Has the attention of the Taoiseach been drawn to a case reported in the Irish Independent where a District Court prosecution taken by the Department of Agriculture and Food against a County Offaly farmer, John Fleury, was thrown out by Mr. Justice Tom Fitzpatrick? The reason I raise it is because of the history of the case, the long-standing disputes covering a series of issues that have existed between the Department and Mr. Fleury and the exceptionally serious and shocking nature of the allegations made by him against departmental staff.

I do not propose to name those individuals in the House at this stage or to repeat in detail the grave claims made by Mr. Fleury. I have met him and, over a few years, have heard his detailed account. I assure the Taoiseach of my conviction that these claims warrant urgent investigation. I first became involved when he asked me to intervene with a financial institution when his family home and farm were at risk because of the oppressive behaviour of the Department towards him.

Essentially Mr. Fleury says that, since 1997 when he succeeded in overturning a decision halting the live cattle export trade, he has been a victim of an official campaign of harassment and interference that has culminated in groundless criminal prosecutions which involved withholding from the defence relevant evidence and, most seriously of all, the falsification of evidence, including documents, against him by officials in the Department of Agriculture and Food.

If his claims are even partially proven in future litigation, the State and relevant civil servants will be liable under civil law for large amounts of compensation to Mr. Fleury and certain individuals may also face serious criminal charges. At this stage, investigations are under way into these matters by the Garda, the Ombudsman and the Competition Authority and preliminary papers are with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I stress that it is not Mr. Fleury who is under investigation by these bodies, but a Department of State headed by one of the Taoiseach's colleagues in Government.

I have listened to what Deputy Rabbitte said and am not aware of the case other than the article I saw this morning. I saw in one of the newspapers a photograph of the said gentleman which was taken following a case yesterday which he won on a technicality that the time it took to bring the case forward was too long. I was not aware of the other allegations. I would be glad to raise them with the Department. It has not given me any report other than this was a case brought against the individual for not complying with brucellosis claims, but the man won his case based on the fact that the procedure took too long. I am not aware of any of the other matters. If I understand the Deputy correctly, he is stating that the man was harassed for some period by the Department officials or inspectors. I will ask the Minister and the Department officials to examine that matter and I will inform the Deputy. I have no facts in the case, but I will be glad to do that.

I do not expect the Taoiseach to have detailed information on this and I accept what he says. I assure the Taoiseach that the claims do not relate to any technicalities. They relate, for example, to tests for brucellosis being altered, evidence being fabricated and other similarly serious matters. If it were an isolated case it would warrant investigation but given that it is not the first concerning some officials – and I emphasise, some officials, because the gentleman himself would be full of praise for the conduct of other officials in the Department of Agriculture and Food – it warrants investigation. It is not the first case; there was Emerald Meats, Goodman and a number of cases that exposed the taxpayer to millions in compensation. While the case against him was dismissed yesterday on the grounds of a three and a half year delay in bringing the case to court, there are 160 summonses outstanding in circumstances that are reminiscent of the summons spree against Frank Shortt, although in this case, not initiated by the Garda but by the Department of Agriculture and Food. If those summonses are dismissed on similar grounds or if the Department simply decides to cut its losses and proceed no further with the matter, then we will be none the wiser as to the history of this affair and to the truth or otherwise of Mr. Fleury's allegations.

I remind the Taoiseach that it has not just arrived in the public domain today; I refer him to an article by the journalist, Justine McCarthy, on 22 February 2003. I am grateful for the Taoiseach's undertaking to inquire with the Department of Agriculture and Food about the background to this case. I would be obliged if he would let me know in due course.

I will certainly do that. My only knowledge is from the case of yesterday. I know the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Rabbitte, would not raise the issue unless he believed the individual in the case, Mr. Fleury. The Deputy is saying these matters were altered and fabricated in these cases and that is a very serious matter which I will take up. If that is true then it is a pity that the case was thrown out on a technicality because otherwise these matters would be tested and it would then have been dealt with in what is perhaps the appropriate place rather than in this House. I will be glad to ask the Minister and through the Minister, his officials, to give us a report on this case. I will undertake to reply directly to Deputy Rabbitte on the issue.