THE Department of Agriculture has strongly denied any involvement in "concealment" after the Tanaiste, Mr Spring, had to admit that he inadvertently misled the Dail about beef exports to Iraq.
Yesterday, for the first time in his political career, Mr Spring was forced to make an apology to the House, correcting the record over a reply he gave the former leader of the Progressive Democrats, Mr Des O'Malley.
The reply, according to the Tanaiste, was "erroneous in two important respects".
However, while Mr O'Malley acknowledged that no "personal blame" could be attributed to the Tanaiste, he insisted that a "serious difficulty" existed within a small section of the Department of Agriculture.
Following Mr Spring's statement, Mr O'Malley told the Dail that a "small number of people" had for many years "consistently tried to obstruct investigations and conceal certain matters where enormous financial benefit was conferred on one individual".
Saying that he wished to correct the Dail record over a written reply he had made to Mr O'Malley on March 26th, Mr Spring assured him and the House that it had not been his intention to mislead.
Mr O'Malley had asked the Tanaiste about "documentary proof" of Irish beef exports having reached Iraq.
The European Commission pays refunds on beef exported to non EU third countries to bridge the gap between the higher EU price and the world market price. The highest refund rates apply to Middle Eastern destinations and documentary proof of actual import is necessary.
During an audit three years ago, the Commission requested supplementary documents to those provided by the surveillance agency, Bureau Veritas in Paris. Such agencies are given EU authority to provide documentary proof of imports where it is impossible to furnish customs documentation.
Mr Spring stated last month that no fine had been imposed by the European Commission on foot of any certificate. He also added that only one of the authenticated documents had been signed by the relevant official. However, he confirmed yesterday that a fine was imposed and that he had since discovered that two other certificates in the batch bore the same signature.
A spokesman for the Department of Agriculture said last night that these matters had been dealt with in a "very open way" at recent meeting of the Public Accounts Committee.
He rejected Mr O'Malley's suggestion of a coverup, adding that, in this instance, a "minimum [£2.29 million], not a maximum, fine was imposed because of a technical breach in regulations".
The spokesman added: "The main proof of import was provided to the Commission through the surveillance agency, but unfortunately further backup documents were destroyed because of the war in Iraq."