Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Feb 1997

Vol. 474 No. 4

Priority Questions. - EU Beef Disallowances.

Robert Molloy

Question:

13 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the amount recovered to date from the beneficiaries relative to sums disallowed and lost by the Irish taxpayer as a result of his Department's breaches of EU regulations on beef. [3269/97]

The possibility of recovering EU disallowances which related to breaches of EU regulations in the beef sector was examined by a group of senior officials from my Department, the Department of Finance and the Office of the Attorney General assisted by an independent legal adviser. The group submitted its report to the Minister for Finance and to me in March 1996.

The legal advice obtained by the group and endorsed by it was that the disallowances levied on Ireland did not of themselves give any entitlement to me to recover any part of the disallowances from companies which may have featured in the case made against Ireland by the Commission. Any proceedings brought against companies must be based upon a recognised cause of action in Irish law and be proven in accordance with the applicable rules of evidence in civil proceedings. In accordance with advice received it was decided to take proceedings in two cases relating to AIBP — Shannon Meats and Rathkeale. These proceedings have not yet come to a court hearing.

What was the amount disallowed and how many companies were involved?

The amounts disallowed for 1990 and 1991 — the EU beef fines — were of a general nature. They were not applicable to any particular company but were fines on Ireland as the agent. They were about £50 million for storage and £18.5 million for the multiple tendering. The figure had been much higher but we got a mitigation of about £20 million. We are appealing to the European Court of Justice and we remain optimistic of being successful, particularly with regard to multiple tendering. A number of other member states who were similarly fined are also appealing.

Top
Share