I am conscious of the fact that when we have priority questions we should be allowed to deal with them in full. I have indicated that I am taking a number of questions together.
In recent weeks my Department have, in co-operation with the Customs, been removing samples of beef from traders around the country for inspection at a Dublin cold store. The meat concerned is from stocks held under the 1988 Aids for Private Storage Scheme. The inspections are part of the programme of monitoring engaged in by the Department in their day-to-day implementation of the CAP which I outlined in reply to a number of parliamentary questions on 12 April 1989. The European Community services were not involved but they were informed of the nature and extent of the operation. They were afforded the opportunity of observing the Department's examination of the samples. They did not participate in the examination of the samples but expressed their satisfaction with the Department's arrangements.
Under the 1988 APS scheme some 133,000 tonnes of beef were placed under contract. Given the scarce staff resources and the large tonnage of beef involved it was decided that the necessarily detailed examination of the samples could be most effectively carried out at one central location. This ensures a standard approach to the examination procedure, protects the confidentiality of the results and enables the operation to be carried out with the beef in the secure custody of the Department. A programme was drawn up under which it was decided in advance which firms and individual contracts would be sampled. This programme was strictly adhered to even where the beef had been removed from store for export. In total seven firms, including all of the APS participants with large stocks, had samples removed from pre-selected contracts. The seven companies from which samples were taken account for 95 per cent of the beef stored under the 1988 APS scheme.
Because samples were being removed from stores to a secure central location for examination, the co-operation of the firms concerned was sought without any prior indication being given as to the stores, contracts, or samples involved or indeed to the scale of the sampling to be carried out. Local Department and customs officers were not given details of the contracts or samples selected. The samples were removed from 11 stores around the country and, in the case of one firm, samples were also taken from an export consignment. A total of 75 tonnes was taken and is now being thawed out and examined. Because of the very substantial quantity of material involved, examination of the samples is not yet completed but preliminary indications are that all of the relevant regulations have not been complied with in every case.
The complete results of the examination will be communicated to the EC Commission and where appropriate follow-up action as necessary will be taken strictly in accordance with the practices I outlined in my reply on 12 April.
I should again emphasise that these actions are part of my Department's ongoing control measures to ensure that the provisions of the CAP are implemented in an even-handed manner which safeguards European Community funds. In addition to the permanent presence of Department officials at all meat export plants appropriate checks are of course also carried out in respect of all European Community measures.