Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

As the two previous speakers indicated, we are talking about a tragic event where two of the Byrne family and three of their crew lost their lives. We must not lose sight of that tragedy and other tragedies that occur at sea. Our deepest sympathy goes to the families of all victims.

The fact that the Ombudsman has felt that she needed to submit this report to the Oireachtas is sufficient proof that her description of the lost at sea scheme as "seriously deficient and flawed" is warranted and that the Byrne family was treated unfairly in regard to their claim for compensation following the loss of two members of the Byrne family and three crewmen when their boat the Skifjord sank in 1981.

The Byrne family only applied to the scheme a year after applications had closed, but they argued that the scheme, which had been advertised in the fishing press, should have been publicised more widely. Another problem arose because, despite the tragic nature of the incident and the fact that it was widely reported, the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources claimed to have no record of it. That was apparently why the Byrne family was not notified of the scheme being established. I cannot comprehend how a Department was not aware that five people drowned or that a boat was lost with such tragic circumstances. I do not think anyone believes that. Is the Department telling us that it has no list of boats lost at sea or knowledge of the tragedies that occurred as a result of some of those losses? I do not believe that. I do not say that lightly. I do not believe one word of it. Is it credible that five people were lost yet there is no record of it?

On the question of the advertising of the scheme, how in the name of God can one assume that people who have left the industry as a result of having lost their vessels would automatically read the fishing press every month? There is no basis for that assumption. In many cases, when people leave the industry they do not have recourse to the fishing press. The Ombudsman agreed with the Byrne family in its complaints on all of those issues and also concluded that because of the way in which the scheme was designed, that it was applied inequitably. On that basis she recommended that the Byrne family be compensated and a figure of just under €250,000 was calculated as the amount of compensation. However, that was rejected by the Department even though it was officials within the Department who had arrived at that compensation figure.

The scheme itself, while it did provide compensation for the successful applicants reflects much of what is wrong with the manner in which fishing is managed or rather mismanaged in this State. It was only necessary in the first instance in order that people who had lost their boats could access replacement tonnage despite the restrictions placed on the size of the fleet by the new system of regulation that came into place in 1990. When the scheme was proposed there was a view within the Department that it might facilitate certain people to access quota while others would be forced to pay for it or would be unable to get any. The then Minister, Deputy Fahey, overruled those objections. The manner in which the scheme operated only heightened that concern.

Apart from the failure to advertise more widely, the Ombudsman found that some of those who applied were in fact contacted in writing in order to inform them of the existence of the lost at sea scheme. Who took the decision to write to certain people but not others about the existence of the scheme? We need to know the answer to that question. Many of those who are aware of the situation would be prepared to say that it was due to political cronyism at its worst; to write to the people who support the party and to forget the rest.

There is also the claim that two constituents of the Minister responsible, Deputy Fahey, had originally suggested the establishment of the scheme. We need to know if this is true. The two people in question received €2.1 million out of a total of €2.8 million available under the scheme. It is also claimed the criteria were changed in order that one of the two people would qualify, despite being found not to meet the criteria laid down in the first place. We need answers again on this.

Of the 67 applicants between June 2001 and the closing of the scheme on December 31, only six were accepted. A total of €2.8 million was paid out to the six successful applicants to buy replacement tonnage. Two of the then Minister's constituents received 75% of the total funds. It was later discovered that although the scheme did not close until December 31 2001, Deputy Fahey had written to his two constituents in October congratulating them on being successful prior to the closure of the scheme. How can that be explained? However, it was also found that one of those persons did not qualify but he appealed and his application was accepted in 2003 with one of the reasons cited for the award being the fact that the Minister's letter of congratulations had created the reasonable expectation that he would receive compensation.

Is it any wonder that the political establishment in this State is viewed in coastal communities with such distaste? Is it any wonder that officials in the Department with responsibility for the marine are looked upon in communities such as the one in I which live as people who are not with it and who are subject to allegations and perceptions of corruption when we see what is before us today? I cam from a coastal community and we have buried people who lost their lives at sea. My neighbours and friends have worked in the most difficult circumstances to put food on the table and they see €2.1 million being given to constituents of the then Minister, despite one of them not meeting the qualifying criteria but subsequently being awarded a payment because the Minister congratulated him before he had received it.

The Ombudsman's report on the Byrne family's application highlighted that it was being processed before the 2003 decision in the case I mentioned. How can the former Minister explain that to the family and to Opposition and Government Members? How could somebody who did not meet the qualifying criteria be compensated on appeal after the Byrne family's application had gone in?

These issues were raised previously and referred to in a number of press reports. They were also mentioned in this House by Deputy Sargent in June 2006 during an extensive survey of Deputy Fahey's property holdings. Deputy Sargent specifically mentioned the fact that two of then Minister's constituents had received a large share of the compensation. He went on to call on the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, to sack Deputy Fahey, which I recall drew a somewhat blunt response from him who told him to "Put up or shut up". The claim regarding the two individuals was contained in an article in Ireland on Sunday two weeks later, which stated that the two people concerned had suggested setting up the scheme in the first place and that the criteria governing applications were changed to facilitate one of those persons.

Subsequently, Deputy Fahey made a complaint to the Committee on Procedures and Privileges about what had been said about him but he failed to secure the necessary support to censure Deputy Sargent who, in December 2006, made a complaint to the Standards in Public Office Commission specifically citing the Lost at Sea scheme as one of the reasons to investigate the then Minister, along with his involvement in the Corrib gas pipeline and the allocation of 14,000 tonnes in quota to the Atlantic Dawn. This trawler, using a national asset, is currently fishing off the west coast under the name of a Dutch consortium.

See this speech in context