THE Minister for Agriculture said he would shed no tears if Mr Larry Goodman withdrew from the beef industry.

"As far as I am concerned, he is the major culprit in the tarnishing of the beef industry and the damage that is being done to its international reputation," said Mr Yates.

The Minister's strongly worded attack on Mr Goodman was made at Question Time in reply to Mr Des O'Malley (PD, Limerick East). Mr Yates revealed that legal proceedings had been issued on Wednesday for the recovery of funds relating to Rathkeale AIBP.

Similar steps relating to Shannon Meats Cannery would be taken in a matter of days.

The Minister said he was making his remarks about Mr Goodman, having been Minister for 15 months and "knowing what I now know in relation to Mr Goodman in relation to the very exasperating experience that I have had in files relating to intervention and export refunds..."

He found himself in the totally invidious situation of having go around the corridors in Brussels trying to defend the good name of Ireland because of the malpractice of the past by not only Mr Goodman but other people in the beef industry. He found this totally unacceptable.

He would be unrelenting in doing everything he could to discharge the functions of his office and the wider legal services of the Government "to pursue Mr Goodman, fully, properly and effectively".

He said his ministerial record would defy any inference that he had acted other than rigorously against Mr Goodman and the Goodman group. There had been "rigorous, relentless and ruthless pursuit" of Mr Goodman and his company over and above any previous Minister.

Stressing that he would also take any other proceedings which were necessary, Mr Yates said he had written to the Director of Public Prosecutions to see if he might bring any case in relation to statements made about the Rathkeale case. He had authorised raids on a particular Goodman plant in the Border region relating to allegations of abuse in recent times concerning illegal substances.

Mr O'Malley asked the Minister if he was aware that five employees, managers and others, at Rathkeale, had been convicted on pleading guilty to conspiring with a person or persons unknown" to defraud the Minister for Agriculture. In view of his welcome statement to the Dail, could Mr Yates take steps to ensure that the "person or persons unknown" were prosecuted, because the five did not gain anything from the conspiracy.

Mr Yates said he was deeply concerned about the case. There is public concern that people who would be construed to be beneficiaries have not been brought to book and before the courts.

As far as he was concerned, this was a matter for the DPP, and he had written in the strongest terms to him indicating that all the facilities of his Department, or any other information that could assist in the direction to which Mr O'Malley had alluded, would be available. The DPP had replied in terms which did not encourage him to believe that there would be further prosecutions.

On the Rathkeale case, he said the Department had written to the Attorney General in October 1994, and sent a reminder the following month. The Department was advised in February 1995 that a barrister had been appointed. The barrister was sent several reminders by the Chief State Solicitor's office, but some considerable time later he said he was too busy.

Subsequently, another barrister was appointed and he had issued the proceedings against the Rathkeale plant. Mr O'Malley asked if he intended taking proceedings in respect of "irregularities, frauds and misappropriations" by those companies in factories other than Rathkeale.

Pressed further by Mr O'Malley, the Minister said it was factually incorrect and untrue to say that there would be no EU fine for irregularities in the beef industry if the Government had proposed recoverability. It was not open to him to institute proceedings other than in the instance of recovering specific losses relating to specific breach of contracts under the EU rules.

Mr O'Malley said that the first proceedings had been initiated on Wednesday, and this had happened because he had tabled a Dail question.