Vol. 553 No. 2
91 Mr. Gilmore asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she has received advice as to the further action which should be taken arising from the acceptance in a recent court case by legal representatives for a person (details supplied) that he accepted that this person controlled a company (details supplied) in 1987; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13629/02]
My Department is considering the implications of the admission made in the court case. This involves issues of some complexity and relates to events which took place during the 1980s. Some of these issues will require legal advice and my Department will be approaching the Attorney General's Office in that regard in the very near future.
Does the Minister recall giving me precisely this answer on 21 March and does she agree it is a long time since 21 March, notwithstanding intervening events and 18 June, in terms of taking advice from the Attorney General's office? Does the Minister agree it is a matter of some importance that a significant businessman in this jurisdiction may have misrepresented to the Fair Trade Commission in 1989 his beneficial interest in the take-over of Master Meats? Is it not the case that on the word of his lawyers before the recent court case, Mr. Goodman lied to the Fair Trade Commission? Has the Minister established whether the evidence given to the Fair Trade Commission at that time was taken on oath? If it was, is she contemplating a certain course of action? When does she expect to have the advice of the Attorney General and, apart from telling me for the second time that her Department is concerned that Mr. Goodman misrepresented the position—
A question, please.
I am asking a question. Given Mr. Goodman's misrepresentation of the position, does the Department intend taking whatever action is open to it at this stage?
I am aware the reply is similar to the one given on 21 March and I apologise for that. It is not the case, however, that nothing has happened. There have been ongoing discussions with the Attorney General's office on this matter. To the best of my memory – this is subject to memory as I do not have information in that regard in my brief – evidence to the Fair Trade Commission was not taken on oath. Given the complexity and problematic nature of this matter the Department is preparing a detailed submission for the Attorney General's office and that should be ready fairly quickly.
Does the Minister agree—
Yes, I agree.
—that this drives a coach and four through the mergers and monopolies legislation. If business enterprise, so much favoured by the State in the past, which has benefited so much from endowment by the State should come before a State agency and misrepresent the actual facts in a matter of some moment in terms of the beef industry and then purely because it suits—
The Deputy is drifting. He should ask brief questions. We are coming to the end of Question Time.
I will signify a full stop each time I ask a question if you wish, a Cheann Comhairle. I have sought my information by way of question. I am asking the Minister if, because a number of years later it suited the corporate and personal interests of the businessmen concerned, Mr. Goodman told the opposite position to the court to that put forward to the Fair Trade Commission at the time? Does that not drive a coach and four through the legislation if that is permitted to happen with impunity?
Yes, Deputy Rabbitte is correct. It is the case that what the lawyers for the individual concerned said in the Master Meats case is different from what was said to the Fair Trade Commission. To disguise beneficial ownership is a serious matter. Deputies appear to be more concerned about what is happening behind me than with my reply. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
