but of Irish food and Irish food quality in general. An inquiry which simply looks into illegal activities but does not look into the damage that has been done to consumer confidence in Irish food and the ways in which we can remedy that damage would in the national interest be too narrowly focused. We should seek a constructive outcome from this inquiry as well as the pursuit of wrong doing. For that reason I suggest we add to the existing terms in paragraph 2 the words "including such measures as may be necessary to protect and enhance the quality, image and good name of Irish food products". If that is not included I am afraid the inquiry will have a very narrow focus and will not achieve the constructive purpose they ought to achieve.

How much time have I?

An Ceann Comhairle

Half an hour, you have ten minutes left.

Mr. J. Bruton

I will share my time with Deputy Austin Deasy, if I may.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Deasy is sharing Deputy Bruton's time.

Mr. Deasy

Last week I thought I introduced a certain note of magnanimity into this debate, but I find today that we have the very opposite from the Taoiseach of all people. He has come in here this morning and engaged in the most petty type of activity one could imagine. He has engaged in a mudslinging exercise in the hope that some of the mud will stick. That is a totally despicable, reprehensible performance.

A Deputy

He has been fully served.

Mr. Deasy

It belittles the man himself and it belittles the whole procedure of this House. Having said that, I have no intention of stooping to the level to which the Taoiseach stooped in this debate. We did in Government what the public expected us to do — to promote this country and to promote trade; and we did it as it should be done. There was never anything dishonourable or underhand. The two trade missions to which he referred, and which we undertook — one to Iran and the other to Egypt — resulted in this country building up an export trade worth £100 million per annum.

Mr. Cowen

Who is criticising it?

Mr. Deasy

Those two markets have now been lost and we see very little effort being made to recover them. As a result the beef industry is in crisis. Far from running down the previous Government or insinuating that we did something wrong——

Mr. Cowen

We did not.

Mr. Deasy

——there should be an appreciation of what was done.

Mr. Cowen

Who established the relationship——

Mr. Deasy

Instead, the sole effort was an abortive attempt to inject £260 million into the meat trade in conjunction with the Goodman Group, and that effort failed dismally. I want to clarify the trade links we created with Iran and Egypt. I want to give credit where credit is due. Larry Goodman was the individual who identified the potential market in Iran. He came to me in the summer of 1983 and said: "I believe there is a massive market out there but they only do business on a government to government basis, they do not have private traders as we would in a democracy, so it is necessary for a Minister or Ministers from the Irish Government to approach Ministers in the Iranian Government if we want to set up a market". We went out and created a market after two extensive meetings with a series of Iranian Government Ministers. Mr. Goodman identified the market but he did not attempt to monopolise it. CBF, the Irish meat board, coordinated the trip and the delegation.

Mr. S. Barrett

They did not get——

Mr. Deasy

It was done in an entirely legal and ethical manner. There was nothing underhand about it. CBF took part in the negotiations on behalf of all Irish meat traders. Mr. Goodman was not the only person present on that occasion, Purcell Brothers were also represented, although Mr. Goodman was the person who identified the market.

The reference to a Sunday Independent report about the Egyptian mission in the Taoiseach's statement is entirely incorrect. Actually, the beef industry have being doing considerable business with the Egyptians for many years, but it was primarily in the live cattle area, and the people involved were Purcell Brothers who operated out of Waterford port. CBF came to the conclusion that that trade could be converted into dead meat or beef. CBF organised a mission to Cairo which included all the main meat processors — including Mr. Goodman and Purcell, Purcell was the person who conducted that trade originally — and again we negotiated a deal worth £100 million to this country. That was a major achievement. The Sunday Independent report which the Taoiseach quoted is incorrect. I am surprised at the Taoiseach because he is a person who says he does not believe newspaper reports. He is the very person who decries that type of activity, and yet he comes here and quotes it himself.

Mr. Farrelly

He did not tell us about the meeting they had——

Mr. Deasy

I am not going into that area, and I am not even asking the Taoiseach to bare his chest and thump it three times saying: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I want to put the record straight. What we did was an achievement. I am proud of it and I think we should be proud of it. To try to construe it as something else is most unkind.

Dr. Woods

We did not.

Mr. S. Barrett

Why then was it put into that speech?

A Deputy

Is there something wrong with it?

Mr. Deasy

I want to say a few words in praise of Mr. Goodman.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please desist from interrupting.

Mr. Deasy

I do not mind those people interrupting, it only rebounds on themselves, a Cheann Comhairle. I want to say something in favour of Mr. Goodman as I got to know him and saw him in operation. He created the market in Iran which was worth an awful lot to people in this country. It created many jobs, it put a lot of money in farmers' pockets and it did much good for the economy. I am glad that Mr. Goodman has welcomed the inquiry because there are two sides to every story. The "World in Action" programme was very interesting and the comments may have been very accurate but Mr. Goodman is entitled to reply, and the tribunal will give him that opportunity. That is to be welcomed and I am glad he too has welcomed the inquiry.

There is one matter that strikes me and I would like people to dwell on it. Has a Goodman customer ever complained about substandard beef? The programme insinuated that all sorts of rotten and substandard meat was being supplied. Mr. Goodman is the biggest beef processor in Europe and he had been supplying markets not just in Europe and in Ireland but all over the world, and to my recollection we have not had one incident where a customer complained about the quality of the product. The only time I have seen an attempt to blacken the name of Irish beef has been in this House in recent times.

Mr. Cowen

Not from this side of the House.

Mr. Deasy

We should be seen to be objective and give the man an opportunity to answer his critics and these allegations. I want to make a point about the customers because if what the programme stated is true, there surely would have been a reaction from customers and there would have been a number of cases of food poisoning, deaths and horrific consequences, but I have not heard anything in that vein.

I am delighted to see in one of the daily newspapers that the chief participant in the "World In Action" programme, Mr. McGuinness, is prepared, and is looking forward, to giving evidence at the tribunal. That is a very welcome development because he is the man on whose hearsay I would say there is something rotten in the meat industry. We will have the benefit of that man's first hand experience and he will obviously be confronted by Mr. Goodman and his representatives. This is what we need, this is why the inquiry was absolutely essential, and now we will have it out in the open. There will be blood spilt and there will be blood letting. It will not do the beef industry any good but the pursuit of the truth is most important. We are a democracy and we must uphold those standards.

I am not making any accusations against anybody on the Government benches. I did not do so last week nor will I do so today except to say that the Taoiseach's contribution was totally unnecessary. As Deputy Bruton said, the Government have preferential access to files. I would ask that the files not just of our four years in Government but of the last eight years be made available to the inquiry. Let them have all the files and let them see if the IDA were overruled by political considerations.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Deasy will now bring his speech to a close.

Mr. Deasy

That is as much as I wanted to say.

Mr. Spring

I came in here this morning to make a contribution to this debate on the conduct of a tribunal, which I welcome. I will digress slightly from the motion to start with, because of the personalised attack made on me by the Taoiseach. I detected a vileness in the course of that which was not in this debate heretofore. The Taoiseach has questioned my bona fides and all of my comments in relation to this matter. I want to see the truth established in the conduct of the beef industry. As a public representative I have an obligation to bring matters to the public domain when I am informed of abuses or alleged abuses in the beef industry.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Spring

Had I received the information which I received in 1987, in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 or 1986 I would have brought it to the attention of the Government and the Garda authorities very quickly, because they are matters which should be investigated and at the earliest opportunity, need to be investigated. This country is bigger than the aggrandisement of anybody in the beef industry, either an individual or a company, and it is extremely important that we have trust and honesty in relation to the conduct of business in the beef industry. I find a certain irony in the Taoiseach dragging the late Deputy Frank Cluskey into this debate. I well recall in this House, over many years, that the Taoiseach ran a mile from the same Deputy because he knew of his power and strength in this House.

Mr. J. Bruton

That is true.

Mr. Spring

It is a little hard to take from Deputy Haughey, our Taoiseach, the questioning of my motives for wanting a public inquiry, my motives for bringing this matter to the public domain, when the same Deputy Haughey when in Opposition made a great song and dance about travelling to Libya to establish a special relationship with Colonel Gadaffi, whom I know very little about.

Mr. Deasy

A supplier of guns and bombs.

Mr. Spring

At the time he, then Leader of the Opposition would have been well aware of the fact that vast public resources here were being spent by the Government and the security services trying to prevent the Provisional IRA importing guns from Colonel Gadaffi into this country.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Spring

Deputy Haughey should have been aware of that. I am sure from his own records and access to files he was well aware of that at that time. That was a national scandal and a national disgrace, and I only regret we did not say more about it at that time. We went easy on the Deputy at that time because we felt he was misguided.

Mr. Deasy

International terrorism.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Spring

The Taoiseach will show his own Deputies the files if they want to see them. I am sure he has them.

Mr. V. Brady

Has the Deputy got the files too?

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Spring, could we stay with the question?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. Bruton

He is getting too close to the bone.

Mr. Spring

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

(Interruptions.)

A Deputy

Were you here from the beginning.

Mr. Spring

——I will address the issue. However, I must say that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is in the Chair without the benefit of having heard the Taoiseach three-quarters of whose speech digressed from the subject matter of this tribunal.

Mr. J. Bruton

True.

Mr. Spring

I will address the matter before us. I welcome the establishment of this tribunal. It should have been set up years ago in relation to the beef industry. I especially welcome the decision of the President of the High Court Mr. Justice Hamilton, to preside over it. Because of his reputation for thoroughness, objectivity, and energy, the whole process of inquiry will be enhanced from the outset. He will, of course, need considerable resources to undertake the complex task that has been set for him — resources that will involve the fulltime employment, for a period at least, of professional people from a variety of disciplines apart altogether from the law. But the fact that Mr. Justice Hamilton has already presided over the court hearings that followed the passage of the emergency legislation last year means that he will start with a degree of understanding of the variety of complex issues involved. He will I know need no reminding that the tribunal over which he is now to preside is a tribunal established by the Oireachtas, and not by the Government. As a consequence, he can rest assured that a majority of Members of the Oireachtas, or at least of the Dáil, will be concerned to preserve and protect the independence of the tribunal.

The very fact that this motion is necessary, and that a judicial inquiry is being established, is an indictment of the Government. If the Government, or their immediate predecessor, had acted properly at any time in the last two-and-a-half years since serious questions were first raised in this House, we would not be having this debate today.

Instead, the conduct of the Government has been characterised by a complacency bordering on the arrogant. That fact itself begs one of the most serious questions the tribunal of inquiry ought to be considering. Every time this issue has been raised in the last two-and-a-half years, the Government have betrayed one characteristic above all others — they have behaved like a Government with something to hide. Even when allegation after allegation has been substantiated, the Government have concentrated more of their energies on attacking critics of abuse than they have on any serious effort to reassure the people of the country — and just as important, the people who buy exported beef — that we had a Government who were interested in, and capable of, controlling abuse.

To take the most benign possible interpretation, the Government, and their immediate predecessor, have behaved throughout this whole affair as if what is good for Larry Goodman is good for Ireland. If they had behaved as if no-one was above the law, we would not need this inquiry, which is, at best, an imperfect mechanism.

I have a very real concern that this motion is already too late. In most jurisdictions, the very moment that an inquiry of this kind is announced, there is a series of measures available to the authorities to ensure that when evidence is required, whether it is documentary evidence of exhibits, it will be available. The measures available in other jurisdictions include the power to impound documents, to search premises, to ensure that safes, filing cabinets, and so on are properly sealed and made safe. No such procedure exists here until the inquiry is under way, and then only to a very limited extent.

It is regrettable that it is entirely possible that shredders and incinerators have been working overtime in different parts of the country for the last few days, and that in the course of the inquiry, it will emerge that all sorts of vital documentation will have mysteriously ceased to exist. I hope and trust that the tribunal will be able to draw the appropriate inferences if that happens.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

More venomous innuendo.

Mr. Spring

I can say, as a matter of record——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Spring

I was not going to say it, but as the Minister for Social Welfare has invited me to, I will do so, that I have received phone calls to my office in the last number of days to the effect that there have been offices in some of those companies open during the last few nights, working overtime. What were they at?

The Taoiseach

Put them before the tribunal.

Mr. Rabbitte

Officers were working in the Department of Agriculture and Food two or three nights before the August debate.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Spring

I certainly hope that people will come forward and give evidence to this tribunal.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Spring

It has been my experience, in attempting to research and investigate some of the contributions I have made on this matter in the past, that there is a certain climate of fear surrounding this whole issue. Those involved in investigations have met people in some very odd locations, and at some very odd times. On one occasion I can recall a meeting starting at 3 a.m. and finishing just before dawn. The only reason for this is because people have been genuinely afraid of consequences for themselves and their families if they were found talking out of turn. For this reason, it may well be the case that the tribunal of inquiry will need to guarantee confidentiality to some of the witnesses who are persuaded to come forward.

I am confident that people will want to give evidence if they are reasonably assured as to their safety. In all the people I have met over this issue, I cannot say that I have met any who were impelled by vindictiveness, or any motive other than a desire to get things straightened out. In some cases they were motivated by a high degree of frustration with what they saw as official neglect, to put it mildly.

There have been some rumours over the last weekend that members of the Government might be inclined to quote the Official Secrets Act. I am glad the Taoiseach this morning said there would not be an invocation of the Official Secrets Act. I would like to think that all the files of the last four years will be available. The same of course applies both to Government backbenchers and Members of the Opposition. The tribunal will be entitled to expect the same co-operation from every Member of the Dáil who has access to evidence and information.

That co-operation will have to be given voluntarily, of course, since, under Article 15.13. of the Constitution, a Member of the Oireachtas "shall not, in respect of any utterance in either House, be amenable to any court or to any authority other than the House itself". I have no doubt that notwithstanding this stricture, the fullest co-operation will be forthcoming from Members of this House.

I have had reason to be grateful to a significant number of people who gave me information in relation to this whole matter. I have a very considerable personal respect for the integrity, courage, and basic decency of all these people, and I have always tried to reciprocate the confidence they showed me by protecting their confidentiality. I must advise the House that there are not any circumstances under which I would be prepared to breach that confidence. I will ask everyone who provided me with information if they wish to have their names supplied to the tribunal on whatever reasonable terms can be offered, but, if the answer is no, then none of them will have their identities exposed.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Spring

I do not see any reason why that should impede the tribunal unduly, provided the terms of reference given to the tribunal are allowed to be interpreted properly and widely. It is to that issue that I now wish to turn.

The terms of reference suggest a set of basic questions about the truth or otherwise of allegations "regarding illegal activities, fraud and malpractice in and in connection with the beef processing industry". As we all know, these allegations were made on television, and also in the Dáil, on several occasions, in 1989, 1990, and as recently as last week. Among others, they were made by Deputy Desmond O'Malley, former Deputy Pat O'Malley, Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, former Deputy Barry Desmond, and myself.

But in addition to these, the terms of reference contain within them a long series of implicit questions, which must be answered, to the best of the tribunal's ability, if the public interest is to be fully and best served. I have to say that in many ways it would have been better if these questions had been made explicit rather than implicit, although of course I take the point that a never-ending inquiry would not necessarily be in anyone's interests.

The Labour Party considered putting down a number of amendments, with a view to dealing with some of the issues I intend to raise more specifically. In the end, we took the view that if we were to put down amendments, and they were subsequently defeated, the net effect could be to inhibit the tribunal, which might well feel that if the Oireachtas had voted against the inclusion of any item, the tribunal had no business inquiring into it.

I propose to list a number of the questions that occur to me. I would like to think that putting these questions on the record will encourage the tribunal to examine them all as follows:

Given the apparent scale of irregularities that have been alleged within the Goodman operation, is malpractice and abuse a routine feature of the operation dictated by its management, and why have no prosecutions ever taken place, apart from minor ones, and are prosecutions warranted now? In so far as the future is concerned, how adequate are the control and regulatory procedures, for example, how close is the co-operation between the various authorities involved, including customs and the Garda in Ireland, and the EC authorities, and what additional powers or resources are required for effective policing of this industry. For example, are additional powers of search and seizure of documents and other potential evidence necessary?

In what way and to what extent was export credit insurance abused, and why was the Goodman operation given a virtual monopoly of export credit insurance to Iraq when it was restored in 1987? Why was it restored in the first place, having regard to the professional advice then available? Will all that advice be laid before the tribunal? What was the motivation behind the Government decision to vest the entire future development of the Irish beef industry in Larry Goodman, as announced at the famous press conference in 1987? What was the full range of incentives put in place, at that time and subsequently, from which the beef processing industry benefited, including cheap loans subsidised by the taxpayer, and additional tax loopholes? What pressure was brought to bear on State agencies, banks, and others to participate in that decision announced in June 1987, with all its various ramifications?

What is the background to the transfer of ownership of Classic Meats? Why, for example, did the Minister for Industry and Commerce allow the buyers a period of six months before requiring them to identify themselves, and how is it that so many denials were made as to the benefical ownership of the company before the Fair Trade Commission investigation?

Many allegations have been made of a close and unhealthy relationship between politics and business in the context of this entire affair. What is the truth of these allegations, for example, how much money was contributed to political parties or individuals, and what commitments were sought and received in return? What is the full background behind the near collapse of the company last August? Why did the company get into a state of acute crisis, and were banks misled about the purposes for which money was being borrowed? What were the reasons behind the maze of companies that was exposed at that time? What approaches were made to the Government by the company at that time, or on behalf of the company by members of the Government to other entities, including banks? For example, last December there were reports in some newspapers that the Government had considered State support for a deal between Mr. Larry Goodman and his bankers — despite the categorical assurances given to the Dáil in the debate about the Goodman affair that no taxpayers' money would be put at risk. What was the truth behind those reports? What remedies were sought by the company in the context of a rescue? What role was played by EC Commissioner Ray McSharry? And what are the facts behind the mysterious loan which is now tied up in a Cyprus bank and in the Cypriot courts?

I believe that the national interest demands answers to these questions. However, the terms of reference proposed by the Government are ambigious and, if they are interpreted a particular way, they could also be restrictive. One might almost feel that they seem designed primarily to save members of both Government parties from embarrassing questions. I, for one, would welcome a categoric assurance from the Taoiseach that the tribunal will be free to interpret these terms of reference in whatever way it sees fit, and that he would personally welcome the most liberal interpretation possible. Even now, it is not too late for him to accept that the truth, and only the truth, is the only thing that can effectively restore the good name of this vital industry.

For example, the terms of reference nowhere mention the issues of national interest that I have outlined specifically. In the first place, they concentrate on "allegations". There are two ways to inquire into an allegation. One way is to deploy all the necessary resources to get to the truth behind the allegation. The other is to decide that it is not possible to proceed without first identifying the allegation, then deciding who made it, and then seeking to make that person justify it by producing all the normal proofs and items of evidence that our adversarial system requires.

The danger in this second approach is that under the adversarial system that we practice in our courts, there is always the possibility that if the person who made the allegation is unable to produce primary sources for the allegation — and that may happen for very good reasons — the decision could then be reached that there is no need to proceed any further. Since the person making the allegation cannot prove his case, there is no case to answer.

This would be a dangerous interpretation in this situation. The possibility of such an interpretation arises in the first place because of the strange circumstances in which this tribunal is taking place. We are all hoping to see a detailed investigation — but the adversarial system on which we are relying depends somewhat more on confrontation than on investigation.

If this were a routine matter, with a plaintiff on the one hand, and a defendant on the other, I would have no worries on this score. But in this case, it is the tribunal itself that will be responsible in the main for bringing forward the evidence, and then submitting that evidence for examination by the tribunal. That means that the tribunal will be in the position of being the investigating agency as well as the judge and jury. By any stretch of the imagination, that is indeed a very complex brief.

What we must remember here, and draw confidence from, is that a tribunal such as this one will not need to establish guilt or innocence "beyond a reasonable doubt". It will be open to the tribunal to reach its conclusions based on the balance of probabilities. That fact alone will, I trust, enable the tribunal to extend the scope of its investigations beyond the normal procedures followed by a court of law.

Hopefully, it will also enable the tribunal to include in the scope of its inquiries all of the matters that are capable of being encompassed by the phrase "any matters connected with or relevant to the matters aforesaid". It is from the meaning of this phrase that the tribunal draws the authority to examine the complex relationship between politics and business. As one who has argued consistently that that relationship has been an unhealthy and unsavoury one, I believe strongly that it would render the whole process of inquiry meaningless if that were to be excluded.

The whole key to understanding what has gone wrong with our beef industry lies in a phrase that was used in the now famous "World in Action" programme. The phrase was "we felt invincible". If that feeling was well-founded, as I believe it was, we need to know why the Goodman organisation felt invincible. If we are denied the answer to that question — and especially if we are denied the answer by excessively restrictive terms of reference — then the inquiry will fail in its primary task of ensuring that no one ever feels invincible again when it comes to adherence to the law of the land.

Before concluding, I want to make one point. I understand that there is considerable unease among at least some of the banks who are party to the so-called rescue plan at all these recent events, and that there is now a possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decisions of the High Court ratifying the plan by at least one of the banks involved. That will be a major development if it happens and could have far-reaching consequences.

But it should not be allowed to deflect from the tribunal or from its purpose. Unless we know the truth at the end of this process there will remain every possibility that we will repeat the same mistakes.

As I said at the outset, all of this could have been avoided. If this Government had been doing their job in the full light of day, as they were elected to do, this tribunal of inquiry would not be necessary. As it is, it is fundamentally important, and that reflects very badly indeed on the Government. If the Government had taken notice of the warnings given in this Chamber by Members who were acting in the best interests of the country and the beef industry back in 1987 we would not now be launching today this public inquiry at public expense.

I would like to conclude by repeating what I said in last week's debate. 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. No amount of inspired leaking of Commission memoranda about "disallowed claims" will alter that fact. No amount of whispering behind their hands by Fianna Fáil activists will alter the fact. This tribunal of inquiry must get at the truth — without fear or favour, and no matter who it hurts. Only that way will the scandal be ended, and our reputation restored as a country that one can trust and trade with.

Mr. Rabbitte

In October 1990 The Workers' Party Deputies tabled a motion seeking the establishment of a sworn public judicial inquiry into the Goodman Affair. I should like to avail of this opportunity to put the text of that motion on to the record of the House:

Conscious of the importance of the beef industry and the serious risk to the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of workers and farmers arising from the current difficuties of the Goodman Group, it is expedient that a tribunal be established for—

1. Inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance

(1) the immediate and other causes of, and the circumstances of and leading to the financial difficulties of the Goodman Group of Companies and the appointment by the High Court of an examiner to a number of these companies, with particular reference to the following matters:

(a) whether or not money borrowed by the Goodman Group under favourable tax terms for the expansion of the beef processing industry in Ireland was used for the purposes for which it was purportedly acquired.

(b) the circumstances in which the Government decided in 1987 to re-establish Export Credit Insurance Cover for beef exports to Iraq, and whether or not assurances, verbal or written, were given to the Goodman organisation by members of the Government, within the past three months, that the scheme was once again to be re-established,

(c) the amount of contributions by the Goodman organisation to political parties in the Dáil, and the extent, if any, of the influence this had on policy decisions by Government,

(d) the extent of fraudulent or illegal practices in the meat industry,

(e) the extent to which Goodman companies complied with tax and revenue laws,

(f) the origins of the sum of approximately £20 million now on deposit in an account in the Bank of Cyprus and the purposes for which this money was raised,

(2) making such recommendations as the Tribunal, having regard to its findings, thinks proper in respect of statutory and other provisions in relation to company law in general.

Our action in tabling that motion brought the usual vilification that has characterised the Fianna Fáil knee-jerk response to this matter since the beginning. Seven months later the House is about to agree the terms of reference for such a public sworn judicial inquiry. As a result we are about to demonstrate to our international trading partners that Ireland is a country with which one can do business and a country that does not tolerate financial chicanery or turn a blind eye to systematic piracy of the EC support systems.

It would be churlish, therefore, for those of us who worked for this inquiry to cavil with its actual terms of reference. I can see no good reason why any tribunal determined to establish the facts should find itself impeded or unduly restricted by the terms of reference set out in this motion. I welcome the inquiry and I hope it is given the resources to do a very complex job. This is not the time for griping or nit-picking. We do not want to send a huge judicial juggernaut nosing down every twisting and mucky boreen in Ireland or sneaking along every unapproved road between the Republic and Northern Ireland. If we want to get at a fair measure of the truth, we have to keep our eye on the ball.

The thrust of the inquiry's terms of reference holds out an unusual prospect in Irish politics — we may get a fair measure of the truth on why an area of pivotal importance to our economy has been brought into disrepute. We may get to see how it was laid low by abuse, greed, political pull and breathtaking political misbehaviour.

Those very directly touched by this affair include 5,000 workers in meat plants and 100,000 beef-producing farmers. Their future and well-being are imperilled today because their future and well-being was handed over by one party to one man; handed over by Fianna Fáil to Larry Goodman. Every citizen who pays taxes to this State has an immediate interest in this unfolding debacle.

If the inquiry functions properly — and by that I mean it gets a fair measure of the truth — those who pay taxes will get to see how and why such a stunning amount of their money was put at risk by Fianna Fáil in the interests of Larry Goodman until it seemed he did not know what to do with it.

It is important that the inquiry does not range so far and wide that we lose sight of the main objective which is, I submit, the restoration of the positive image of our food exporting industries. The development of the CAP over the years opened up huge areas for fraud forgery, smuggling, in and out of intervention, across borders and to third countries. This occurred in every EC country and in respect of all food products, beef, dairy, grain, or wine. We will never stamp out — if the pun is forgiven — fraud and smuggling completely. We must, however, ensure that our food industry is the best protected in the EC and that systematic fraud in relation to the quality of our products is completely smashed. Our future and the futures of so many of our people, depend on top quality food products. In this area, honesty is the best policy. What we must not do is submit to the nod and wink culture: "sure they are all at it, you can't blame Larry."

I submit that the tribunal can and should select for investigation the more serious charges that have been advanced; otherwise the prospect of an interminable inquiry beckons. These would include: the reasons for the revival of the operation of the export credit insurance scheme. I was horrified that Deputy Bruton thinks it might possibly not be included as I cannot imagine any inquiry into this affair which does not put the reasons for the revival and the manner of operation of the export credit insurance scheme at the heart of the inquiry. Other charges which should be selected for investigation are the alleged improper drawing down of section 84 loans for purposes other than those authorised. I noticed that the Taoiseach glided over that point this morning and merely said that if there was improper drawing down of some of the package of section 84 loans — which I alleged in this House on a number of occasions as a result of information supplied to me — it would be a matter for the banks. The Taoiseach said:

In respect of section 84 loans, the banks concerned would be answerable for their proper use.

That is not very much of a denial of the allegation made and I am curious as to why so much time has elapsed without action being taken on that particularly important matter.

Other charges which should be investigated is the extent to which contributions made by the Goodman organisation to political parties may have influenced policy decisions by Government; whether there was interference in the normal discharge of their duties by various public agencies, including those responsible for control and regulation of the meat industry; the origins of the sum of approximately £20 million now on deposit in a Cyprus bank and which I first raised in this House on 28 August; the extent to which Goodman companies complied with the tax and revenue laws and whether the sub-contract system was designed to minimise tax compliance; the extent of fraudulent or illegal practices in the Goodman meat plants; why the Revenue Commissioners felt compelled to write off such a huge element of the group's taxation liability; if immunity from prosecution was a condition, stated or unstated, in the deal struck between Mr. Goodman and his bankers. I note the Taoiseach said this morning that if any such deal was struck it was not underwritten by the Government and I accept that. However, I still consider it is a matter for the tribunal to establish whether such immunity from prosecution was a feature of the deal struck between the main banks and Mr. Goodman. The final investigation should be into the mystery surrounding the ownership of Master Meats or Classic Meats.

In many ways the revival and operation of the export credit insurance scheme is at the heart of what we are asking the tribunal to unravel. The then Irish Government felt constrained in 1986 to teminate export credits to Iraq. Because of the perceived high risk involved, other western countries would not contemplate such a scheme. Yet, within six weeks of returning to office in 1987 and, it is believed, in the teeth of professional and administrative opposition, the new Fianna Fáil Government restored the scheme with massive exposure for the Irish taxpayer. Before this decision the amount of export credit insurance afforded in respect of beef exports to Iraq was relatively small, a point which should be taken into account in the context of the argy-bargy this morning about what the previous Coalition Government did.

Dr. Woods

Everything they did was small.

Mr. Rabbitte

Suddenly in 1987 all that changed when more cover was made available than the amount of beef exported. What does the scheme involve? I am not sure the public fully appreciate the dimension of the scheme and the fact that it puts rival companies at a competitive disadvantage. It is not merely an insurance policy against nonpayment at the expense of the Irish taxpayer, not the European Community which is another popular misconception, but it actually gives the beneficiary access to cheap finance in respect of sums owing where the credit has been insured. Effectively, it is a State aid to exporters where the risks under any export contract are underwritten by the taxpayer or, as the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Albert Reynolds told the Dáil in July 1988:

Export credit insurance not only affords protection against non-payment from abroad, it also provides access to finance from the banks at preferential interest rates.

I should add that these were very advantageous preferential interest rates. It quickly emerged in 1987-88 that not only were the new Government intent on ignoring all advice concerning the wisdom of reviving the cover for Iraq, but conscious decisions were taken to give one conglomerate more than 80 per cent of the available cover in that market. Clearly, this put rival companies at a hugely competitive disadvantage and further disadvantaged a host of exporters in other products.

By way of illustrating this point, I instanced in the House on 25 October last and again last week, the case of Halal. This substantial company won markets in Iraq at that time and were informed that the benefit of ECIS would be afforded to them. Subsequently, arising from circumstances detailed to me and of which I informed the House on 25 October, a telephone call was made on behalf of the then Minister for Industry and Commerce to Halal advising that an error had been made and that, unfortunately, all available cover was already used up.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, has been busy during the past week seeking to deny the squeezing out of Halal since, as he told "Today Tonight", "a fundamental condition for such credit is a contract of sale and this Halal failed to produce while I was Minister".

Since the Halal incident typifies many of the questions that surround the reasons export credit insurance was revived in the first place, and the reason it was operated in such a manner as to assist the dominance of one company in the industry, I was careful to check and recheck my information so far as is reasonably possible. I would draw the attention of the House, therefore, to the fact that although I outlined the events as I believe them to have happened on 25 October and again on 15 May, it was not until the matter became the subject of television and radio comment that the Minister chose to dispute them. I note from the transcript of his telephone call to "This Week" last Sunday that the Minister acknowledges that when he met Halal — this is a literal transcription of what the Minister said —"They claimed they had a contract with the Department of Industry and Commerce, eh, on the basis of, em telephone calls from, eh, em, an officer — I think it was a ICI officer at the time, eh, but we put the papers to the Attorney General who advised us that no such contract existed". It was news to me that Halal felt they had a legal contract and that the Government felt compelled to consult the Attorney General on the matter. The disclosure helps very well to make my point. Contrary to the Minister's intent in making the telephone call, as far as I am concerned, it bears out the charge I have made.

As regards the opinion of the Attorney General that "no such legal contract existed", meat industry sources laugh at that technicality. I can supply the Minister for Finance with the name of a prominent figure in the industry who told me, after the Minister's telephone call to "Today Tonight". "Sure that's not the way it happened at all. Whether you got cover or not was a political decision and depended on whether you were a member of the club". He did not say which club but he illustrated his point by explaining to me how he himself was offered £10 million in cover although at the time he had no contracts with Iraq and did not contemplate immediately doing business with Iraq. The offer of the benefit came with a suggestion that he take it up "otherwise the fellows in the west will get it, Flynn is really rooting for them". I have the precise colloquialism that was used on the occasion if the Minister wants it. Of course, this information could be deliberately misleading, but since it was unsolicited and since the monopolising of the export credit insurance scheme is a fact and since Halal were refused, it has the ring of truth.

The taxpayer at whose expense huge potential liabilities were underwritten would wish the tribunal to reassure him that financial contributions to Fianna Fáil at the 1987 general election had no bearing on the decision within weeks to revive the export credit insurance scheme and to afford one businessman more than 80 per cent of the available cover. I would like to refer to the transcript of the Minister's telephone call to "This Week" last Sunday when he went on to fluff the point at issue and talk about a range of other issues, including pharmaceuticals and the Parc Hospital. The Minister knows better than I that what is at issue here is the reason this scheme was dominated by one product to one country by one man. That was the isssue, not all this talk about other exports.

I suggest that the taxpayer is likely to be especially intrigued when he understands how it was that the amount of beef afforded cover actually exceeded total beef exports to Iraq. The use of the scheme to cover beef sourced outside the country was a serious abuse of the scheme and a fraud on the taxpayer. Can the taxpayer be assured at a minimum that subsequent claims by the Goodman organisation that the Government were aware of this abuse are false?

I have dwelt on this the first of the ten points I listed earlier because it is the first in importance and goes to the heart of the matter. Were politics and business hand in glove in this instance, conniving to create a conglomerate in the industry so dominant that the position of the beef producer and the meat factory worker counted for little; in other words, the industry would inevitably be damaged, price fixing made more likely and since beef is largely a commodity rather than a branded product, sourcing supplies, if necessary, outside of Ireland would be feasible for such an international giant? Fianna Fáil well nigh handed over the Irish beef industry to Larry Goodman.

For these and many other reasons I felt last August, as Deputy Spring has already said, that I had a duty as a public representative to give the House certain information brought to my attention and to call for a sworn judicial inquiry. The very same Ministers who resisted such an inquiry and who continue to mutter darkly about it, are some of the same Ministers who stubbornly refused to properly answer parliamentary questions over a long period or respond to pleas in this House to clean up the industry. Any observer who wishes to trace the tenor of ministerial replies to questions put as far back as February 1988 by my colleague, Deputy McCartan, up until Question Time yesterday will clearly detect a glaring pattern of obfuscation, denials, distortions, half-answers, refusals and downright abuse of the questioners.

In claiming some credit for The Workers' Party and the Labour Party in winning this inquiry, I have no wish to denigrate the courageous and persistent role of the leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy O'Malley. Perusal of the replies dragged by Deputy O'Malley and some of his colleagues in early 1989 from reluctant Ministers betrays the same pattern of personal and political villification and abuse. Since good fortune has determined that Deputy O'Malley should now be in Cabinet, he is clearly in a much better position than others who have been pursuing this matter to know the facts. In many ways Deputy O'Malley holds the key to many of the unanswered questions and I trust that whether in his capacity as a Dáil Deputy or as a Minister, he will put this knowledge at the disposal of the tribunal.

The inquiry may give us very valuable insights. We may get an insight into our political culture, especially, the political culture moulded by Fianna Fáil.

The positive image of our food exporting industries generally and our meat and beef exporting industry especially has been hard earned. We were perceived as sending out a product of quality from a wholesome environment. Given the emergence of the international consumer's preoccupation with such issues, we had a head start. We could have made a fist of our beef exporting industry and moved forward on this tide. We could have launched a thought-out, coherent and collective effort to secure our slice of the action on world markets, thus providing a secure future for those in the industry and ensuring sustainable growth in the industry itself. But the political culture of Fianna Fáil ruled out any such rational approach. There is a core instinct in Fianna Fáil. It is "get in behind the one strong man and sure maybe he will get the job done".

Everybody knows by now about the £260 million so-called beef industry development plan of 1987, launched with a blast of trumpets and a flurry of photogenic handshakes between Mr. Larry Goodman and the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mr. Michael O'Kennedy and indeed the junior Minister for Agriculture and Food, who has been remarkably silent throughout this period. We all know about the Niagara of tax breaks and subsidies, the section 84 loans, the amenable legislation, the encouraging words whispered in the ears of the world's bankers.

While legitimate and honourable State companies were being stripped and crippled by the Fianna Fáil Administration and we were hearing the usual railings about the unhealthy cartel status enjoyed by State companies, Fianna Fáil were furiously setting up a new State company in the Goodman organisation. It was essentially a State company — but a very Fianna Fáil State company. All the stops were pulled out. When Fianna Fáil decide to do something like this it is indeed a sleek operation to behold. Those who promote legislation and have brought forward legislation in this House "to level the playing pitch" were at the same time ensuring that Mr. Larry Goodman had the wind at his back in both halves and that the referee had a "Goodman" international jersey.

I cannot say whether the tribunal will be able to show that the group of companies run by Fianna Fáil's white haired boy had more than a passing acquaintance with brown envelopes, but the Revenue Commissioners must be able to assist in validating charges made in the "World in Action" programme and in this House. The tribunal will also need to investigate why when an abuse was highlighted there was no prosecution, only a fine. Above all, the tribunal must seek to establish the charge that Goodman was effectively bigger than the law; that his operations and scams were immune from prosecution. Is it because this very Fianna Fáil State company have the inside political track, that our international reputation for quality was put at risk in grotty re-packaging and re-stamping operations in Goodman plants, in operations heavily subsidised by the Irish taxpayer.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

Does the Deputy really believe all that rubbish?

Mr. Rabbitte

These are some of the questions which confront this inquiry. Therefore, I hope the resources will be made available to the tribunal to perform their task effectively. They will require investigative powers to identify, pursue, and analyse witnesses and documentation. I hope the Minister can assure the House on these points. I take it from what the Taoiseach has said that he is assuring the House that specialist, expert analysts and technical advisers in this industry and in the various skills necessary, will be made available to the tribunal.

Mr. McGahon

And informers.

Mr. Rabbitte

The focus should be on identifying glaring and obvious weaknesses in the system, on protecting taxpayers' money and on the need to make recommendations to put in place systems that maintain the high reputation of our food exports.

Fianna Fáil were right in one area: Larry Goodman is probably a genius. He certainly was a genius at milking European Community schemes for the last penny. That was his chief talent and he has been put on a pedestal as some sort of national saviour. The facts are, however, that the number of people employed in the meat industry is considerably less now than before Goodman came on the scene.

Why did it take a television programme, and a British television programme at that, to force this inquiry? Deputies on this side of the House have been raising this scandal for some years. We brought forward information and asked parliamentary questions and pleaded with the Ministers responsible to take action. We were told we were begrudgers and that we were hounding this man because he was successful. We were ignominiously brushed aside and dismissed. The information we supplied privately and in this Chamber was spurned or ignored. What does it say about this Government's attitude to Dáil Éireann when a television programme is taken more seriously than genuinely concerned and alarmed elected public representatives?

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. O'Malley)

The establishment of a judicial inquiry to investigate very serious allegations of illegal activities, fraud and malpractice in some sectors of the beef processing industry is very welcome and marks a watershed in the way that allegations of wrongdoing in business practices are dealt with by the Government and by the Oireachtas.

The inquiry is of fundamental importance to the reputation of the Irish beef processing industry — so vital to the export earnings of this country. Ultimately, too, the inquiry reflects the determination of the Government to ensure that the operation of the law, in relation to how big business functions in Ireland today, is fair and consistent.

Exports are the life blood of the Irish economy. Our small home market means that we must export over two-thirds of everything we produce. Our export earnings are vital to our economic wellbeing and the creation of urgently needed employment. Within the export sector, the food industry accounts for 40 per cent of our net export earnings, and within that, the beef industry is a vital component.

There has been a shadow over the beef processing industry in this country for some time arising from a range of allegations which have been made regarding abuses under EC beef support schemes, controversy over credit insurance for beef exports, the apparent dominance of the industry by one group of companies and the financial collapse of that group last year. Each of these matters has been the subject of concern and discussion in this House and elsewhere. Very serious questions have been raised about the activities of some of the companies involved and the performance of various public authorities in dealing with those activities and companies.

It is unsatisfactory that there should be such disquiet, given the importance of the beef industry to our economy in general and our farming community in particular. In the light of these allegations and the coverage that they have received, we cannot afford to allow the reputation of the industry or the regulatory institutions of the State to stand tarnished by disturbing unanswered questions and nagging doubts.

It is against this background that the very serious allegations raised here in Dáil Éireann repeatedly over the past number of years and those in the recent "World in Action" programme must be investigated. The significance of the programme in question is that for the first time employees of the company concerned, and, in particular, a former accountant, gave details of how various alleged frauds and malpractices were perpetrated. Faced with such serious allegations, affecting not only the reputation of our food industry, but also touching on the credibility of a number of the supervisory and regulatory institutions of this State, the only course of action is to have a comprehensive, judicial inquiry, to get to the bottom of this frightening litany of charges.

Sustained allegations have been made in relation to the way that EC beef support schemes were operated and regulated. It is essential that we as a nation and as full members of the European Community assert our commitment to ensuring that frauds against the Community will not be tolerated.

Ministers of the Government are involved on an ongoing basis trying to protect the interests of Irish farmers. We are negotiating on the basis of our commitment to both Irish farmers and to the development of a Community-wide framework for agriculture. Our negotiations are based on a common trust between member states that we all participate in a responsible fashion.

There can be no shadow of doubt over our commitment to properly policing EC funded schemes. There can be no ambivalence over EC moneys. Fraud against the EC is fraud against our own people, our fellow member states and the consumers of Europe. These are the matters on which this tribunal must adjudicate. If the allegations of wrongdoings in the beef industry are shown to be unfounded then they can be laid to rest, and our food industry can go on from strength to strength, buttressed by the conclusion that such malpractices as have been claimed do not occur.

But if the outcome is otherwise, and some or all of these serious charges are substantiated, then prompt action must follow to re-establish the reputation of the industry and vindicate the position of our institutions of State.

This must be our central objective — to re-establish the reputation of Ireland and its food sector, not only in our overseas markets, but also with our own consumers. They too, no less than overseas purchasers, are entitled to have confidence in, and rely upon the wholesomeness of Irish meat products.

And they are equally entitled to be reassured that the regulatory and supervisory institutions of this State work effectively and efficiently, without fear or favour.

The tribunal's task of establishing the truth behind the allegations will be an especially complex one, which, in all probability, will take some time. While the Progressive Democrats would be concerned if this tribunal were to drag on indefinitely, we must all recognise that if justice is to be done the task of preliminary investigation, examination of witnesses and the writing of the report will take quite a deal of time. The terms of reference cover all the essential elements of public concern and disquiet while giving the tribunal flexibility to investigate any other relevant matters which it considers necessary.

I have full confidence in the tribunal chairman to deal with the matter in a thorough and practical way and to use the discretion which is available to him in the terms of reference to deal with what needs attention without prolonging the inquiry beyond what is necessary.

One area which I have been involved with as Minister for Industry and Commerce is the controversy which arose in relation to export credit insurance for beef and the equally important finance guarantees that went with it. While this has not been explicitly referred to in the terms of reference, and while some aspects of some of these matters are the subject of High Court proceedings, I believe that the tribunal will be able to inquire into these matters to the extent that is necessary and considered appropriate by the tribunal chairman.

Given that this inquiry is now being set up, it is not appropriate or desirable for me at this stage, to deal with the long list of allegations which have been made. I am satisfied of the need for this inquiry and I am confident that its work will be to the benefit of our beef industry in particular, but will also reassure the citizens of this country, and our fellow member states in the EC, that we will take whatever steps are required to establish and consolidate the good reputation of Irish business life.

Finally, I would like to wish the Honourable Mr. Justice Liam Hamilton, President of the High Court, success in his difficult and onerous task and to pledge the support and assistance of my Department where called upon.

Mr. McGahon

As a County Louth Deputy I have more than a special interest in the subject matter before the House today. The judicial inquiry was inevitable and it is needed if the Irish beef industry is to regain its privileged position.

I cannot condone wrong-doing and if there is a case to be answered by any beef company here, then so be it. However, I have to protest at the recent Granada production of "World in Action". This programme was, in essence, a trial by television of Larry Goodman. I do not believe in kangaroo courts and this travesty of a production was just that. Whether the subject is Larry Goodman or Martin Cahill, the subject of a similar trial by RTE some time ago, it is patently wrong and no substitute for the legal process of law. There is not a Deputy who would like to be tried by television. If we accept that type of trial it is only a matter of time until we have public house trials, lynch law, mob law.

The whole tenor and presentation of the case was based on myth and innuendo and the evidence of disgruntled personnel. It was based on sensationalism and it was a deliberate attempt to hinder and injure the Irish beef trade. I hope that this inquiry will be a wider ranging one and will encompass not only the beef trade but the entire meat industry. I want the playing pitch to be levelled and in previous Dáil debates this has certainly not been so.

I want to ask today of the left wing parties the reason for their refusal to mention any other company but the Goodman company in several debates in this House. Deputy Rabbitte seems to be a consultant for the Halal company. He certainly seems to have access to much of their deliberations. I want to ask why, for instance, four foreign owned Irish-based companies like Halal, Hibernia Meats, Agra and Taher have not been mentioned in this House when Larry Goodman and his companies were vilified in a manner that no other public person has been vilified in this House in the 70 years of this State. I want to ask why they have not been mentioned when fines initially totalling over £20 million for irregularities uncovered in the operation of the APS scheme were reduced to £3.6 million last week by the Minister. Four of the five companies were fined for serious and deliberate breaches of the regulations. The fifth and smallest fine was £90,000 for a technical breach and this was Anglo-Irish. Can anyone explain the deafening sound of silence surrounding these companies and the hysterical clamour and sustained vitriol directed against our own Anglo-Irish company and Larry Goodman in particular?

To return to the export credit insurance, can Minister O'Malley tell the Dáil why he did not at any time mention that £10 million of export credit cover was extended to Master Meats? This cover was subsequently sold on to Hibernia Meats. Statements have been repeatedly made which have given the impression that Anglo-Irish had exclusive access to export credit insurance. This again is patently untrue.

I want now to refer to some of Deputy Rabbitte's extravagant claims. On "Today at Five" on Tuesday last Deputy Rabbitte retreated hastily from his Christmas gift allegations which he had unfolded with great drama in this House, and rightly so. They were hardly relevant, he said, but yet they were relevant enough to raise in this House with all the hoo haa that attended it. When he raised this red herring in the Dáil last week however, he did not mention that trade union officials are regular recipients of a bottle that cheers at Christmas time in equally blameless circumstances. Smurfit give Waterford Glass at Christmas. Businessmen all over Ireland, large and small, down to the self-employed lorry driver give gifts to customs men and people they regularly do business with to express their satisfaction with the service given throughout the year. It is given as a token of their appreciation of continual services rendered over the years. Politicians give gifts to their helpers and people bring them out for a meal in return for work done, year in year out.

In regard to Deputy Rabbitte's claim about Greenore Port and the veil of secrecy, the exclusion of everyone when a boat is docked, I want to tell him that when a boat is due for arrival customs and police are notified by the port authority and security is the responsibility of the port authorities. This is done against the background where two container loads of meat were stolen two years ago. The whole loading operation is overseen by Department vets and officials and supervised entirely by them.

It is commonly believed in the industry that the Irish Department officials have the most stringent procedures in Europe and are rightly regarded as the watchdogs of Europe. For 25 years there was no blot on the Goodman record until the Waterford incident for which a fine was imposed and in which the infamous Mr. McGuinness was directly involved. The retired Secretary of the Department, Mr. Donal Creedon, at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts last year, said the level of alleged fraud in Ireland was the bottom of the European league and he did not believe there was widespread fraud in this country. He said there was manipulation of products but he could not quantify how much was deliberate. As my colleague, Deputy Austin Deasy, said, ASDA, the third largest distributor of meat in England, receiving meat from Goodman for 15 years for a sophisticated public, yesterday publicly and voluntarily acknowledged their entire satisfaction with this company.

I hope this inquiry will elicit the circumstances on which "World in Action" decided to produce the programme. Was there any approach from an Irish political party or a rival Irish beef company? What were the circumstances in which the alleged employees left the company and what were they paid for their disclosures? These questions are all very pertinent to that infamous programme.

I welcome this inquiry which I believe will ultimately help clear the air to some extent about the Goodman company who have given employment to 2,600 people, and that the company and the Irish beef industry will recover from the damage inflicted initially by left wing politicians for the wrong reasons. The entire concentration of allegations by Deputy Spring and Deputy Rabbitte exclusively against the Goodman group indicates the degree of their bias against this group of companies. I hope the Deputies will be forced to repeat their allegations to the tribunal and to produce witnesses who are credible and will not be allowed to rely on, "I got a phone call" or "An old woman in a pub told me". They must substantiate their allegations and their credibility as well as the credibility of the Irish beef industry.

I am unreservedly a supporter of Larry Goodman. I went to school with him and I watched him grow from a one-man operation into a huge combine. He is the biggest producer of beef to Europe and he is probably one of the biggest employers in this country. Having said that, let me say Larry Goodman has elements about him that I do not agree with. He became too monopolistic. It could be said that he became too greedy, he wanted to put his arms around the world, but he does not deserve the vilification he has received from people in the left wing parties who never provided a job in their lives and who see him as the symbol of success in private industry and want to pull him down. They want nothing less than Larry Goodman's head on a platter and the Irish beef industry along with it. They have no concern for the Irish beef industry. They are masquerading behind innuendo and myth. They refuse to accept the repeated opinion of the Secretary of the Department. They are casting a slur on the Department of Agriculture and Food vets, officials and administrators who have earned a reputation as the watchdogs of Europe. It is commonly known in the industry that the level of abuse on the European mainland far outweighs the number of alleged abuses in our country. Goodman himself admits that technical breaches occurred, but for 25 years no blot was on his record until the unfortunate situation in Waterford in which a subcontractor was involved. We need more Larry Goodmans, more Michael Smurfits, more Tony O'Reillys and fewer left wing Labour and Workers' Parties——

Mr. Kavanagh

You were very glad of us a few years ago.

Mr. McGahon

——who only want to see a weakening of successful businessmen. I welcome this judicial inquiry. If the Goodman group of companies have been guilty of serious and deliberate fraud I will shed no tears for them, but the only way to charge them is in a properly constituted court of law, not trial by television that I can only refer to as an abuse of democracy.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Doyle)

Deputy Boylan — are you sharing your time?

Mr. Boylan

Yes, with Deputy Durkan.

Mr. McGahon

I do not think Deputy Cowen heard. I wanted to share my time with Deputy Boylan.

Mr. Boylan

And Deputy Durkan.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed?

Mr. Boylan

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this very important debate, with the reservations expressed by the leader of my party this morning.

Acting Chairman

I am afraid you will have to give way to the other side of the House. There is no time limit on individual speakers, I am informed. The spokespersons are limited to half an hour. I will have to call a Member from the other side of the House.

Mr. Boylan

I understood we could share our time.

Acting Chairman

There is no time to share. There is no fixed time. There is no limit on the speech.

Mr. Boylan

What is the procedure after that?

Acting Chairman

I call a Member from the other side of the House. Deputy Cowen.

Mr. Cowen

I join with Members on this side of the House in welcoming the terms of reference which have been laid down for this judicial tribunal who will deal with the issues which have been raised. I wish to deal with a matter the Taoiseach mentioned in his speech, that is the very high politicisation and interpretation of events by various political parties and people who see themselves in the forefront in getting to the nub of this matter over a long number of years. That politicisation has been opportunistic and deliberate and has led to even greater confusion than the issues that were raised initially. Some Members of this House who have proceeded on that line inside this House have been unable to say the same things outside the House for fear of being challenged legally. Precisely for those reasons now a tribunal is required to clear up the matter since a vital national interest has been compromised by numerous allegations and counter-allegations for a long period of years which have undermined confidence in the beef processing industry.

In acknowledging that that national interest is vital, we must recognise that this £1.2 billion beef processing industry has been transformed since our accession to the EC. Our dependence on cattle being exported on the hoof has been greatly reduced because of beef processors such as the Goodman companies and other smaller companies who have been involved in beef processing in this country over the past 20 or 25 years. I believe there has been a personalisation and politicisation of events which led to greater confusion and great difficulty clarifying matters.

Specificially in relation to the politicisation of events, there is still this innuendo, even after the Taoiseach's contribution, of some sort of political favouritism or preferential treatment being made available to a certain range of companies in the field of agri-business and that Fianna Fáil have, in some way, been less than examples of probity in this regard. The Taoiseach's contribution clearly stitches into the record the fact that successive Governments have been seeking legitimately to expand potential export markets with all the players in this sector of agri-business and obviously Mr. Goodman is one of them. Indeed, the Opposition spokesman on Agriculture, Deputy Deasy, pointed out that Mr. Goodman, on previous occasions, identified markets not previously identified by our own marketing organisations who operate in the semi-State or State sector in the promotion of beef and beef products. This has been very unfortunate. I trace it back to the introduction of the Companies (Amendment) Bill on 28 August 1990 when the politicisation got out of hand, and specifically, to the contribution by Deputy Spring which was misleading, wrong and certainly did not face up to the fact that that legislation was being brought before the House as a matter of urgency and in the national interest.

The reason I take great exception to the type of contributions made that day is that I chaired the Committee Stage of the Companies Bill for a long number of months. We discussed Chapter IX of the Companies Bill from 17 May 1990 to 29 May 1990, three months prior to any indication being given that urgent legislation would be required and that the Dáil would have to be recalled. The Labour Party representative on that Committee had no contribution to make to Chapter IX of the Companies Bill nor was a substitute present throughout that debate — that is a matter of record — to table amendments or to make proposals in relation to the proper passing of that part of the legislation. When we were recalled on 28 August, Deputy Spring, on behalf of the Labour Party, claimed he had a list of amendments to put before the House on Report Stage which we took that day. He claimed that Chapter IX had been dug up almost immediately to deal with a specific matter, like the imminent Goodman collapse, when he should have known and certainly the Labour Party representative should have known, that the issues were dealt with in detail on Committee Stage between 17 May 1990 and 29 May 1990. The Labour Party were very silent on those occasions when we discussed that part of the legislation. As a qualified barrister he sought to say in this House — I believe for purely political reasons—that this Chapter was a measure to protect rich people from paying their debts, that it was in some way a rich man's Bill.

Chapter IX of the Companies Act provides the most innovative provisions in modern company law. It was company legislation which the late Frank Cluskey, when he was Minister, often said was urgent and necessary. Chapter IX of the Companies (Amendment) Act which was passed on 28 August 1990, ensured that banks or others could not appoint a liquidator or receiver and forget about the employees or others who were involved in that company and seek to split it up and take whatever they could — be it 50p in the pound or 30p in the pound — and forget about a major player in the Irish beef industry so that they could get some of their money back. Let us remember the banks were queuing up to give him funding at that time because they felt he had the Midas touch.

Here we had a Leader of the Labour Party decrying the fact that the banks could not come in and, on the basis of one petition to the High Court, wipe off 4 per cent of GNP for a major player in a £1.2 billion beef industry with 4,500 jobs depending on it. That was the politicisation that took place in this House in relation to a chapter of company legislation which ensured that we did not have a break up of the Goodman organisation at the behest of foreign bankers. That is something I would have thought left wing parties would have welcomed, but rather they proceeded, for their own petty political purposes, to distort the intent and purpose of the legislation and tried to suggest that this legislation was specifically for the Goodman organisation. Deputy Barrett may have been guilty in this regard also.

Since then, that aspect of company legislation has provided a safety net for many ailing but potentially viable companies in this economy to continue under an examinership so that the viability of the company can be established, its capital structure reorganised, jobs saved and export markets retained. That was the intent behind the legislation, and yet a qualified barrister and leader of a political organisation came in with a speech which was regarded by the media as the best speech of the day. It almost rivalled The Washington Post journalists who uncovered a Watergate affair. We were treated to a detective story with no basis or foundation. I quote from Deputy Spring's contribution — Official Report of 28 August 1990, column 2081 — in which he said:

how much has our concept of democracy already been undermined by the exercise of secret power, by the pulling of strings in book-lined offices and in gracious drawingrooms, and by the willingness of a democratically elected Government to acquiesce in the greed and ambition of individuals?

It was clear that that script writer would write a novel sometime, and he subsequently did. Deputy Spring continued:

We must demonstrate to the world, and specially to our cowboys, that we are not willing to allow them to ride roughshod over the entire regulatory apparatus established to ensure honesty in business.

It was rhetorical in the extreme and it certainly did not deal with the issue which was a innovative way of ensuring that such a major player in the beef processing industry would not be destroyed by foreign bankers looking for their pound of flesh when it suited them.

It has been proved by the excellent examinership of Mr. Fitzpatrick at the court proceedings presided over by Mr. Justice Hamilton, that that procedure was the proper one to adopt. It was fortunate that Members of the Committee had dealt with the matter sufficiently on Committee Stage, that the Government had passed 20 amendments, and were able to come into this House at such short notice with legislation which is standing up to the test of time and to the rigours for which it was intended. It must be remembered that nobody in the Labour Party felt it worth their while to make a contribution either in May or in August, except to make cheap political points in an effort to drum up some support because the local elections are around the corner. That is what half of it is about. This is a continuation of the innuendo. The reputation of the Irish beef industry is being sacrificed on the altar of getting a few council seats here and there and keeping them in the public eye. This tribunal will do one thing at least. It will ensure that people will have to give evidence about what they are saying. It is a time for putting up or shutting up. If it only does that it will be welcome and afterwards the farmers and the beef industry will be allowed the opportunity to provide a viable means of living and to protect the much needed jobs that this sector creates.

Mr. Boylan

I am delighted with the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I welcome the inquiry with the reservations expressed by Deputy John Bruton this morning. If the inquiry is not fully open to all of the allegations that have been made, then untold harm will be done to one of our major industries. The Taoiseach in a speech this morning said:

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 hope that will be done. Far too many allegations, centred on the Goodman organisation have been made. If we fail to answer those allegations we will have failed the farmers and the people.

The agricultural industry is on its knees. Never, since I become involved in public life in 1974 or earlier when I started my own farm have I seen such anxiety among farmers and the rural population. Farmers are having a bad time. Prices were never as low, comparatively speaking, since the foundation of the State. People may talk about the forties and fifties, but there is no profit margin there now even for the best farmers. Many of the problems come back to the Goodman empire. Too much was put into the hands of one man. It is fair to ask, where did the profits come from with regard to this rags to riches climb of one single person, one organisation, from a wheelbarrow to a private jet? From whose backs were the profits taken? I have no doubt that it was from the backs of the honest, decent farmers. The Taoiseach and former Minister for Agriculture would be the first to agree that we have the best farmers in Europe. Working under bad conditions they produce the finest food products in the world. Unfortunately through their own fault they did not have sufficient interest in the product once it left the farm. We have failed miserably in the market place. Even now when we can talk about food mountains and problems with over supply, there is still a market for quality produce. The housewife was never more concerned. We can produce the best but because of all that has been happening and all that has been said over the last few years, Irish produce is tainted not because of the producers but because of the handlers of it.

In relation to the development of the Goodman industry, a sum of £200 million was set aside for this man to develop his organisation. Smaller people in the same business could not get the facilities that Mr. Goodman got and were compelled to sell through his organisation in order to get access to the market. That was wrong.

Having tried to take over the beef industry, Mr. Goodman decided to move into the dairy industry. He is not a friend to the farmers of the north-eastern region. Mr. Goodman sought to get into a business about which he knew absolutely nothing and he was ruthless in his approach. I blame the Government for not seeing fit, having promoted this man, to sound the alarm bells to the co-operative movement in that region, to the effect that Mr. Goodman had not the wealth he claimed he had. Mr. Goodman came into that region giving the impression that he could pay money on the nail, that he could nearly pay the day before the cow was milked. It turned out that the man had not the price of a box of matches in his pocket. Within three or four months of being beaten off by the amalgamation of Killeshandra and Lough Egish, the whole Goodman organisation went up in a puff of smoke.

It was radically wrong that the farmers had to fight this battle alone and put their hands in their pockets and put money up front to beat off this man who was setting out to take them over. There must be an explanation as to why that was allowed to happen. He has left a trail of havoc behind. The co-operative that succeeded in coming in as the fair haired boy from the east to the Bailieborough Co-op has now moved into the hands of Golden Vale. I do not object to that particularly except that the shareholders, because of the decision they made in seeing Mr. Goodman as their saviour, had no say in the further transfer of their assets to the Golden Vale Co-operative movement. Otherwise, I am delighted to see it in co-operative hands.

Having succeeded there, Mr. Goodman decided to march on, Napoleon-like and would not be stopped. However, he was stopped and I pay tribute to the farmers of Cavan and Monaghan for having the wisdom to see that all was not what it seemed to be with this man and his propaganda machine. That was a devastating blow for Mr. Goodman. It made people realise that perhaps this organisation was not so great. I understand that Mr. Goodman started in a small way in Louth a number of years ago. As the organisation grew perhaps he was not able to keep track of things and that might be an aspect of his downfall. However, Mr. Goodman was managing director and it is on him that the responsibility must fall. Mr. Goodman was beaten off in Cavan/Monaghan. The bubble burst and his downfall was imminent, with the result that there is now a total mess in the organisation that must be inquired into.

It is vital that all matters connected with the beef industry are considered by this tribunal. The use of angel dust, or the alleged use of angel dust, has done untold harm, but there has not been one prosecution. That story, like the innuendo about the Goodman organisation, is rife throughout the country and doing untold harm. There has been no prosecution for either the use of or the handling of——

Acting Chairman

I ask the Deputy to come back to the terms of reference.

Mr. Boylan

This is connected to the terms of reference. There are rumours that certain factories insist on handling only cattle that have been treated with angel dust. That issue must be brought into the terms of the inquiry. Are those rumours correct, or are they more untruths? There is no doubt that people have been caught — officials of the Department of Agriculture and Food have been caught — with that substance on their person. There has been no prosecution, and one must ask why not.

Acting Chairman

It is wrong to mention officials.

Mr. Boylan

I am stating what is common knowledge. The issue should be cleared up with the other allegations made about vast profits being accumulated but unaccounted for. The tribunal of inquiry may show that the organisation was built on very flimsy foundations and was bankrupt from day one but masqueraded around the country as being the only organisation that could process and market beef in Ireland. Those important points should be answered by the inquiry. The air should be cleared once and for all so that we can get back and do the job we can do. Our farmers should be given the livelihood they are entitled to and can generate, even in the present climate. Life should be returned to rural Ireland as it was enjoyed before the Goodmans and others tried to take it over.

Mr. D. Ahern

I feel obliged to make a few brief points, being a representative from County Louth, like my colleague, Deputy McGahon, who spoke earlier. The four Oireachtas Members from County Louth are united in giving credit to Larry Goodman, who has created much employment in our area and throughout the country. No one would be more disappointed than the people of County Louth at the way Larry Goodman's company has gone over recent times. Larry Goodman's plans would have resulted in a new factory and new headquarters in the town of Ardee. Those plans would have gone some way towards helping unemployment in our county, which is at present running at 13 per cent. Unfortunately, the plans seem to be a forlorn hope at the moment because of attitudes expressed both inside and outside the House and other matters outside the control of Larry Goodman. One factor that has contributed to that in a major way has been the attitudes expressed by some spokes-people on the other side of the House, particularly those from the Labour Party and The Workers' Party.

I should like to place on record my abhorrence at the "The World in Action" programme. I watched the programme and was absolutely horrified at several aspects of the programme. Indeed, the very first statement made was: "This man makes his living out of killing." That is no way to start a programme that sets out to be objective, as the programme describes itself. I give the programme some credit for subjects they have covered in the past, particularly in relation to the Birmingham Six and other such cases. The programme in question was anything but objective. It was disgraceful and it did a disservice and a dishonour in its portrayal of our Taoiseach on a meat hook. To cap it all off, a decent man was hounded at his place of worship on a Sunday morning. It was despicable for the lady who made that programme to try to justify such treatment later on. The woman said she was not laying in wait for that man, but most people who saw the programme believe —quite rightly—that it was a set-up job and that innuendo was involved in the way in which the Church was photographed before Mr. Goodman was approached by the camera.

Some of the Members who spoke here this morning have backtracked somewhat. As Deputy Cowen said the holding of an inquiry will mean that those people have to put up or shut up. Some Members who are not here but have been making allegations for the past couple of years will have to produce their sources of evidence or shut up. Deputy Spring said that if he had known in 1982 of certain instances that he learned in 1987 he would have gone to the Garda. Why did he not go to the Garda with his information in 1987? Deputy Spring's record in relation to the Garda leaves a lot to be desired for someone of his standing in the House.

Mr. Howlin

That is disgraceful.

Mr. D. Ahern

Deputy Spring made allegations before——

Mr. Howlin

The Deputy should stick to the message rather than the messenger.

Mr. D. Ahern

——in relation to alleged Garda brutality.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Howlin, I want no further interruptions.

Mr. Howlin

The Deputy is vilifying Members of the House.

Mr. D. Ahern

Deputy Spring made allegations in the House before about alleged Garda brutality in Finglas, which allegations was subsequently proved to have no foundation. Former Deputy Desmond made and now Deputy Spring continues to make allegations about Mr. Goodman. Deputy Cowen said that perhaps the matter had something to do with the local elections. The whole escapade of the Goodman affair started a couple of months before the European elections, but I shall say no more on that subject.

This morning Deputy Rabbitte made reference to unapproved roads. There was an implication that in some way unapproved roads were used by people in the meat industry; I suppose the Deputy was referring to the Goodman company. I can tell Deputy Rabbitte that the people in Louth know about the activities of his predecessors on unapproved roads in our country.

My final point is that the five year plan put forward in 1987 was a plan to help change the high unemployment levels that had occurred after four and a half disastrous years. I make no apology for that. I pay tribute to Deputies Deasy and McGahon for giving credit where credit is due. The one bother I have with that plan is that it never came to fruition. I do make the point that not one penny of taxpayers' money, of IDA money, was given to the Goodman company for that plan. It is important to make that point so that the people know that IDA or State money was not wasted on the plan.

What has been going on in the House, and outside — mostly inside the House because Deputies are afraid to make their statements outside the House — is an attempt to damage a Government who are doing a good job with the economy and job creation. It is ironic that the House was debating a motion on job creation in Private Members' time when some Members were trying to do away with jobs in the meat industry.

Mr. Durkan

I am delighted to have an opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. At the outset I should like to say that I have no brief for any interests in the industry on one side or the other, not for Larry Goodman nor for any of his competitors. However, like many Deputies, I feel that the goodwill of the public towards the meat industry is essential to the economy.

A few years ago when I had responsibility as junior spokesman on the food industry for my party I called repeatedly for the setting up of a body who would have overall responsibility for guiding the food industry into the free market in 1992. That suggestion was always pushed to one side. In the light of subsequent events, and for many reasons, the suggestion I made then can be seen as correct and in order. Even at this stage the new and minor wing of the Government still do not seem to recognise the necessity for such a body. If that kind of regulatory body to monitor the progress of the food and meat processing industries had been instituted, then we would not have the kind of innuendoes and allegations made on a recent television programme—and in this House — which are, without a shadow of doubt, very damaging to our meat and export industries.

The allegations in a recent television programme are very serious and I can well understand the vested interests of competitors in ensuring that this kind of thing would be proved. However, to digress, I was appalled at the manner in which the programme was presented, particularly in relation to the Taoiseach. I do not go along with that sort of thing, it is snide and supercilious, sneering and damaging. There is no reason for that kind of attitude in presenting a television programme unless, of course, there is a vested interest which in this case could be to ensure a better marketing position for an opposing economy or interest group.

I am glad that this inquiry is being set up and I sincerely hope it will clear up, once and for all, the allegations made in relation to the meat industry in this country over the past number of years, regardless of whom it hurts. If it is not done in that way a very high price will be paid by the economy, not only by the farmers and meat barons, but by the ordinary people, in job losses as a result of damage to that industry.

During the halycon days of the Goodman empire I remember one morning hearing an executive mention that the cooperatives were virtually a thing of the past; he compared them, in terms of usefulness, to canals. I thought it was peculiar he mentioned canals because at that time they were coming into their own. It was a flawed argument. Deputy Boylan talked about the period when there was an attempt at a massive takeover in the dairy industry. I agree with Deputy Boylan that more than the general good of the industry was at stake at that time. Some takeovers were successful, some were not, and some people did not agree with them. I make no apology for saying that I did not agree with them but, of course, it is always easy to be wise after the event.

The responsibility of the inquiry must be to go in great detail into all the allegations made and, if they are found to be true, there must be a root and branch examination of the industry and the manner in which it is serving the State at present. If that is not done more serious damage will be done to our economy, and our good name as a trading nation and a producer of high quality, healthy food, will be damaged worldwide. We cannot afford that luxury at present. There was a reference in this debate and a previous one to the various factors which appear to be damaging the meat processing industry, such as angel dust, the Gulf crisis and the resistance to our products in Iran and Iraq as a result of health scares.

It is the responsibility of the governing authority to ensure that the health and quality status of the products being exported from this country are as high as possible. In this case the governing body are the Government; the exporting agencies have their own job to do but the quality and health status of the products is the responsibility of the Department. That is why I refer to my earlier suggestion, that if there had been a specific, regulatory authority to cater for the industry we would not have had this problem because the agency would have ensured the health, quality and disease-free status of our products abroad; they would have had a vested interest in ensuring that our products were unassailable from any quarter. We cannot say that at present as a result of repeated innuendo and suggestions from many quarters that the quality of the products is not as good as it should be, that it is not processed as well as it should be, that it is not disease-free and so on. There is a vast history in that regard which has a major impact on the economy and on the meat industry in particular.

I often wonder whether the Government are fully conversant with competition and monopoly because there seems to be a tendency in some Government quarters to think that competition should be allowed to develop to the extent where it becomes a monopoly but that, as long as it is competitive with somebody somewhere else, it is all right. I will elaborate on that in some other debate. The responsibility of the public inquiry is to clear up the question mark over this industry here and worldwide. If it is found that any — or all — of the allegations are proved incorrect or that they were made for a specific purpose which has the result of seriously damaging the industry, action must be taken. It is not sufficient for someone to make allegations of that nature and merely apologise afterwards, saying that their source was wrong. You cannot afford to have an incorrect source when the stakes are that high. You cannot afford to point the finger at a major industry if, in the event of serious damage being done, the consequences are a massive loss of jobs, serious diminution of the market share, etc. You cannot make allegations of that kind and then walk away from them on the basis that you were merely trying to bring the information to the general public. If the allegations are proved to be untrue I hope action will be taken afterwards.

If, in the course of the inquiry, it becomes clear that there are serious grounds for a change in practices and modes of operation — or that there have been difficulties and malpractices over the past number of years in relation to the issues — it is again the responsibility of the body with overall responsibility, to wit, the Government or the Department responsible, to take the necessary action. They should follow up with a prosecution if necessary, because if that is not done the people in the marketplace who have become more discerning in assessing the value and the quality of what they are buying, will not, unless they are reassured, hold us in the high esteem which obtained heretofore, with the result that our economy will suffer. Whatever the public inquiry decides, every scintilla of evidence must be sifted to ensure that justice is seen to be done afterwards.

I am critical of the reorganisation of the industry which was announced with great aplomb, a clash of cymbals and a fanfare of trumpets when the Goodman organisation decided to expand the industry and create an extra 6,500 jobs. To be fair to the Taoiseach, he pointed out this morning that no grants were paid as no jobs were provided but that response is in stark contrast with the replies given yesterday in the House at Question Time when the Minister of State sitting in front of us indicated that 3,000 new jobs have been provided in the intervening period, the truth is there has been a net loss of 300 jobs. Assuming that the 3,000 new jobs have been grant aided, the question which must be asked is how much has been lost. I suggest that the Taoiseach and the Minister of State sitting on the front bench should get together to have a chat about this matter to work it out. Even as a member of the Opposition when asked this question at local organisational and public meetings I have great difficulty in answering it.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Kirk)

Was the Deputy surprised at the answer?

Mr. Durkan

Indeed, if I was a Government backbencher I would feel very embarrassed if asked a question such as that. I suggest that in the future replies given at Question Time should tie in with the actual position.

Mr. Kirk

The question was quite specific and the Deputy got the correct answer.

Mr. Durkan

Like every other Member of the House, I am anxious that all major industries are able to stand over and sell their products in world markets without fear or favour. They should also be able to repel all boarders from all angles at all times. If they are not in a position to do this and a problem arises there are people who have a responsibility to resolve it. As I said, there is a responsibility on the Government to safeguard the status of any industry in this country at all times in international markets.

I acknowledge that it is always risky for the Government to be associated too closely with any business, be they big or small. I also accept that we cannot have it both ways. The Government cannot be expected to promote an industry in the world arena and at the same time back away and distance themselves from that industry whenever a cloud appears on the horizon. Unfortunately, business and Government always face that risk. There will always be a duty on the Government to respond positively when asked by business people to promote or assist their industries in a legitimate way but there is also a duty on them to ensure that when they put their bets down the horse will at least run in the race and do reasonably well and not canter home 15 minutes after the rest.

Like their predecessors, the Goodman empire have provided jobs but we should never forget that they are not the first to do so. There are numerous small meat processing enterprises up and down the country — I have raised this point on several occasions — who employ between 30 and 50 people. They do not pay the highest rates but they do pay their employees well. However they work 52 weeks of the year with no lay-offs, part-time work or three-day weeks. In addition, they are not in receipt of any grants from FEOGA or the Industrial Development Authority, not even for the construction of effluent treatment plants. Indeed, under the terms of the Abattoirs Act they are slowly but surely being squeezed out and this is a crying shame.

We have on the other hand the big processing plants who for the past ten years or so have been operating on and off. One cannot manage an industry on that basis as there is no continuity of supply and employment. These plants have one objective in mind and that is to place their products in intervention. While this may see them over their difficulties it is not good for the industry. The Goodman empire were not the worst in this regard in the sense that they exported meat to Third countries and did not rely as much on putting meat into intervention. It is vitally important that somebody examines the meat industry closely and tries to make them recognise that it is no use producing, processing and storing it for 20 to 30 years in an ice cavern and waiting for someone to come along to say that it is too expensive to store it and that it has to be sold off cheaply. Such a system is unacceptable. This does nothing for the economy or those working in the industry and it reflects badly on the country. I hope these points are addressed by the inquiry.

Let me say in conclusion that serious allegations have been made against the industry which, if sustained, will have far-reaching implications; if sustained and not followed up the damage will be even more serious. Even if they are not sustained or there is insufficient evidence, action must be taken against those who damage the good name of the industry. What I am saying is that we should get together to clean up our act, dispel the cloud on the horizon for the industry and move forward for the good of the country and the economy.

Mr. Howlin

I did not intend to contribute to this debate for a number of reasons, one of which is that I have not commented publicly on this issue in the past either in the House or elsewhere. Second, I find the terms of reference agreed by the Government and outlined in the motion before the House satisfactory. I agree that they should be narrow to allow the specific issues raised in the House and on the television programme to be dealt with. They should not be too broad to ensure that it will not take many months, if not years, to complete the deliberations with no conclusion in sight. Quite clearly there is an urgent need for a conclusion. The issues are clearly causing concern not only to the Members of the House but anyone who has a feel for the country knows they are causing concern up and down the country and in our international markets.

I was motivated to speak mainly by the contribution of the last Government speaker. It seems clear to me that there are some Deputies on the Government benches — Deputy M. Ahern among them — who quite clearly do not support the terms of this motion and who do not want an inquiry into the specific allegations made here. I wonder whether he will actually oppose the motion at 2 o'clock, because that certainly was the tenor and import of most of what he had to say.

I am always concerned when people address issues in this House not on the basis of the content but on who is actually addressing the House. They want to trawl history or find some other extraneous and irrelevant issue to distract and detract from the net underlying issue being addressed.

The allegations in this instance go back to 1987, at least. They were very clearly underscored in a programme produced in our neighbouring country, with which we trade very extensively and on whom our food and our beef industries in particular are greatly dependent. Of course, any responsible politician in this House and any responsible citizen would be anxious to clear up the very serious allegations that were made in that programme. They cannot be cleared up if they are ignored or by speaking in disparaging tones about the programme makers.

I share the views expressed by many in this House on the style of presentation of that particular Granada television programme. The extensive showing of butchery, gore and blood was unnecessary and offensive to many people. I share the view that our Taoiseach should not have been shown as he was. I think that some of the presentation style lacked sensitivity and detracted from the very serious allegations made and seemed to be substantiated by fact.

It is wrong fundamentally to seek to ascribe any base motives to the film makers because they have a very honourable record. This view is shared by many Members of this House who welcomed their television programme on the Birmingham Six. We were critical when the Establishment on the other side of the water tried to undermine the credibility of those programme makers when it did not suit them, and it would be very wrong of us to fall into the same trap and try to ascribe base motives simply because we do not like this particular message or that some people in this House would prefer that the programme had not been made at all but rather that we could walk away from the issue, ignore it, regardless of the damage that it may do not only to our beef industry, which is of crucial importance but to our economic well-being and the good name of Ireland as an exporting country.

Mr. M. Ahern

That is subjective.

Mr. Howlin

We are more dependent on trade than virtually any other nation. We have to establish our good name and not allow the suggestion that we would tolerate such base practices and allow them to go unchallenged and unchecked. The very least we could do in the aftermath of the very serious allegations being made and broadcast to tens of millions of people was to establish a judicial inquiry. I am glad the Government, however reluctantly, finally agreed to table the motion before us today, but I did not expect there would be any great debate about it. It came as a surprise that there was still a reluctance at least among some backbench Members, if not in the Cabinet, on this issue. I thought it had been decided, albeit reluctantly, that this judicial inquiry should take place.

The only other comment I wish to make is on the issue of employment as it reflects on the motion before us. Many Deputies, including Deputy Ahern, referred to the importance of employment. That does not need to be underscored because this week we have seen the highest unemployment rates in the history of our nation. We are all devastated by unemployment. We can only build employment on the basis of trust among our major trading partners. We export more than we import; our good name, therefore, is the singular most important component in our success as a trading country. Our good name has been attacked to some degree. There is a shadow on it and it is incumbent on us to act expeditiously to remove that shadow and to right any clear wrongs and restore the excellent name that Irish produce has always had among our trading partners.

I do not wish to pre-empt the results of this inquiry. Unlike the previous speaker I will not comment on it, but I would like to comment on many of the contributions that have been made. We were elected to this House and given the responsibility to overview the conduct of public affairs. In the name of the Labour Party I tried in recent times to introduce an Ethics in Government and Public Office Bill that would bring responsibility and transparency into public life but unfortunately the Government parties did not see fit to support that initiative. Clearly linked to that is the duty and right of every Member to draw to the attention of this House perceived malpractice or illegalities and we have the organs of the State and the investigative procedures of the State and its agencies to investigate those allegations. That is what was done in the past and I hope it will be done now.

I hope the tribunal that will be established on foot of this resolution will get down very speedily to the issue. I know it will have the full co-operation of all the Members of this House, Government and Opposition, and I trust they will come back with a report as early as possible.

The Taoiseach

I would like to respond to the debate very briefly and comment on a few of the points made. By and large, I found it a useful and constructive debate and I want to thank all the Deputies who contributed in that spirit.

First, I want to deal with the reaction of the Fine Gael Party, and particularly Deputies Bruton and Deasy, to my opening remarks. I feel they seriously misunderstood the case I was making and did not advert exactly to what I was saying. I hope if they read my opening speech carefully they will find less to complain about than they did. It was not my intention, and I thought I made it clear at several different points, to attribute dishonourable conduct, unworthy conduct or any conduct which fell short of the highest standards, to anybody in what I said. The remarks I made were a response to a specific situation with which I was confronted. The impression sought constantly to be made here is that when Fianna Fáil came into Government in 1987 a sea change took place in the relationship between the Goodman group of companies and the Government of the day. I was at pains to rebut that, I think legitimately so.

Arising from that suggestion other things followed. It was suggested that the decision of the Government to support the major beef processing plans by the Goodman company in 1987 was in some way wrongly directed and not legitimate. Also various allegations were made about the export credit scheme. Both of those criticisms — and they are serious criticisms of the Government which need to be replied to — are derived from the fact that the Government, and previous Fianna Fáil Governments, suddenly developed in 1987, a special, favourable, cozy arrangement with Mr. Goodman and his companies that had not been there before. I felt perfectly entitled to rebut that and I tried to point out that that relationship, a close relationship, between Mr. Goodman's companies and the Government had existed as far back as 1982. However, I went on to say that I found nothing wrong with that and, in particular, I have never sought in any way to criticise the former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Deasy, for his part in that. I know he went out to Iraq, Iran, Egypt and elsewhere to try to do what he could to bolster and promote our export trade. It just happened that it was the Goodman companies who were in the field at the time.

Mr. Deasy

Not entirely. They were the major player, but not entirely.

The Taoiseach

They were the major player. I have always said — and Deputy Durkan adverted to this — that the Government have the duty to promote exports, business developments and job creation in any way they can in any area and I have never criticised any Minister or any Government for doing that. I just want to say simply that I had to establish, for the sake of the credibility of the Government in this whole area, that any relationship developed between the Fianna Fáil Government and the Goodman companies from 1987 onwards was no more than a continuance of what was already in existence. It is wrong for anyone on the other side of the House to suggest that the bringing forward of that major beef processing scheme in 1987 by us was anything other than a genuine attempt to bring about a whole new process of development in the beef processing industry. Do we not all remember that time the whole criticism of the Irish beef industry — and it still applies today — was that our factories were content to produce beef and dump it into intervention? Was it not also clear to us all that something more had to be done?

The whole purpose of that major scheme we supported at that time was to get away from dumping into intervention, to try to get the Irish beef industry into a situation where it would be producing quality products, sophisticated products, value-added products for the sophisticated markets in which we would have to compete. That is what that programme was all about, nothing more. It was a failure. It never got off the ground and that was a bitter disappointment to me and my colleagues. Perhaps we can be blamed for an error of judgment. We tried and backed the wrong horse, but the detriment to the country of our trying to do that was minimal. Will Members opposite point out to me any detrimental end product of the result of our trying to revolutionise the beef processing industry? The key factor is that there was no loss to the Exchequer of any kind. There was much disappointment and psychological reaction to the fact that the scheme never went ahead, but apart from that there was no particular material financial loss or detriment to the country.

I am also blamed — and a big fuss was made of it this morning — because we pressurised the IDA to bring forward this scheme. Of course we did. I am one of the greatest admirers of the IDA and have been a supporter of the IDA all my life. I do anything they ask me to do, and so does every Minister of the Government — travel here, there, meet business people and give them every support we can. Only yesterday I did it in a different context. That is not to say that I think the IDA should not be pushed and shoved to get on with development. Every Deputy knows that we have a vital, urgent, catastrophic unemployment problem with a quarter of a million people unemployed. Is it not our duty and obligation to look around everywhere we can, at the beef industry, manufacturing industry, service and tourist industries to try to push our Government agencies into getting on with it and doing something? I am always prepared to do that and I do not care who criticises me for it. I will interview businessmen. I will give them lunch. I will go and visit their factories. I will do everything I can to encourage them and to motivate them into coming to this country. I did that in the United States over the weekend and I think there will be good results from it. However, I suppose in a few years time someone will be putting down questions about the fact that I travelled to the United States on such a day and asking if I had lunch with certain people and why did I do that. Deputy Rabbitte will be up demanding my bona fides in regard to something of that kind but I do not care; I do not care any more. I will just keep——

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach

I have heard it all before, particularly from the Deputy Rabbittes of this world. Deputy Doyle's interruption reminds me that Deputy Rabbitte seems to be concentrating much on the contributions to political parties by business. There are contributions to political parties by business. That is the way we live. That is the system in this democracy. We could not carry out our elections if we did not get contributions from the public, from individual citizens and from business corporations. The only thing I would like to ask in that connection is, would Deputy Rabbitte, or perhaps Deputy De Rossa as he is now here, like to give in broad outline the sources of their funding over the last ten years.

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach

Then we will compare our respective credibility, legitimacy and bona fides in regard to financing our political parties.

Deputy Bruton raised a couple of queries about the terms of reference. First, he was anxious to know if everything said in Dáil Éireann could come before the tribunal. That is our intention. The House will note that the terms of reference just say simply, "Dáil Éireann" not "Dáil Éireann on such and such a date." We deliberately put it that way so that anything that has been said here in Dáil Éireann comes legitimately within the terms of reference. He was also concerned about this question of the investigation by the Revenue Commissioners into certain payments made by the Goodman company to their employees. It is entirely a matter for the tribunal, of course, but I have no doubt in my mind that if the Goodman companies were engaged in some activity which was in breach of the Revenue regulations that that would be a legitimate matter for investigation by the tribunal even though a subsequent settlement had been made with the Revenue Commissioners.

Again, I want to make it absolutely clear that anything the Revenue Commissioners do in that area they do entirely within their own powers and within their own jurisdiction. The Government have no say whatever in anything they do in regard to any taxpayer whether assessing his or her tax, making settlements or whatever. The Government have no say in these matters and do not intervene; no Government to my knowledge have ever done so, and this Government had no intervention of any kind in this matter.

I am sorry Deputy Spring would appear to be drawing back a bit from wholehearted co-operation with the tribunal. I understood him to say some of these people were trusted friends or confidants of his who gave him this information and he would not be prepared to disclose all this fully to the tribunal. That is a reprehensible attitude on his part. He has been vociferously thumping the table and demanding this tribunal of inquiry on the basis of what these people said to him or documents they supplied to him. Now that he has the tribunal of inquiry which he was demanding, he has no alternative but to come before them and give them every possible assistance and supply them not alone with the evidence but with full details of how he acquired that evidence, so that they can assess it.

Deputy Rabbitte was the most vociferous in demanding this tribunal of inquiry. I do not know that he really wants it at all. From his point of view he has probably done his work now. Again here today he trotted out the same accusations one after the other. He is a playing record in this regard. If he wants a tribunal of inquiry and if he is going to co-operate with them fully, why had he to go over all this again today? Does it not reveal that he has a simple, straightforward, political motive in everything he says and does over there? It is not in the interests of the beef processing industry or of ascertaining truth, it is simply to keep up his campaign of denigrating this Government and this party in every way he can. He mentioned Fianna Fáil about 20 times today in his statement. He mentioned no other political party. Why? Deputy Rabbitte keeps on this incessant, monotonous attack, allegation after allegation, against Fianna Fáil because we are the bulwark of democracy in this country.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Rabbitte

I thought the Taoiseach was going to make a point.

The Taoiseach

That is why he has to listen to toadies and informers and sneak into pubs and come in here making all sorts of allegations, but, as I said in my opening remarks, the moment of truth is now.

Mr. Rabbitte

Yes, for the truth.

The Taoiseach

He can go before this tribunal and tell us all about these things in the fullest possible detail.

I want to say to the Fine Gael Party that they were inclined to complain that I had looked up official records so I could make my case. They might feel aggrieved at that, though I do not think they should. Whatever about that, I have very serious misgivings and doubts about the way The Workers' Party are able seemingly at will to get command of and get into their possession every kind of official document despite the Official Secrets Act, despite the best traditions of the Civil Service. Maybe this tribunal will help us to reveal this ministry. How are Deputy Rabbitte and the others over there always able to come in with copies of documents, original documents, that very often I know nothing about but they know about them?

Mr. Doyle

They might print them themselves.

The Taoiseach

They might do that. I hope the tribunal will direct some attention to this area if the Honourable Justice feels they should. It could be worth examining whether there are people in certain areas of the public service who feel their loyalty to The Workers' Party supersedes their loyalty to the State they serve——

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach

——and the promises and the oath they take when joining the public service.

A Deputy

Do not resort to——

The Taoiseach

Maybe we will find out about that. All we want is——

Mr. Rabbitte

Keep it to politics.

The Taoiseach

——that Deputy Rabbitte and his colleagues will come before this tribunal, give us these documents, tell us where they came from, so we will all be able to evaluate their validity.

Some Deputy on the Fine Gael benches asked about angel dust. The Government and the Minister are waging an all-out campaign against the use of angel dust because of all the things that have happened in the meat processing industry and the beef industry, this is probably the most serious and potentially the most damaging. My colleague tells me statistics were given yesterday and there are 17 cases of prosecution pending in regard to the use of angel dust.

I have one final thing to say. The House has almost universally welcomed the establishment of this inquiry. As I said at the beginning, the terms of reference are as full and as comprehensive as we could make them. We intend them to be full and comprehensive. It is up to the tribunal and Mr. Justice Hamilton how they are to be interpreted, but I believe they give the opportunity and scope to look at every possible aspect of this affair and the allegations that have been made. I want to make it clear that the tribunal will have counsel placed at their disposal by the State and any resources the tribunal may need or require or request to enable them to do their job comprehensively will be provided by the State.

It only remains now for us all to wish this tribunal well, to wish them success and hope they will at the end of their labours create a situation where a great deal of what has been causing problems and difficulties for the beef industry and the meat processing industry will be brought to an end.

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 May 1991.