Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

I do not want to begin with a litany of platitudes or patronising comments but we must recognise the suffering and hardship endured by the Byrne family. We must also have regard for the loss of three crewmen and the father and uncle of Mr. Danny Byrne, the complainant. It is important that we keep the Byrne family to the forefront of our minds when speak on this matter. However, the manner in which the Minister of State sought to question the family's motivation is utterly degrading. In his contribution to the debate, he stated:

In the case of the family in question, no replacement vessel had been purchased and no immediate family member had continued in fishing in the 20-year period between the accident and the inception of the scheme. Given that the scheme was intended to allow families to continue a family tradition of sea fishing, it is difficult to see how it can be sustained that the family was disadvantaged by the failure of their application some 20 years later. Indeed after the sinking the family were seen, perhaps understandably, to have left the fishing industry for the subsequent 20 years.

The Minister of State has no right to adjudicate on the motives of that family nor to introduce spin and revisionist views on this historical case. I have also seen correspondence from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which sought to undermine the role of the family. Nobody in this Chamber knows exactly what the Byrnes were going through but today we are debating the maladministration of a scheme and the Ombudsman's role in investigating it. In the preamble to her report on the Byrne case, the Ombudsman states: "I found that the design of the Scheme and the manner in which it was advertised were contrary to fair and sound administration." Let there be no attempt by anybody on the Government side of the House to undermine the family or the historical record.

The matter at hand is one of natural justice and whether the Byrne family received due recognition for its complaint or an appropriate response from the agencies of the State. As an Opposition Deputy, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Trevor Sargent, filed a complaint over the role of the former Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Frank Fahey, in this affair with the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO. While SIPO rejected the complaint, the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent's action demonstrates that certain Members who are now in Government recognised the maladministration inherent in the scheme. The Ombudsman found the scheme to be "seriously deficient and flawed" and the European Commission was never informed of the scheme's existence.

The Byrne family has been treated abysmally by the agents of the State, with the notable exception of the Office of the Ombudsman. There can be no doubt that the Ombudsman dealt with the complaint in a manner that was conducive to the powers vested in her office. However, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food clearly has decided to ensure that the family will not gain redress. As a Legislature, we are left for only the second time in the history of this State with a scenario that has completely undermined the role of the Office of the Ombudsman.

By its decision to reject the Ombudsman's findings, the Government has undermined the confidence of citizens that they can successfully resolve their complaints and severely compromised the independent statutory role vested in that office by this Legislature. For the Labour Party, this is a case of ensuring that the organs of the State are not undermined or demeaned in any way. We must not neglect the significance of a rejection by the Government of the Ombudsman's report. That the report has been laid before the Houses, presumably as a last resort, speaks volumes about the contempt this Government holds for any independent arbiter whose role is laid out under statute.

What hope can the ordinary citizen have that a complaint will be adjudicated upon fairly if a decision can be rejected by the Government of the day for reasons of political expediency? The Byrne family has been subjected to the ignominy of seeing a report which offers redress and a measure of natural justice rejected for the sake of that same political expediency. I have studied the correspondence between the Department and the Ombudsman's office. It is clear even to a layman that the Department is engaged in a parsimonious exercise and will do anything to abdicate its responsibilities. The Minister of State's lengthy speech clearly demonstrates that attitude. The essence of his argument, namely, that he rejected the findings of the report out of hand, could have been expressed in ten seconds.

I seek justice for the Byrne family and an acknowledgement of the Ombudsman's report. It is insufficient to make statements on this issue. If this House is to conduct its business properly, we must refer the report to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is critical that we afford the Ombudsman an opportunity to present her findings to that committee. We must also be able to hear from all interested parties in order to understand the issue fully.

The Ombudsman stated:

My role as Ombudsman is to ensure that our public administration system deals properly and fairly with members of the public and this is a task which I am committed to fulfilling, without fear or favour, in line with the statutory authority which has been granted to my Office by the Oireachtas.

My decision to make a special report in this case was not taken lightly. It is my statutory duty under the Ombudsman Act, 1980 to decide what is fair and reasonable in relation to each complaint that comes before me. Where a remedy is warranted I take great care to ensure that my recommendations are both appropriate and proportionate. The credibility of any Ombudsman depends on his or her ability to deliver adequate and appropriate remedies to people who have been treated unfairly. My investigation of the Byrne family's complaint has been painstaking and forensic. However, in this case, despite my best efforts, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food continues to dispute my findings and recommendations and I have been unable to resolve the impasse. My only option when this arises is to seek the intervention of the Oireachtas. It now has the task of deciding who is right and who is wrong in the context of good administration and fairness to the complainant.

We in the Labour Party propose that the House would adhere to the recommendations of the Ombudsman. I accept it is not within our gift in the context of this debate to apply her findings and deliver some degree of natural justice to the family. Accordingly, I propose that we facilitate the Ombudsman at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so that she and her office may be afforded an opportunity to outline further her findings and to enable the members of this House to come to a satisfactory conclusion on the matter.

It is vital that no one, be it an official of the Department, or a Minister or Minister of State, has the right or entitlement to subjectively question the motives of the family as to whether they would continue to fish, whether they should have read certain industry newspapers to search for advertisements, or whether that was taken as a given, because as the Minister in effect said, it was a small community and they should have known that the scheme was available. It is not for the Minister to decide on the motivations of the family or to comment on them in 2010 in the context of a scheme that was in place from 1980 or 1981 to 1989.

What is at stake is the role of the Ombudsman and the decision and findings of that office. The Ombudsman clearly stated that there was maladministration and that the scheme was not properly advertised. She made a decision to grant redress for the reasons outlined in the report. The issue is whether the Government decides to take on board the views of an independent arbiter, which has a statutory function. We are plunging ourselves into dangerous territory if we decide for the second time to reject a report of the Ombudsman.

This is the tribune of the people but decisions taken by the tribune of the people have to be subjected to an independent arbiter. We are in dangerous territory if we go the route of rejecting an Ombudsman's report. We all have to be subject to scrutiny on decisions by branches of the State. That is why I feel strongly that the Ombudsman must be brought before the committee so that we have another opportunity to explore further this decision.

See this speech in context