Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Apr 1997

Vol. 478 No. 2

Priority Questions. - Infringement Proceedings.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Question:

9 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if the official of his Department serving at the Permanent Representation of Ireland in Brussels who is personally currently handling the Government's response to the Commission's Article 169 Infringement Proceedings against Ireland in the Emerald Meats matter, is the same official who was involved with documentation in his Department in February 1991 which the State relied upon in the Irish courts in the Emerald Meats case, recently finally decided by the Supreme Court; and if so, the reason therefor. [10942/97]

Article 169 infringement proceedings referred to by the Deputy have been in abeyance since their suspension by the EU Commission in January 1991. Responsibility for handling the Government's response to Article 169 proceedings is discharged in Dublin. The main responsibility of the Permanent Representation in Brussels in the matter is to act as a conduit between my Department and the European Commission and this responsibility is discharged by the Agriculture Counsellor in the Representation who has never had any involvement in the court action. One of the other officials of my Department currently employed in the Permanent Representation was involved in the documentation relating to the Emerald Meats case, but the official in question is not personally handling the involvement of the Permanent Representation in this matter.

Is the Minister aware I have in my possession a letter from the Commission DG6 signed by Mr. Gui Legras, Director General, stating that the official concerned who dealt with this documentation replied to a number of letters from that directorate general seeking information about this case? He forwarded in particular a copy of the judgement of the Supreme Court delivered on 3 March 1997. This is the same official who dealt with the documentation in the case and apparently has admitted to the Garda altering that documentation, to the detriment of the plaintiff in the case concerned.

I am not aware of the correspondence the Deputy has, but the person in question would be merely acting in the same way as a postal conduit. The key decisions in regard to Article 169 proceedings and others are taken at a very senior level in the Department. The person in question is an assistant principal officer. There is a principal officer in the Permanent Representation, Mr. Michael Corry, who is not the person referred to, but I have been assured the person to whom the Deputy refers does not make substantive decisions. They are made in Dublin.

I am glad the Minister has no difficulty in identifying the person concerned, which is a significant matter. Irrespective of whether the important decisions relating to this matter are made in Dublin, is there not a gross conflict of interest in that somebody who was involved in this matter in a dubious fashion in 1991 is now handling, in whatever capacity, the State's representation in respect of the proceedings the Commission has brought against Ireland? Since there are 70 or 80 officials in the Permanent Representation surely somebody else could deal with this matter.

On the agriculture side there are four or five officials. The name I mentioned is not the person to whom the Deputy referred, he is the person in charge of the agriculture division. I looked at this file this morning and, in regard to the incident where the papers were altered, there was no attempt by the person to disguise the change. This was supplementary data sent in a few days after closing date. The person kept a copy of the original on the file and on the top changed the date. A valid application came in from a meat company on time, but the company omitted to include details such as the origin and destination of the beef. That information came in on supplementary paper and it was on the supplementary paper the official in question made the alteration.

The senior officials who administer this matter on behalf of the EU do not consider this to be defacing or forging of documents. I am told there would have been other cases where a similar helpful attitude was taken to deal with what would be considered as red tape. The issue of Emerald Meats, where the Department was found in the wrong — I accept the Supreme Court ruling and we are not taking that matter further — is entirely separate from what is called the Ballywalter case, to which the Deputy referred. Irrespective of one's opinion of the Ballywalter case, the AP in question is not handing any dealings involving the EU Commission and Ireland. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest.

I take issue with the Minister's comments. Is the Minister aware that, irrespective of his reading of the file, only one application for the licence was received by 25 January 1991, the final date for receipt of applications? A number of applications, dated 5 February 1991, were received on 6 February and the official concerned backdated them, thus conspiring against the plaintiffs in this case. The findings of the High Court and the Supreme Court are unanimous in that regard. This was an act of gross impropriety on the part of the official, presumably done with the connivance of his superiors. That is different from what the Minister outlined to the House. Backdating a document by ten or 11 days is not a minor clarification. The date stamp on the Department's original document has apparently been defaced to make it more difficult to read.

The Deputy and I are talking about two different files. The official, who is an AP in Brussels, dealt with the Ballywalter application. He was not involved in the incident to which the Deputy referred concerning Emerald Meats. The dates in that case are different from those in the Ballywalter case. In the Ballywalter case a meat factory submitted an application before the end of April 1991, but did not supply answers to all the questions asked. A few days later supplementary data were submitted, on which the date was altered but photocopies were taken of both dates. The Ballywalter incident took place 12 months after the events which led to the Emerald Meats court case and is not the subject of the Article 169 inquiry. The gentleman in Brussels was not involved in that aspect of the Emerald Meats case and the file I saw this morning did not relate to Emerald Meats. It related to the Ballywalter application.

I have copies of the Ballywalter documents before me which I will submit to the Minister. He should look at the alteration and tell the House whether he approves of a person in his Department backdating the date of an application from 5 February to 25 January to suggest the application was received on time.

I would be delighted to receive data on this matter from the Deputy, but the application on the file I saw this morning was received on time. Supplementary data were not included on the application, but my Department ruled that there was ample precedent for taking such a benign view of a marginal gap in data. That is the matter with which the officer in question was involved. The Emerald Meats case is a separate matter and the Supreme Court has found the Department guilty in that respect. I have submitted a four page letter to the Deputy on this matter.Neither I nor the officials in my Department, as far as I am aware, are covering up on this matter.I am anxious that the truth is told, whether at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts, in this House or through correspondence.If the Deputy feels I am not supplying accurate information, I will be happy to consider the matter further.

Top
Share