The Minister for Agriculture, Mr Walsh, has rejected allegations made in the Dail last week that he colluded with the Goodman group in the Emerald Meats controversy.
During questions, Mr Walsh insisted he had "no dealings with the beef processor referred to (Mr Larry Goodman). I have met him no more than three times in the past decade, one of which was part of broader industrial delegation and the other in the context of trade-organised business receptions."
The allegations were made last Thursday by Labour's Enterprise, Trade and Employment spokesman, Mr Pat Rabbitte, during exchanges about the manner in which the Department of Agriculture and the Minister dealt with Emerald Meats in a dispute over the allocation of licences for the importation of beef from countries outside the EU.
The dispute ended up in the courts and the Department lost in the High Court and in its appeal to the Supreme Court.
In a sharp attack on the Minister, Mr Rabbitte had accused him of being involved in "crooked decisions" for 10 years, of showing favouritism to the Goodman group and of "unlawful collusion" by the Department with the Goodman group.
Mr Walsh said yesterday there was no "privileged access" to the Minister or the Department, and "I want once and for all to nail this misconception and reject allegations of collusion".
He told Fine Gael's agriculture spokesman, Mr Paul Connaughton, who raised the issue, that all decisions by the Department were on the basis of legal advice from the Attorney General, and from its own counsel.
The Minister said that when the courts found against the Department the costs and damages were "promptly paid" to Emerald Meats. The High Court awarded economic damages of more than £400,000 to Emerald Meats for profits lost by the company as a result of the Department's decision. That amount was paid promptly in 1992.
There was currently no agreement on the amount of general damages due to Emerald Meats. The company had offered to settle the case for £7.5 million in a letter to the Chief State Solicitor's office in January 1998 but there had been no "substantiated statement of claim" by the company and the Department had been advised it should have this before agreeing any settlement.
He said the company had not substantiated its claim despite the lapse of 21/2 years since the Supreme Court judgment.
Mr Connaughton asked why the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, given the High Court ruling which, he said, was "so strong" that there was not the slightest reason for going to the Supreme Court.
Had the Department accepted the High Court ruling, it was his understanding that the damages would be less than £1 million. From the reports he had heard, there were figures being "bandied around" that the taxpayer could be exposed to a bill as high as £12 million or even £15 million.
Mr Walsh said the Department went to the Supreme Court on advice from the Attorney General and from its own counsel. The same advice was given in the rainbow coalition's time.
Mr Connaughton said there were concerns the case could drag on for another three or four years.
Mr Walsh said that in the Emerald Meats case the Department was awaiting a substantiated statement of claim.
