Sir, - The Department of Agriculture's letter (April 3rd) in relation to Fintan O'Toole's valuable articles on the EU fine on Ireland for that Department's breaches of its duties and obligations under the EU Export Refund Regulations is a lame attempt to excuse the inexcusable.
The contention contained in the Department's letter that the EU's "disallowance" could not "legally be recovered" is a contemptible red herring. Whilst it is a fact that the Regulation does not provide for the recovery of the EU's fine of millions of pounds falling on the Irish Exchequer, it does, however, provide for the recovery of export refunds paid".
Article 11 of Regulation 3665/87 lays down the procedure which the Department is bound to apply where a refund has been "unduly paid", even in cases where the security has already been released by the Department as in the instances highlighted by O'Toole's articles. The Regulation states that "the beneficiary shall reimburse the amounts unduly received . . . plus interest". It further states that "the beneficiary shall pay" and that "the payment shall be made within 30 days from the day of receipt of the demand for payment".
The proper application of the Regulation obliges the Department of Agriculture to effect a 30 day demand for payment which, under normal circumstances, would involve the Minister as the Competent Authority issuing a simple letter seeking reimbursement from the exporter concerned.
The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Michael Dowling, at the Public Accounts Committee on March 7th, 1997, confirmed that the Minister has not issued the requisite letter of demand for reimbursement of the refunds involving the four Bureau Veritas certificates accepted by the Department but subsequently proven by the European Commission not to comply with the terms laid down in the Regulation.
Last Tuesday, the Minister for Agriculture, Ivan Yates, in reply to a Parliamentary Question informed me that the provisions of the Regulation are being implemented "in full" by his Department. He also stated that recovery procedures are initiated "in all [cases" where there is sufficient evidence to show that export refunds have been "unduly paid",
Given that the European Commission in relation to the fine conclusively proved that at least four Bureau Veritas certificates accepted by the Department were not in compliance with the Regulation there can be no doubt that the refunds paid on foot of them were therefore "unduly paid". The amount involved is substantial. The Minister for Agriculture, Ivan Yates, has no valid grounds for his refusal to issue the demand for payment referred to in the Regulation to recover the millions lost by the EU and the Irish Exchequer in this matter.
That the Department of Agriculture in 1997 should still continue to breach EU regulations in favour of the usual beneficiary does not altogether surprise me. That this Government should turn a blind eye to facilitate the Minister in doing so astonishes me.
The overriding question remaining in relation to the State's failure to apply the recovery procedure laid down in this regulation is: Are the acts, failures and omissions of the Government in this matter motivated by complacency or by complicity? - Yours, etc.,
Dail Eireann,
Baile Atha Cliath 2.