Vol. 403 No. 10
13 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if, in view of the recent report of the EC Court of Auditors which criticised EC agricultural schemes administered in this country for sloppy management, failure to correctly apply spending rules, and the withholding of information from Brussels, he has any plans to review the operation or monitoring of the schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I presume the report to which the Deputy refers is the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 1989 together with the institution's replies. This report was published yesterday but has not yet, of course been considered within my Department. In those circumstances, I could not, of course, be expected to comment on it.
If the Deputy is referring to the unauthorised leaks of preliminary observations from the Court of Auditors, I would remind him that the procedures of the Court of Auditors forbid any disclosure of their observations or of the replies from the national authorities. I and my Department have adhered to these procedures but I am free to say that my Department replied through the Comptroller and Auditor General to these queries and I look forward to seeing the extent to which those replies were taken account of by the court in their annual report.
I might add that our views on the unauthorised leaking have been conveyed clearly through the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Court of Auditors. I am satisfied that the unauthorised disclosure did not arise here.
Perhaps the Minister would apply his mind less to the way in which the report came to light and more to the substance of what was contained in it. Will the Minister comment on the criticisms that were made that the programme paying farmers to leave land fallow was criticised for failing to meet its objectives, that the suckler cow premium programme, worth £20 million, was criticised for failing to meet its objectives——
The Deputy seems to be quoting, which is not in order.
——that there was——
The Deputy is continuing to quote.
I am asking the Minister for his observations and his reply to the criticisms which were widely reported in the public press that there was sloppy management of these schemes, and that information which was necessary for the Commission was withheld from the Commission. Would the Minister now tell us whether or not that was the case and give us his observations on it?
That was not the case. I appeal to Deputy Gilmore of The Workers' Party. What is their intention in this kind of presentation? The procedures of the Court of Auditors that the Deputy is referring to and the rules of the Court of Auditors prevent me from commenting or replying to any preliminary observations or reports whether leaked or otherwise. The Deputy must surely know that if that is the case, I am bound to adhere to those procedures. The Deputy would also know that by spreading innuendo and slander to imply that my failure to reply is somehow evidence of lack of readiness he is damaging the national interest. Our position is totally clear. The Court of Auditors knows that. I will not break the rules by commenting on newspaper reports until the whole matter is absolutely clear.
A Cheann Comhairle——
Deputy Connor. Deputy Connor has been called and will be heard.
Only yesterday an accounting officer from the Minister's Department who appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts refused to answer specific questions which related to this type of question, can the Minister comment on that?
What I can comment on in relation to this question is the fact that there is a very specific rule of which Deputy Deasy will be aware and he can confirm it, that one must not feel free to disclose any views on preliminary observations or reports. I have been asked in this House to do that. I absolutely repudiate that.
Could I just say, Minister——
The Deputy may not say. He may ask a question.
May I ask——
I am calling Deputy Gilmore for a final relevant supplementary.
I thank the Minister for remembering my name. I would remind him that our function here as Deputies representing the public is to put questions to Government Ministers and get answers to them in matters which are of public interest. For a final time, will the Minister say categorically whether or not information was withheld from the Commission as is stated, if there was a criticism of sloppy management, as is stated, and if there was a criticism that some of the programmes did not meet their objective? Can the Minister give us that information here in the national Parliament as it is surely of interest to the public, and the Minister should please not impute motives to the questioner?
Please, Deputy Gilmore, we are having repetition.
The full report was just furnished yesterday. I assure this House that I will deal with that fully and comprehensively in accordance with established procedures. I have not seen it. I hope the House and the Deputy will take that on trust from me. When we consider it in detail there will not be a question of anyone trying to conceal anything. In the meantime I hope Deputy Gilmore will acknowledge that what he is asking me to do as the Minister responsible is to break the rules of the procedures of the Court of Auditors and he is then implying that if I do not I am trying to conceal mishandling or something in my Department. I totally repudiate that. It is unworthy of the Deputy to make that claim.
Question No. 14.
Why did it take you five months to answer?
I have called the next question.
