Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 29: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she will make a statement on the agreement between her Department and a company (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17330/05]

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The case the Deputy mentioned arose from a dispute between a company, the Department of Agriculture and Food and two codefendants. This related to the storage of tallow at its premises going back to 1997. A settlement was reached with the plaintiff on 6 December 2004. The settlement was agreed on the basis of legal advice from State counsel and with the sanction of the Office of the Attorney General. It was without admission of liability by the defendants. It was also agreed between the parties that the terms of the settlement would remain confidential except as required by law.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his response. How did the Department get it wrong? The Department defended this case but subsequently settled it out of court. Why did it proceed with the case if it got additional legal information from the State counsel? Did the sands shift during the case?

What are the legal costs involved in proceeding as far as we did before a settlement was agreed? Why should this remain confidential when State funds are involved? It looks like the State and the Department of Agriculture and Food have been hung out to dry on this issue.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not accept that the Department got it wrong. A company initiated legal proceedings against the Department. I said at the outset that the terms of the settlement would remain confidential and that is how I intend to leave it. The taxing master has yet to determine the legal costs.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it not the case that the Department felt that it was on a strong footing when the initial challenge was taken? The Department was going to contest this vigorously right to the bitter end. On 6 December 2004, a settlement was suddenly reached. How did that come about? Why did the Department change its tack? The public needs to know the answer to that question, even if the Minister is not going to disclose the money that has been spent.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Department followed the legal advice available from the State counsel. That advice had the sanction of the office of the Attorney General.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have some concerns about the confidentiality clause that seems to be built into this. The money spent is public money so it should not be confidential. The Department was willing to defend its position at the outset, yet suddenly an agreement was reached and the whole issue became confidential. Even though we do not know the amount involved, there is clearly a great amount of taxpayers' money involved.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Department was not the only party to the proceedings. A company initiated the proceedings and another party was also involved along with the Department. The settlement occurred without admission of liability by the defendants, which were the Department and the company. The agreement reached included the stipulation that the terms of the settlement would remain confidential. That is how it will remain.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know the Minister cannot disclose the details of legal advice and I am not looking for that. Can he clarify if the original opinion of the State counsel changed prior to the settlement?

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The advice available to the Department was that the best outcome would be to bring finality to the case. That advice was given to the Department by the State's legal team and with the sanction of the office of the Attorney General.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Did that happen during the case?

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The opinion changed, therefore, during the case.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The case had to take its course.

Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are insinuations from the other side of the House which are completely inappropriate, as well as scaremongering by members of the Fine Gael Party. I read an article written in a Drogheda based newspaper which was scurrilous and factually incorrect. Decisions must be made to proceed in some cases. As there was a third party involved in this case, it was not a direct case between my Department and another person. There should be finality to any case. Given the circumstances, the legal advice was that this was the best outcome for all. The decision was also taken in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General. It is futile to spend time, energy, effort and money if we are not to bring a situation to an end. The decision made was the best one and I stand by it.