Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)

Deputy Fahey will have his day and I wish he would volunteer to come before a committee. I have never stated the original scheme was about financial compensation but the issue is about financial compensation now because to the complainant there is no tonnage on offer. The resolution to this difficulty as promulgated by the Office of the Ombudsman is based on the decommissioning scheme and proposes a payment in the region of €245,000. The honourable thing for the Government to do would be to abide by the findings.

It is abundantly clear that there are fault lines in the records of the Department which clearly delineate where Deputy Fahey stood on this issue in respect of ring-fencing, a term used by Deputy Fahey, and the views of officials. At this stage, it is not for this House to get into the merits or demerits of the lost at sea scheme per se. What we must do is deal with the findings and learn from them. Appendix 3 is one of the most interesting appendices of the report. It states:

Concessions of any kind on the "sunken boats" issue would have the following negative impacts:-

(a) to increase further effort on Irish sea stocks would run contrary to policy objectives [...]

(b) additional fishing capacity will undermine the livelihood of existing fishermen.

(c) these cases have been around for 15/20 years and have not been entertained by successive Ministers. [...]

The most interesting points it states are:

(d) acceptance of these boats as replacement capacity amounts in effect to the writing of a gratuitous cheque for £500,000 [...] to be allocated to a number of individuals and with a negative return to the State and the economy.

(e) as the State/taxpayer will inevitably have to buy out equivalent fleet capacity, the gain of £500,000 to a number of individuals will have in effect to be financed by the general taxpayer.

We know the outcome of the scheme was that it did benefit a number of individuals, two of whom received 75% of the compensation available and happened to be constituents of the former Minister, Deputy Fahey. The issue is not so much about whether a scheme should have been proceeded. It is most accurately summed up in correspondence released under the Freedom of Information Act. This is a letter dated 19 February 2001 which was sent by Mark Lochrin of the Irish Fish Producers' Organisation to the then Minister, Deputy Fahey. It states: "The view of this Organisation is that you should proceed with the proposed concessions. Our only question: Is Justice to be ring-fenced?". This goes to the kernel of what is at stake.

When he was Minister, Deputy Fahey took the initiative of communicating with a handful. The Department took the initiative of corresponding with upwards of 16 people. Where the charge of maladministration stands up is that the Department had access to all of the records on boats that were sunk. Initially a tentative inquiry was made to establish this information and the Ombudsman's report contains correspondence to the effect that it would be an enormous job of work to collate all of the information in a manner that was discernible for the purposes of the scheme and it was not done.

The question of whether justice is to be ring-fenced is what is at stake. The words "a handful of genuine cases" echo again and again through the correspondence in the Ombudsman's report. We know it was ring-fenced. We know from the Ombudsman's report that it was unfairly ring-fenced.

The Ombudsman's report is damning in its findings on the advertising of the scheme. Is it reasonable to expect a widow-woman who lost her husband and son to be a regular reader of fishing publications? Is it not reasonable to expect that she would have been corresponded with about the terms of the scheme? The Department had those records available to it. These are the critical questions on which the former Minister, Deputy Fahey, has repeatedly muddied the waters and for which there are no clear answers.

I have read correspondence from the Secretary General and the former Secretary General at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, which had responsibility for the marine, in which they state that the floodgates would open; that justice would be delivered to ordinary people and that floodgates would open. Justice is never at too high a price and the floodgates argument does not stand up anyway because in the cases brought to the Ombudsman's attention, which I believe amounted to nine or ten, the Ombudsman found in favour of only one. The fear that it would cost the State and arm and a leg does not stand up.

We have to step out of the straightjackets that are restricting our vision on this matter. We have to deliver justice whatever it might cost. I do not believe this would cost a fortune and to do otherwise than to forensically analyse the matter by bringing all of the players before an Oireachtas committee would seriously undermine public confidence in the Ombudsman's office. I repeat my opening remarks, which I am sure the Minister of State will convey his colleagues, that this side of the House will use every parliamentary tactic available to it to ensure this matter is referred to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Today, I have requested the Chairman of that committee to have the matter considered. I hope Deputy Fahey will volunteer to appear before the committee rather than be dragged there kicking and screaming. Let us have the full and open discussion we require.

See this speech in context