The Department of Agriculture has presided over some of the greatest financial and administrative scandals this State has ever known. The most notorious and long-running of these was the bovine TB eradication scheme, but it paled into insignificance when the beef tribunal began its investigations. Corruption and fraud were endemic in the beef processing sector. In spite of public indignation over long-standing abuses and specific illegalities, however, few things seemed to change. Powerful vested interests engaged in farming, professional services, beef processing and exporting, all conspired to defraud the Exchequer and the EU and to enrich themselves at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer. And while they did this, a broad range of ministers, governments and civil servants failed to confront and eliminate the obvious abuses. It was as if the Department of Agriculture regarded itself as an intrinsic element within a commercial farm/business lobby, rather than as an independent, policy-making and administrative arm of government.
At last, however, change is being forced on the Department. And the mechanism being used to apply pressure is a strengthened system of Oireachtas committees, fuelled by the indignation of the former leader of the Progressive Democrats, Mr Des O'Malley, and the determination of the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr Jim Mitchell of Fine Gael. Both men are to be applauded for the aggressive, reforming stances they have taken in the public interest. Other Dail committees could learn from their example.
Six weeks ago, the Secretary-General of the Department of Agriculture, Mr John Malone, confirmed that, in the aftermath of the beef tribunal in 1996, a decision had been taken by the last government to remove the control of EU grants from the Department. But nothing had happened. Mr Malone was asked by the Dail Committee to go away and find out what, precisely, was the current status of that decision and why it had not been implemented. Last Tuesday, he was back to say the decision still stood and that the Minister, Mr Joe Walsh, would be "submitting proposals to the Government very shortly". He explained that a regionalisation decision affecting the Department, along with the establishment of a Food Safety Authority, had held up matters.
One wonders whether Mr Walsh would have belatedly decided to implement the decision of his predecessor, Mr Ivan Yates, in the absence of the probing work of the committee. And doubt remains about the commitment of some senior officials to such reform. In that regard, Mr Mitchell has been particularly scathing about the Department's record of financial and administrative management. The Public Accounts Committee chairman has called for a root-and-branch review of managerial and financial systems within the Department because of consistent criticisms made by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who examines State spending.
Since 1990, 49 specific complaints about waste, misapplication of public money, mal-administration and inefficiencies have been made by the Comptroller. Such an appalling long-term record would be unacceptable in the private sector. And there is no good reason why a State body should be treated differently. Later this month, the Committee of Public Accounts will formally ask the Government to authorise a review of all systems within the Department of Agriculture. Given the Department's record, it is the least that should be done.