Mr. Andrew Munro:

To be very clear Chairman, when I was speaking about 100%, I was referring to outcomes in terms of all fraud cases, regardless of whether they involve fraud against the EU interest.

While not many statistics are available in this regard, the 2010 OLAF report notes that four of the cases processed by it were referred on to Ireland on the basis that criminal activity may have been involved. From what I can ascertain from the figures in the 2010 report, prosecution was directed in one of these cases. While I do not know the reason prosecutions did not take place in the other three cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions may not direct prosecution in a case for a number of reasons, for example, insufficient evidence, witnesses not being available and so forth. The Director of Public Prosecutions has discretion in this regard.

An issue arises in regard to the assertion that member states do not take seriously allegations of fraud against the European Union. I have no evidence, and there is no evidence to suggest, the Director of Public Prosecutions does not take seriously fraud against the European Union. To some extent, the Irish system is unconcerned about who is the victim, whereas in some other member states there is a very important role for the victim and the complaint in the system of criminal prosecution. That is not the case here. While it helps if one has a complaint and witnesses, if the Garda Síochána submits a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions, there is no evidence to suggest the latter is in any way less interested in fraud against the European Union than fraud against anyone else.