asked the Taoiseach if he will clarify comments he made in Dáil Éireann on 15 March 1989 (details supplied) regarding a promised statement from the Minister for Agriculture and Food on allegations of illegal practices in the meat industry; if the statement issued later that day by the Minister for Agriculture and Food complied with the undertaking he gave Dáil Éireann; if his attention has been drawn to the grave public dissatisfaction with the Minister's statement; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

9.

asked the Taoiseach whether, at the time he informed Dáil Éireann on the morning of 15 March 1989 that the Minister for Agriculture and Food would issue a statement that day concerning the allegations made about the affairs of a company (details supplied) he had seen the text of the statement issued that day or had approved of its contents.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together. The statement issued by the Minister on 15 March 1989 had not been prepared prior to my departure that morning to the United States to meet President Bush, members of his Administration and of Congress. I did not, therefore, see the text. I was aware of the Minister's intention to deal as fully as possible with the matter.

May I ask the Taoiseach——

Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla.

The Taoiseach said he did not see the statement before it was issued. In his statement to the Dáil the Taoiseach said "Lest that particular allegation go by default"— meaning the allegation about the £1 million fine —"I should like to explain to the House that the Minister for Agriculture and Food will today be issuing a statement covering the matter". As the Minister's statement did not, in fact, cover the matter, could I ask the Taoiseach if he gave instructions to the Minister as to precisely what should be in the statement and specifically that it should cover the matter of the £1 million fine?

That did not arise. The Minister is responsible for statements affecting his Department. As I have explained in my reply the statement had not even started to be prepared before I left to go to the United States on official business. Therefore, I did not see it. It is the responsibility of the Minister to issue any statements which govern his Department because he has access to all the facts. I was endeavouring to be helpful to the Dáil by indicating that the Minister would make a statement on the matter that day. Now it appears I am to be attacked in the Dáil because I tried to be helpful and because I did not see a statement because I went to America.

It is because the statement——

I am calling Deputy Desmond O'Malley who has a question tabled on the subject. I will call the Deputy again if necessary. Deputy O'Malley is now in possession.

In view of the fact that the statement which was finally issued at about 6 o'clock that evening was inadequate and misleading, to put it at its mildest, did the Taoiseach not feel that it was necessary that an appropriate full statement would be made which would give the facts in relation to the matter in question and set them out fully and does he not feel that at this stage either the Minister, or somebody on behalf of the Government, should make a full statement on the matter which would not have the features of the statement made by the Minister for Agriculture.

Later in this Question Time the Minister in response to a written question will be issuing a very full statement in the matter.

Given that within 20 minutes or half an hour of the statement being eventually released by the Minister for Agriculture, I had established that there were three material facts which were not in the statement and the Minister confirmed this on the telephone, namely, that the matter had been referred to the Garda authorities because of irregularities, which was not in the statement; secondly, that the figures indicated by Deputy Desmond in the morning were indicative of the figures and that the Minister was unable to clarify the status of the Garda investigation, may I ask the Taoiseach as the head of Government and as the person ultimately responsible for the actions of his Minister if he felt or if he now believes that the statement given that day in his absence was an adequate statement in the circumstances?

I have indicated that it was the intention of the Minister to give a fully adequate statement. The Deputy will understand — and the Minister will deal with this later in reply to questions — that in matters of this kind there is a well established practice and procedure of confidentiality with regard to the affairs of individuals and private business firms. The Minister had to have regard to these matters. As I understand what the Deputy is saying to me, he is telling me that later on that day the Minister gave him as much information as he could about the matter personally.

There are a number of Deputies offering. I am afraid I may not be able to facilitate them all. If they would be brief I will call them but we cannot debate this matter now. I am calling Deputy Mac Giolla.

I do not wish to go into any debate on the matter. I am simply trying to establish the correct response to the question which I have set down. In that regard following on what the Taoiseach said in the Dáil that the statement would deal with that particular matter which related to the £1 million fine, I am asking the Taoiseach if he had some discussion with the Minister before he left indicating what particular matters should be contained in the statement, particularly the matter which had been referred to in the Dáil?

I did not have any particular discussion with the Minister on the matter except that I understood from him that he was making a statement which would be as adequate as possible. I can tell the House that when I was speaking in the Dáil that morning I was not aware of the letter which had issued on 19 January.That letter would not normally be brought to my attention because the administration of these schemes is entirely an administrative matter in the Department of Agriculture. The general situation with all Ministers is that these matters are left to be dealt with by the departmental officials, by the customs authorities and by the Garda if necessary. There is certainly no intervention by Ministers in any of these details nor is there any intervention or even knowledge of these details by the Taoiseach or his Department.

May I ask the Taoiseach in view of the fact that two subsequent clarifications of the Minister's statement were necessary by himself if he now accepts that the original statement was inadequate? Did the original statement have Cabinet approval?

Well, as I left for the United States almost immediately after announcing to the Dáil that the Minister would make a statement, and was not back for some days, I think the Deputy could infer from that correctly that there was no Cabinet meeting about that matter.

May I ask the Taoiseach why he made his statement to the Dáil on the morning of 15 March when for ten months the Court of Auditors of the European Community had not been furnished by the Government with an explanation into the irregularities which I was finally forced to bring before this House?

First of all, I want to point out to the Deputy that it is not the duty of the Government to bring these irregularities to the attention of the Commission or the Court of Auditors or anybody else. It is the duty of the official side, the administration of the Department of Agriculture. The Deputy cannot have it both ways.

Let us hear the Taoiseach. Please, Deputy Desmond.

The Deputy cannot have it both ways. He cannot go around muttering about political intervention in these matters and at the same time blame the Government for not doing something in regard to them.

I have asked the Taoiseach a question and I will repeat the question.

Repetition is a luxury we cannot afford at Question Time. I am sorry, Deputy Desmond, repetition is not in order.

I will repeat the question to the Taoiseach for clarification of the point he has made. In May 1988 the Court of Auditors brought those——

The Deputy is imparting information rather than seeking it.

He now knows nothing about it.

Please, Deputy Desmond, we are having repetition.

I ask you now when did you finally send the report to the Court of Auditors?

I never sent a report to the Court of Auditors.

You sent the report last week.

Deputy Desmond, there is no need for disorder. The Deputy will have to restrain himself.

We can deal with this matter in an orderly fashion.

The Ceann Comhairle is covering up again.

Deputy Desmond I heard that remark. I want you to withdraw it unreservedly, otherwise, you will leave this House. I am asking you to withdraw unreservedly the inference——

I have your letters of reply to me which I will repeat.

Are you still implying that there was something irregular about my decision in the matter.

You did the same to Deputy Spring.

Deputy Desmond I must ask you again to withdraw unreservedly the reflection upon the Chair.

I would not wish to be in any way offensive.

Deputy Desmond I will not accept that kind of treatment from you.

I am also asking for an unreserved withdrawal of your accusation that I told an untruth about a matter of which——

I did not hear that remark.

——I had no knowledge.

I trust Deputy Spring will bring this matter back to order.

I will try to be very orderly and I will try to be helpful.

I do not intend to let this matter rest. This matter is primarily a matter for the Minister for Agriculture and Food who has all the information about it and who will give a full statement later in this Question Time dealing with all the matters. Some of the Deputies are endeavouring for their own political purposes to involve me in a matter about which I have no official knowledge and for which I have no official responsibility, a matter——

You should know about it.

——the details of which are a matter for the administration of the Department of Agriculture and Food.

I am now stating categorically that I totally reject Deputy Desmond's allegation. It is false and he knows it is untrue. It is made here for the lowest, meanest despicable political reason.

Tell that to the Commission and the Court of Auditors. They do not believe you. You are covering up.

Who was in Government when all this happened?

Exactly. Who was in Government?

I am trying to be helpful. I was very surprised when I heard the Taoiseach's remarks on 15 March when he with full responsibility accused Deputy Desmond of trying to sabotage the beef industry, particularly in the knowledge I had of the letter that had been sent to the Goodman company. I was amazed that the Taoiseach would actually say that a full statement would clear this matter up.

We must proceed by way of questions.

I was relieved to be informed today that the Taoiseach knew nothing about these matters which are ultimately his responsibility as Taoiseach. Will the Taoiseach now withdraw the remark he made on 15 March which was made without the Taoiseach being in full possession of all the facts?

What statement are you talking about?

The statement you made in relation to Deputy Desmond on 15 March——

No, certainly not.

——should be withdrawn because the Taoiseach did not have all the facts and the Taoiseach is now saying that the Minister for Agriculture and Food is going to take all the responsibility because he does not want to have anything to do with it.

Order.

What I said about Deputy Desmond was that he was recklessly irresponsible with regard to the best interests of the beef trade——

That is not what you said.

Not alone are you politically despicable, but you have not even the good manners to listen.

Deputy Desmond I am now proceeding with Question No. 10.

Do not shift the blame to Michael O'Kennedy or to the officials.

Talk to your Minister. Do it the decent way.

I am calling the next question.

The simple matter is that these benighted Deputies are consumed with jealousy at the success of this Government——

Humbug.

It is taxpayers' money.

——and they are dabbling in the lowest form of politics. They know full well that there is nothing in this whole matter. They went away on their Easter holidays leaving this thing in the air, and it is all that they can come back to now in spite of all the problems that are facing the Government.

You were the one leaving it in the air.

Question No. 10, please.

What is the Taoiseach's next move, now that he has buried his Minister for Agriculture and Food?

Order, Question No. 10, please.

Deputy Doyle is not helping matters.

I have already said——

The lady might at least have manners.

You have not even the manners to answer letters.

I have already said in this House that I have complete faith, trust and confidence in the integrity of the Minister for Agriculture and Food.

You had better keep saying it. You buried him this afternoon.

I say it again today. I decry and deplore your despicable efforts to make some political capital out of nothing.

You have just buried your Minister.

Question No. 10, please.

You said all of the things about him today, not us.

What about the statement in The Irish Times of 21 March?

It shows how politically bankrupt you are that you have to resort to this sort of thing.

On to the next question, please.

You have not a constructive idea in your heads——

Question No. 10——

——fooling around with rumours and innuendo and falsehoods.

Why did you disown him so thoroughly in that statement.

The Progressive Democrats are supposed to bring a new light and enlightenment into politics. You are worse than all of them, and that is saying something.

Question No. 10.

I must advise the House that I called the next question some time ago. Question No. 10, please.