Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll:

No. Let me talk about the appeal that we did not defend. In the case of one of the individuals who appeared before the committee, he was convicted of a very serious offence. Again, we are speaking about the use of illegal products, in this case in pigs. Pigmeat is very widely eaten in this country and everybody has sausages and rashers for breakfast. We are talking about illegal products, a carcinogenic and a genotoxic. We are talking about a product that the EU decided was a cancer-causing agent. We are talking about something that was genotoxic. Thalidomide was genotoxic. This is serious stuff. Let us be very clear about this. This is why I am adamant on certain issues. In this particular case, he was charged and convicted. To be perfectly honest, it was an open and shut case. It went to appeal and we did not defend the appeal. The reason we did not defend the appeal has nothing to do with the substance of the case. It was because in the intervening period the Supreme Court had decided the Minister did not have the right under the legislation to make and amend regulations. It was a legal point. Therefore, the legal basis on which the conviction had been secured no longer existed. We could not defend the appeal. I want to make it very clear the decision had nothing to do with the substance of the case. When the substance of the case was tried in court he was found guilty.