Frank Fahey (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

All of the allegations made by the Deputy from Kerry are totally and completely untrue. I was appointed Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources in January 2000, halfway through the Government's term of office. I chose to run the Department in an entrepreneurial way and expand and pursue the developmental role of the Department in the marine sector. My objective was to deliver an action plan to exploit the marine potential of this island nation.

One common complaint in all ports I visited was that fishermen who did not have a fishing boat on the national register when capacity - that is, gross tonnage and engine power - became an asset in January 1990, because their boats had been lost at sea, were obliged to purchase the capacity they had lost in order to acquire a new boat to return to fishing. That anomaly was put right in the 1990 regulations. EU regulations were not breached by the issue of replacement tonnage in 2001, as has been falsely claimed, including by Deputies today. A change in regulations did take place with the introduction of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003, after I had left the Department.

The issue was raised at meetings with various fishing organisations and individuals throughout the country, particularly in Killybegs, Ros a' Mhíl and Castletownbere. Following the introduction of the new register in 1990, the new licensing policy stated that off-register capacity could be used to introduce a fishing boat onto the register within two years of deregulation; otherwise, the capacity would be lost to its owner. Off-register capacity means capacity that is no longer in use because it was constructively lost, broken up, unseaworthy or no longer engaged in fishing. In the lost at sea scheme, a six-month window was provided to enable people to apply for registration in the same way. Thus, Deputy Ferris is totally wrong in the allegation he made in this regard.

A major omission in the new fishing boat licensing regulations was that no provision was made for retrospective off-register boats. I decided this was unfair and iniquitous, and after prolonged discussion and negotiation with Department officials, I decided to make a policy decision to introduce a limited scheme to grant replacement capacity - that is, gross tonnage and engine power - to fishermen who were still involved in fishing industry. This is the crucial point that has been lost in this debate since it started six years ago. This scheme was for fishermen who were involved in the fishing industry when the scheme was introduced in 2001.

One of the issues brought to my attention by the scheme was that no formal marine accident investigation mechanism existed in the Department. In June 2002, I established the Marine Casualty Investigation Board as an independent body. The board was set up to provide a new legislative and procedural review to regulate the area of marine casualty investigation in Ireland. A critical point in my policy decision, which was expressly written into the terms of reference of the scheme, was that it was to sustain or maintain a family tradition in the fishing industry. This was to facilitate individuals and families who were still involved in the fishing industry when the scheme was introduced in 2001, and renders irrelevant many of the allegations that have been made here. This is the reason the scheme was advertised only in the marine press and the fishing organisations were consulted and informed of the scheme. The Byrne family had not been involved in fishing since the tragic accident in the early 1980s, so they would not have qualified for the scheme even if their application had been made in time. Nothing I am saying should be taken as in any way detracting from the tragic circumstances giving rise to this complaint and the terrible loss suffered by the Byrne family, which I sincerely acknowledge. I agree with all other speakers that this family suffered a terrible tragedy in 1982.

Jim Higgins MEP contacted the Ombudsman on behalf of the Byrne family. A complaint was made to the office in November 2004 but I was not contacted by the Office of the Ombudsman about this complaint until July 2007, six years after the scheme had been designed and implemented, four and a half years after the Byrne family application had been refused, and two and a half years after the Ombudsman had received the complaint.

On 11 May 2005, an official in the Office of the Ombudsman wrote to the Byrne family expressing the view that the scheme may have been deficient and flawed. The complaint was then only at the stage of preliminary investigation and no findings, even of a preliminary nature, had been made by the Ombudsman. It was wholly inappropriate and premature for this official to so describe the scheme and to communicate this to the complainant at that time, without the completion of a full examination by the Ombudsman and the hearing of submissions from all parties, including myself. This represented a prejudgment by an official in the Ombudsman's office of the complaint in the absence of a full and fair examination and investigation.

It is clear from the critical letter from the Ombudsman, dated 10 February 2005, that there was a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the official involved with regard to the scheme's application to people still engaged in the fishing industry. I was not informed about the investigation and was not asked to explain my policy decision until July 2007. At that stage, officials in the Office of the Ombudsman had made assumptions based on a misunderstanding of this policy decision. I repeat, the lost at sea scheme was introduced in 2001 to allow people to maintain or sustain a family tradition in the fishing industry.

Officials in the Office of the Ombudsman were not aware until they interviewed me in July 2007 that it was I who inserted the condition that capacity could not be sold or otherwise disposed of and that no financial gain should accrue to any applicant who was successful in the scheme. I inserted that condition into the scheme, after the memo to which Deputy Creed referred about a gratuitous cheque for £500,000, because I wanted to ensure nobody would benefit financially from the scheme.

See this speech in context