Sir, - Fintan O'Toole's article concerning beef export refund disallowances (March 21st) contained a number of major inaccuracies. This Department did not accept proofs of import "showing that beef had been imported into Iraq when. . . it actually ended up in Poland, Romania, Gabon, Lebanon and the Canary Islands. . ." In fact in all cases we were notified by the exporter of the diversions (permissible under the EU regulations) and received import proofs for the actual destinations. In each case, and for various reasons, this department either disallowed the export refunds and imposed penalties or has held the securities pending further investigation.
The letter written in September 1989 by R. G. Cullen, director of veterinary services, does not refer to the Bureau Veritas certificates, but to a request for new veterinary certification, which was refused. This department subsequently disallowed the total export refunds on the beef concerned and recovered this from the exporter, plus penalties.
The letter of August 1991 to the Department does not refer to Bureau Veritas certificates, but to Gabonese import proofs. The export refunds which had been advance paid on the beef covered by these proofs were also disallowed by this department and the amounts, plus penalties, were fully recovered from the exporter.
It is untrue to state that any of the Bureau Veritas certificates were "defaced". All export details contained on these certificates were cross checked and verified against Irish customs certification and commercial documents. One certificate (out of over 20 presented together) was signed C. Peyron "per pro", T. Gurney. Mr Peyron was a senior Bureau Veritas official known to this department. No disallowances were imposed by the EU Commission on foot of these certificates.
The disallowance imposed by the Commission - a percentage of the amounts paid in respect of exports involving four certificates - was applied in very specific circumstances which included the destruction of documentation in the Gulf War. It could not legally be recovered from the eight exporters involved. All of these points were clarified to the Public Accounts Committee. - Yours, etc.,
Information Officer,
Department of Agriculture,
Food and Forestry,
Agriculture House,
Dublin 2.
Fintan O'Toole writes:
In my article, I challenged a statement by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to the Dail Public Accounts Committee that: "We had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the proofs." I cited the letters of 1989 and 1991 as evidence that the Department had in fact every reason to doubt the accuracy of all certification - not just Bureau Veritas certificates - related to beef exports to Iraq. It is disturbing that the Department continues to defend its acceptance of a document signed by one person but with an official Irish embassy stamp testifying that it is signed by someone else. If its conduct was so good, how come the Exchequer has lost £2.3 million because of it? It is also rather odd that the Department considers that journalists need to be "briefed" about evidence given in public before a Dail committee. I make no apology for preferring to read it myself.