Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)

At the outset it is important to reflect, as did the Minister of State, that at the centre of this report is a tragedy that took place on 31 October 1981. Francis and Jimmy Byrne and three crew members, namely, Tony O'Brien, James Lafferty and Des McGovern lost their lives in a tragic accident when the MFV Skifjord sank. During this debate Members should acknowledge what a great loss and personal tragedy this event was for the Byrne family and the families of the other crewmen, as well as the difficult position in which it left the Byrne family, whereby Mrs. Byrne was left on her own with eight young children to be reared.

This morning in this House, while defending the manner in which this debate is taking place, the Tánaiste falsely put on the record the suggestion that Members on this side of the House had sought the kind of debate that is taking place. She stated they did not request a committee hearing subsequent to a Dáil debate. For this reason, with the Ceann Comhairle's permission, I wish to draw Members' attention to the Official Report, 15 December 2009, vol. 698, p. 429, when Deputy Kenny stated: "I respectfully suggest to the Taoiseach that, at an appropriate time in the new year, the Whips might agree that there be a discussion on the loss at sea scheme report here in the Dáil and that it be referred to a committee for deeper analysis and consideration". In the Official Report, 17 December 2009, vol. 698, p. 1012, I asked, "will the Taoiseach introduce a proposal to debate the issue in the House early in the new year and to refer the matter onwards to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for further investigation?"

The debate in which Members are involved this afternoon is a sham. It constitutes a further erosion of the role the democratic assembly of the people should play in the nation's affairs. It is a meaningless debate which lacks a substantial motion and which does not do justice to the report which has been compiled painstakingly over a long time by the Office of the Ombudsman. I expect two things. First, I expect the Tánaiste to come before the House and acknowledge that she misled the House. I would accept her bona fides that she did not do so deliberately. In addition, I also expect that the Tánaiste and the Government will now enable the Houses of the Oireachtas to proceed to a forensic analysis in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the detail of this report.

It is abundantly clear, from the raced manner in which the Minister of State delivered a long and detailed script, that there is no possibility of having the kind of scrutiny that is necessary. Highly serious issues are at stake and I welcome Deputy Fahey to the debate because at all stages, he has been anxious to defend his integrity on this issue. This parliamentary forum should be about a meaningful engagement with the former Minister, senior officials within the Department, the applicant at the centre of the complaint and the Office of the Ombudsman. Thereafter, the cards should be allowed to fall where they might and Members should be allowed to draw their parliamentary conclusions. However, what is being attempted in this debate is a circling of the wagons within Fianna Fáil and the Government. In this regard, I regret to note the absence from the Chamber of Members of the Green Party. That party made a complaint to the Standards in Public Office Commission about Deputy Fahey across a range of issues from the lost at sea scheme to others which have nothing to do with this report and on which I do not propose to dwell. Consequently, the Green Party is giving the Government carte blanche to deal with this matter in a manner that can only be described as akin to sweeping it under the carpet.

I assure the Minister of State that Fine Gael will use every parliamentary tactic available to it to ensure that the Office of the Ombudsman is not undermined in a shoddy manner. It is abundantly clear that the Office of the Ombudsman is an anathema to Fianna Fáil, in the same way as the freedom of information legislation. There have been recent examples of attempts by Fianna Fáil to emasculate the operation of the freedom of information legislation because it shines a light where that party would prefer darkness to prevail to enable its members to engage in stroke politics behind closed doors. This debate is an exercise in circling the wagons, in attempting to avoid a thorough and detailed investigation and to prevent the truth from coming out.

It is worth reading into the Official Report the purpose of the Office of the Ombudsman, which states:

Our purpose is to help raise public service standards. Individuals, businesses or organisations who feel they have been unfairly treated can make complaints to the Ombudsman. Our service is free. We aim to ensure that people are treated with dignity, respect and sensitivity in their dealings with the public service. We will make every effort to deal with your complaint properly, fairly and impartially.

The office has done itself some justice in the manner in which it has dealt with this complaint. It also is important to acknowledge that by the end of 2008, approximately 72,000 valid complaints had been handled by the Office of the Ombudsman.

On only two previous occasions has this House been tasked with considering a report and playing a role in assisting a resolution of an intractable problem under the terms of the legislation establishing the Office of the Ombudsman whereby it has failed to resolve an issue in engagement - and intensive engagement there has been - with various Departments or agencies covered by it. On one of those occasions the Revenue Commissioners were involved. It is important to acknowledge that even in that case the recommendation in respect of the individuals involved was that a payment of €600,000 was appropriate. Although the case was initially referred to the Ombudsman by the Revenue Commissioners, they have not complied with the letter of the findings. What we are seeing over a period of time is an attempt to undermine the efficiency, effectiveness and public confidence that the Office of the Ombudsman enjoys.

God knows ordinary citizens will wait a long time before the front gates of Government Buildings are open for them to have access to make complaints to the Government when they feel they have been treated poorly in their engagements with public services. Bankers and developers all have access under the cover of darkness and in broad daylight to Government Buildings. On many occasions they walk out with billions of taxpayers' money for their rescue. The only recourse that John or Joan Citizen have when they feel aggrieved is the Office of the Ombudsman. The manner in which Fianna Fáil and the Green Party are circling the wagons to quash the findings of the Ombudsman's report. Treading on little people is disgraceful and will do untold damage to the Office of the Ombudsman.

The precedent established in how the House dealt with the issue of the report on the Revenue Commissioners is also interesting. It was dealt with under scrutiny and cross-examination by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service, which made two telling conclusions. These were that the findings in the case should be honoured and that all future findings in Ombudsman's reports should equally be honoured. Both of these findings are being thrown to the wind because we have not yet fully complied with the original case by the Revenue Commissioners and we are again thumbing our nose at the Office of the Ombudsman. That is not good enough and begs the most fundamental questions as to why.

The report into the complaint is most interesting. The Minister of State laboured the point that this was never about financial compensation. I acknowledge that originally the scheme itself was not about financial compensation.

See this speech in context