Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Jun 1994

Vol. 444 No. 7

Written Answers. - GATT Tariff Quota For Beef.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Ceist:

75 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he has satisfied himself as to the accuracy of all the statements contained in the letter dated 5 March 1991, issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs in reply to a request under Article 169 of the Treaty to Rome to the Minister for Foreign Affairs dated 19 December 1990, and signed by a member of the Commission of the European Communities on the subject of the GATT tariff quota for beef, reference A/90/0980.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Ceist:

76 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the steps, if any, the Government has taken to correct the breaches of procedure set out by the Commission of the then European Communities in its letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs dated 19 December 1990, reference A/90/0980, on the subject of the GATT tariff quota for beef.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Ceist:

77 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will give details, in chronological order, of the various steps taken by the Commission and by the Irish Government in relation to the Article 169 Procedure initiated by the Commission by letter dated 19 December 1990, reference A/90/0980 addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and signed by the then Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr. Ray McSharry; the present state of these infringement proceedings under Article 169; and the reason the matter has not yet been disposed of after the passage of more than three and a half years from the initiation of the original infringement letter.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Ceist:

78 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of replies that were received to a letter dated 12 February 1990, from his Department to approximately ten meat companies; and the effect of such replies.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Ceist:

79 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in relation to a letter dated the 12 February 1990, from his Department to approximately ten meat companies, if the indemnities sought by his Department from those meat companies have been provided to the Department; and if he has satisfied himself that they will serve to indemnify fully the Department against any claims made against it in respect of the matters mentioned in the letter.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Ceist:

80 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the amount of money which his Department has paid out to date in damages, including interest and in costs to the plaintiff in a case (details supplied); and the amount of his own costs in the same case to date.

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Mr. J. Walsh)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 75 to 80 inclusive, together.

All of these questions relate directly or indirectly to the legal case mentioned by the Deputy which is pending before the Supreme Court. To the extent that the Deputy's questions relate to issues which impinge upon or are contingent on the outcome of legal proceedings, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.

With regard to the Article 169 proceedings I am satisfied as to the accuracy of the statements contained in the letter dated 5 March 1991 addressed to the Commission of the EC. These proceedings were opened by the Commission in their letter of 19 December 1990 and were suspended on 21 March 1991 pending the outcome of the action initiated by the plaintiff in the Irish courts. In the interim, the Irish Government had written to the Commission on 5 March 1991 refuting the contents of the Commission letter of 19 December 1990.

The matter has not yet been disposed of because, as I have indicated, the infringement proceedings have been suspended pending the outcome of the legal proceedings in the Irish courts on the matter. With regard to the steps taken by my Department to correct the breaches of procedure claimed in the Commission letter of 19 December 1990, the position is that my Department has implemented the ruling of the High Court in so far as it relates to such breaches. However, these matters are under appeal to the Supreme Court.

Eleven companies replied to the letter of 12 February 1990.

Damages, including interest, amounting to £450,596.17 were paid by my Department in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling of 16 July, 1992. No costs have been paid to the plaintiff. Any payment of costs to the plaintiff in this case is subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court case to which I have referred. State costs have not yet been quantified as the case has not been finalised.