8 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if any immunity from criminal prosecution, in any matter has been granted to a person (details supplied) by or on behalf of his Department or by a body under their aegis in any matter in the past year.

9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if any immunity from criminal prosecution, in any matter, has been granted to a person (details supplied) by or on behalf of his Department or by a body under their aegis in any matter in the past year.

15 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if any immunity from criminal prosecution, in any matter, has been granted to a person (details supplied) by or on behalf of his Department or by a body under their aegis in any matter in the past year.

19 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if any immunity from criminal prosecution, in any matter, has been granted to a person (details supplied) by or on behalf of his Department or by a body under their aegis in any matter in the past year.

23 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if any immunity from criminal prosecution, in any matter, has been granted to a person (details supplied) by or on behalf of his Department or by a body under their aegis in any matter in the past year.

28 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he or his Department or any officer acting on behalf of his Department gave any guarantee of indemnification with regard to criminal prosecution or civil litigation to any of the Goodman group of companies arising from the rescue package negotiated last autumn; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

30 Dr. Lee asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if any immunity from criminal prosecution, in any matter, has been granted to a person (details supplied) by or on behalf of his Department or by a body under their aegis in any matter in the past year.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 9, 15, 19, 23, 28 and 30 together.

Neither I nor any official of my Department nor any body under the aegis of my Department gave any immunity or indemnification from criminal prosecution or civil litigation to the Goodman group of companies or to any person either arising out of the rescue package negotiated last autumn or otherwise.

My role in relation to the Examiner's proposals negotiated last autumn was confined to making a decision under the Mergers, Take-overs and Monopolies (Control) Acts, 1978 and 1987 as to whether the acquisition by the Bank Group of a 60 per cent interest in the Goodman group should be allowed.

This was made clear in my reply to questions on 26 February 1991, Volume 405 Columns 1441-1446.

Can the Minister say whether the Government, as distinct from his Department, gave any such undertaking?

No.

A good answer.

Did they not ask?

The Government as a Government did not and that is it.

May I ask the Minister if his Department or indeed any other Department were in any way involved in structuring the deal which was struck with the international banks and, consequently, if he is in a position to say what undertakings were given in that deal by the banks separate from any involvement by the Government or his Department?

I am aware of the terms of the examiner's proposals which were subsequently approved by the High Court. They were submitted to me for approval under the mergers Acts but not under any other heading or for any other reason. I am aware that there is a form of civil indemnification in one particular paragraph of the agreed proposals, but it is not unusual — and I would point this out to the Deputy — for parties who are engaged in civil litigation to compromise civil proceedings between themselves, and they are perfectly entitled to do that. That, of course, does not extend to criminal proceedings because the only one who can compromise criminal proceedings on behalf of the State is the DPP and there is no evidence that he has done so or had been asked to do so.

Would the Minister elaborate on civil indemnification and explain to the House which parties were involved and to whom the indemnification was given?

The parties involved were the banks and what were called the relevant persons and GI and LG.

Apart entirely from the proposals put to the Minister in terms of his responsibility in the matter, is it possible that there was a term of the agreement, stated or unstated, that may have involved an agreement between the banks and the principal here concerning subsequent prosecutions on any matter that might have preceded that deal being struck?

So far as prosecution is concerned, no private company or individual has any right or capability to make any arrangement whatsoever in regard to that. Prosecution is a matter for the State. The State act through the DPP to whom all the powers are delegated and not to anybody else. The DPP and the DPP alone, is the only one who could make arrangements of that kind and I have no reason to believe he did.

I understand the position to be that there was a threat, or more than a threat, by the banks to sue for the recovery of their debt from Goodman but that they put that aside on the basis of the understanding reached between their companies and the Goodman Group. Is that correct?

That was the whole point of the examinership, I suppose. The banks were owed approximately £550 million but they agreed not to sue and instead put this package together.

Is that the only commitment?

That is normal in the compromise of civil proceedings.