ALLISTER EXPOSES FISHERIES DIVISION
03 July 2006
DUP MEP Jim Allister has called for a thorough shake-up and inquiry into the operation and conduct of Fisheries Division of DARD, as new information comes to light on the handling of the refusal of Tie-Up Aid.
On 5 January 2006 Jim Allister wrote to then Minister, Lord Rooker, urging him to consider Tie-Up Aid for 2006, as had happened in 2004 and 2005, particularly following the disappointing outcome of the December 2005 Quota-setting meeting in Brussels, which Rooker had failed to attend.
On 20 January 2006 Lord Rooker replied, “The particular provisions governing the Schemes only allow payments for such temporary cessations to be made for a maximum of two years. There is no leeway to open such a scheme for a third year.”
On 17 February 2006 DARD issued a statement saying there would be no Tie-Up Aid. That statement included this assertion, “DARD has confirmed that there is no further provision under EC State Aid Rules to award aid for temporary cessation related to cod recovery.”
Believing this was a wrong interpretation of EC Regulation 2792/1999 the Ulster QC sought a ruling from Fisheries Commissioner, Joe Borg, who replied on 8 March 2006 to confirm Mr Allister’s belief and that of the industry representatives that legally further Aid could be paid.
On 9 March 2006 the MEP again wrote to Rooker enclosing Borg’s letter and inviting him to reconsider his refusal of Tie-Up Aid since it was patently reached on the basis of a false legal interpretation of the EC Regulation. On 27 March 2006 the Minister reaffirmed his decision of refusal, leading to Jim Allister to call for his resignation.
Since then Mr Allister has been exploring how Fisheries Division of Dard came to give wrong advice on whether Aid was possible. Having seen internal documentation, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Jim Allister wrote to Rooker’s successor, David Cairns, on 13 June 2006 asking a number of pointed questions. One question, aimed at exploring how diligently DARD had fulfilled its obligations to correctly interpret EU legislation, was when was legal advice first sought on the relevant provisions of the Regulation and was such advice sought before the Minister made his initial statement of refusal of Aid in February 2006.
Today Mr Allister has received the Minister’s reply. It reveals that legal advice was not sought before a pronouncement was made that legally aid could not be given (17/2/06), nor before the same was asserted in answer to the MEP (20/1/06). In fact legal advice was not sought till 15 March 2006, once Mr Allister had demonstrated through the Commissioner that DARD was wrong.
Commenting today Mr Allister said, “I am appalled at not just the ineptitude of Dard’s Fisheries Division but at the galling and deceptive arrogance in both trying to con me but also publicly declaring on 17 February 2006 “DARD has confirmed that there is no further provision under EC..Rules to award aid”. With whom had they confirmed this? Certainly, neither the Commission nor their legal advisers? Why when a complex interpretation of EU legislation was involved was legal advice not sought till they were caught out? In how many other instances has wrong interpretations of EU legislation been used as an excuse to penny-pinch?
This at best is gross maladministration. I am certainly not finished with this issue and shall invite the Ombudsman to investigate. There now is a serious question over whether Fisheries Division is “fit for purpose”. We need an investigation from Permanent Secretary level down.
The real tragedy of this situation is that under cover of misinformation our hard-pressed fisheries sector was denied available aid, while Minister and officials peddled inaccuracies.”
