Vol. 535 No. 4
54 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources when it is expected that the appeal against the decision of the EU Commission regarding the payment of £6.5 million in grants allegedly improperly paid to Coillte Teoranta will be heard by the European Court of Justice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12849/01]
I presume the Deputy is referring to the challenge to the European Commission's decision to disallow forestry premium payments of £3.8 million to Coillte Teoranta, lodged by Ireland with the European Court of Justice. I am advised that it can take as long as two years from the commencement of proceeding before a judgment is obtained. The proceedings in relation to Coillte commenced in September 2000. While I am happy to inform the Deputy of the time table, I am advised that the case is sub judice and it would, therefore, not be appropriate for me to discuss it further.
In response to a question I raised on 23 November 2000, it was indicated that a figure of £3.8 million was involved. All reports, including those in The Irish Times and the Irish Independent, indicate that it is £6.5 million. Will the Minister of State clarify this aspect? Is the EU claiming that we unjustifiably received £3.8 million or £6.5 million? What is the interest cost on the money being reclaimed by the EU? That is not sub judice.
The amount of money sought by the EU Commission from us is £3.8 million. That is the sum it paid to Coillte Teoranta. Without wishing to incur the wrath of the Attorney General, it should be said that Coillte was included in our submission to the Commission when forestry premia were first introduced. At that time the Commission did not suggest that Coillte should not be paid. The Department proceeded to pay Coillte in the same way it paid others who engaged in planting.
In 1999 the Commission took a different view and since then the Department has not paid Coillte. Perhaps that is where the figure of £6.5 million arose. The Commission takes the view it is owed £3.8 million but had we continued to pay Coillte to date the figure would probably rise to £6.5 million. On the basis of what happened at the outset it is our intention to continue to make a case for Coillte in this instance.
Has the original allocation been drawn down? Perhaps this is where the public confusion arises. If the money has been drawn down by the Department and not allocated to the organisations to whom it is supposed to go, we will be charged substantial interest on the original funding of £44 million.
The Commission is seeking from us a sum of £3.8 million. That sum was paid by my Department to Coillte between 1993 and 1999. We ceased to pay Coillte since 1999 after the Commission indicated it was arguing against the allocation of the funding. If we win the case the remaining funding will be paid to Coillte. If we lose, the cost to the Exchequer will be £3.8 million, being the sum to be repaid to the Commission.
