Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 8 Dec 1998

Vol. 498 No. 1

Written Answers. - Departmental Staff.

Desmond J. O'Malley

Ceist:

215 Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the disciplinary action, if any, taken against officials of his Department responsible for (a) the negligence and breach of EU regulations which led to a fine of £70 million being imposed on Ireland and (b) the breaches of the law and collusion and conspiracy with the Goodman organisation unlawfully to deprive Emerald Meats Limited of licences to which it was entitled as found by the High and Supreme Courts. [26859/98]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mr. Walsh)

The disallowance, £18 million approximately, in respect of multiple tendering arose from a difference between my Department and the European Commission on the interpretation of EU legislation. My Department's interpretation was shared by a number of member states which were also subjected to disallowance. These member states, with Ireland, appealed the Commission's decision to the European Court of Justice which upheld the Commission's interpretation.

The disallowances of £50 million in respect of beef intervention storage were applied on the basis of the Commission's assessment of weaknesses in the system in 1990 and 1991. Ireland has acknowledged that the beef intervention control system was severely over-stretched in 1990 and 1991, when some 470,000 tonnes of beef at a value of £750 million were taken into intervention over a short period in an emergency operation. This was done to prevent a total collapse of the Irish beef market at a time of major international market disruption. This was fully acknowledged in the report of the beef tribunal. Ireland unsuccessfully contested, up to European Court level, some of the bases of the Commission's findings and the extent of the disallowances applied.

The immediate improvements in the intervention control systems begun in 1991 were recognised by the conciliation body and the Commission, and no disallowances under Article 8 of Regulation 729/70 have been imposed in respect of beef intervention controls since 1991. The control system has been continually and significantly upgraded since then and intake levels have been considerably lower. This work has been endorsed in the many visits of Commission officials and the Court of Auditors, and in the reports of the certification body appointed under the EU process of accreditation of paying agencies.

Disciplinary action against an individual official in the Department did not arise on the grounds that the weaknesses revealed were primarily of a system nature and the intake situation faced in 1990 and, to a lesser extent, in 1991 was unprecedented.

The circumstances relating to the second case referred to by the Deputy have been outlined in recent replies to questions. They relate to the decision by my Department to allocate import licences to a number of meat processors rather than to the company he refers to. This decision was taken in good faith and was supported by legal advice from the office of the Attorney General. It is important in this connection to make it clear that there was no "collusion or conspiracy" on the part of any officer of my Department.

I am satisfied that while my Department's interpretation of the relevant EU law was subsequently found to be incorrect, and while there were shortcomings in the administrative procedures and customer relations practices employed, disciplinary action is not warranted.