Sir, - I wish to refute the basis of Fintan O'Toole's article last Friday (January 17th), in which he stated that officials of the Department of Agriculture accepted export refund, import proof certificates which they would have known to be "at best dubious". This most serious charge is absolutely false and utterly without foundation.
At the time that the relevant certificates were accepted - 1989/1990 - Bureau Veritas, a reputable worldwide trade surveillance agency, was approved for use in obtaining import proofs by a number of EU Member States. These approvals were monitored by the EU Commission. In 1992, almost three years after acceptance by the department of the certificates, the EU Commission itself employed Bureau Veritas to conduct a major study on the Community's export refund system.
Furthermore, Iraq was formally recognised by the Commission as a destination in respect of which primary customs proofs could not normally be provided and so usually involved secondary proofs. The Commission audited many files which involved secondary proofs and except in the cases which were discussed in the Public Accounts Committee last week did not have problems. The problem with these proofs could not have been known to the Department at the time of their acceptance.
The LCT certification to which Mr O'Toole refers was commissioned by and produced solely for the use of the final Iraqi purchaser of the been. It had nothing to do with the export refunds system and was never seen by the Department at the time the Bureau Veritas certificates were accepted. The existence and content of this certification was made known only in the course of evidence given to the Beef Tribunal in 1993, three to four years after the acceptance by the Department of certificates of import from Bureau Veritas, the parent company of LCT. Such questions as to whether or not beef has been slaughtered under the Halal method are irrelevant in terms of the export refund system, and so not subject to proof submitted to the Department.
The record must be set straight on this matter given that Mr O'Toole's article questions the honesty and integrity of the officials administering the export refund system at the time.
The statement that the department could have "held on to the securities lodged . . . until it was sure that Brussels was satisfied" is misleading. Member states are obliged to process files and release securities within a reasonable time and if they do not the Commission can, and does, impose penalties on member states on grounds of delay alone. Audit/clearance of accounts visits are designed to take place after files have been processed and finalised in this case the first audit report from the Commission was received over three years after the relevant 1989 shipments. - Yours, etc.,
Information Officer,
Department of Agriculture,
Food and Forestry,
Dublin 2.
Fintan O'Toole replies: The Department knew that all meat going to Iraq was supposed to be Halal slaughtered. It also knew that most of the beef actually going to Iraq was intervention beef and could not fulfil these requirements. That it did not, in these circumstances, ask questions about the certification of that beef remains a very costly ommission,