Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)

I just said I am disappointed the official is not here because she had a starring role in the whole debacle.

I will start by quoting from correspondence from Mark Lochrin to the Minister. It stated that the establishment of an appeals mechanism to cater for cases such as these had been an issue for years. In this instance, according to the correspondence, the Minister was obviously convinced as to the reasonableness of their case by persons of influence and very rightly proposed to act. Mr. Lochrin asked, however, why only for these. He argued the case for an appeals mechanism available to all, as pertained in most other sectors, was irrefutable.

The documents I have show that the first mention of the scheme was in March 1999, when the Minister of State for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, attended a meeting with Mr. Tony Faherty and Mr. Paddy Mullen. The two gentlemen were seeking credit for replacement capacity purposes - tonnage - for two vessels they owned that had sunk in November 1983. Department officials advised them under policy rules this was not possible. Deputy Ó Cuív indicated that reluctantly he accepted the Department's position. He recognised the adverse precedent it would set.

The next mention of the two men making representations to the Department is of the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, seeking a meeting with two officials to discuss the possibility of allowing replacement capacity, in particular, in the case of his constituents. Under the Standards in Public Office Commission regulations, an office-holder should, inter alia, act only by reference to, and dedicate the resources of his office in furtherance of, the public interest and not be influenced in their official duties by personal considerations. When Deputy Fahey said he wanted to see how he could ring-fence the six or eight genuine cases, one must ask how the then Minister could come to his conclusion about genuine cases when the 120 files were never studied by anyone in his Department or by him. How could he reach that conclusion?

There is a note from Joe Ryan, sea fisheries administration division, where he agrees that the circumstances surrounding the Mullen and Faherty claims are deserving of sympathy and help and that they have the benefit of being well documented and backed up. One could say this is a coincidence.

The note to the Minister continued, however, that the overriding problem is where this would stop. It stated that in addition to the six that were known about, plus others involved in the High Court case, it could safely assumed any number of individual cases would seek the same treatment and it would be advisable to discuss them prior to the Minister making a decision. A handwritten note from the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, stated: "I want to see how we can ring-fence the six or eight genuine cases ... what the implications are ... I want to licence those boats if we can do this". This was to the point.

Regarding the sunken boats capacity, I will read an extract from a note. It states: "Piecemeal changes in policy in response to special pleadings from individuals where these changes would run totally contrary to policy objectives, give large unrequited gains to these individuals and open up numerous other equally 'meritorious' claims, cannot be recommended". However, a handwritten note by the then Minister on the bottom of this note states: "Go ahead with proposals subject to conditions laid down".

Another document relates to a meeting between two potential applicants and Deputy Fahey. The applicants referred to a proposed condition that was causing them a problem. How did they know the conditions a long time before the scheme was even announced? According to the applicants, the condition in question was raising money from financial institutions. This document is staggering and points to major personal considerations and political interference by the Minister.

I also have a document in which the Department wrote to the fish producer organisations informing them of the scheme. Most damning is a telephone call made by Mr. Eddie Sheehan of Castletownbere. Correspondence regarding that call states:

There was a strong view among fishermen on the ground that this was a back door scheme for particular fishermen who were getting favourable treatment. He argued that the scheme was unfair and gave special treatment to a particular group while most fishermen were required to buy replacement tonnage. He said that this scheme raised the same concerns as the "Dingle scheme" where political consideration determined the allocation of licences.

See this speech in context