Because Ballywalter Meats were not the importers under the regulations. Therefore, they were not entitled to it.
I want to draw the attention of the Committee to what the Accounting Officer said in page 48, under the heading page 35. Obviously he is commenting on what I had to say. The paragraph reads:
Since the processors were not in a position to supply the import proofs required by the EU regulations because they were held by Emerald Meats, the Department sought and obtained from customs copies of the supporting documents and associated them with the applications from the meat processors. In so doing, the Department took the view that having taken a decision to treat all processors as the importers, it should also take reasonable steps to enable that decision to be implemented.
When analysed, this statement is a very serious matter. They knew these people were not the importers. They knew the import documents were held by Emerald Meats who were the importers. Obviously, they could not get the import documents from Emerald Meats so they went to the customs, got copies of them and then submitted them to Brussels, with the applications from the processors. That sentence may seem innocent enough on first reading it, but it contains some very deep implications. This is the sort of thing some traders might do in the heat of trade. However, for a Department of State to do it on behalf of certain people, to the detriment of others, seems to me to be quite extraordinary.
On that case, I should draw the Committee's attention to the fact that on 7 March 1997 in evidence to this Committee, the then Accounting Officer, Mr. Dowling, when it was put to him that he had misled the Committee on a previous occasion in what he said in regard to the Emerald Meats case, replied, "Had I been asked, I would have corrected my error." He went on to repeat this later when he said, "Had I been asked, I would have explained that it was an error." It is not satisfactory when one gives evidence which is wrong to this Committee, and it comes to his notice that it is wrong, that he is not prepared to correct it unless the correct question is asked of him by a member of the Committee.
At the outset, the Chairman mentioned the concern of trades union representing people working in the Department of Agriculture and Food. I got two letters from unions, signed by a number of people, expressing concern and outrage. They stated that it is very unfair to brand the whole Department and all its employees for the shortcomings of a few people. There is evidence that I have never sought to suggest that there was impropriety on the part of the vast majority of people working in the Department but there is impropriety on the part of some. I will not be deflected from saying it and I am not alone in saying it. The public service is one of the better places one could approach for an opinion on a matter like this. I will quote from the March edition of the Public Sector Times, which is a Civil Service newspaper. It reprinted part of an article originally printed in the Administration , a journal published by the Institute of Public Administration which is responsible for the training of public servants. It reads as follows:
The Department of Agriculture and Food paid the last instalment of £536,000 in court costs to a Dublin company, Emerald Meats Limited, arising from the Supreme Court, upholding an earlier High Court decision that the company had been the victim of unlawful collusion between the Department and a number of beef processing companies. The Supreme Court had found gross breaches of Irish European law by the Department. This case, and that of the AIB scandal, indicate that even with the SMI and the general moves to more effective and responsive public services there is a need for constant scrutiny of the practices and procedures of Government Departments and offices.
I hope it disposes of the suggestion that I am anti union or whatever else people working in the Department feel is the significance of this matter. I, along with many other people, share their concern about this matter.
The current review of the Department was mentioned earlier. It was initiated as a result of our meeting with the Secretary General on 5 January when he called for a forensic audit of the Department. We have not got that. The review is entitled A Systems Review of the Department of Agriculture and Food but that is a long way from a forensic audit. It is unusual to discover that the Department's officials are helping to conduct the systems review. It appears from the response given by some people who wanted to give evidence to the group concerned that they are not interested in the kind of things that were discussed at our meeting of 5 January. They are primarily concerned with reviewing the computer systems and matters of that kind in the Department. They want to see if these systems will be able to cope with various work and problems that may arise in the future.
I was heartened by what the Secretary-General said after the accounting officer and I had concluded at our last meeting. My enthusiasm for a forensic audit has disappeared because we are not getting that.
The accounting officer remarked on page 35 that "the Department has no record of a second official at Rathkeale of a second official signing other people's names to official documents". This is carefully done. His report would have been produced about two weeks after our hearing on 5 January. He did not say that the Department did not know there was a second official. He simply says that it has no record of a second official signing other people's names. I can give him the name of the second official who was John Vaughan.