Dinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)

I can vividly recall that terrible tragedy in October 1981 when the Skifjord was lost with the loss of five lives. It was the third such tragedy off the Donegal coast during the 1970s and early 1980s. Two of those who were lost were from the same family, Francis Byrne and his young son Jimmy, who was 16 years old. Three others were also lost - Des McGovern, Jimmy Lafferty and Tony O'Brien. Unfortunately, the remains of two who perished in that awful disaster - those of Francis himself and Des McGovern - were never brought ashore.

I remember being at St. Conal's Church in Bruckless on that October night in 1981, when the remains of young Jimmy were brought in. I also remember Mrs. Byrne and her eight young children, aged from two years to 17, coming to the front seat of that church. It was a sad spectacle, with a widow and eight young children, none of whom had reached the age of majority. Mrs. Byrne lost a husband and son in that tragedy.

I am not against the scheme in principle and when there is a loss at sea, people ought to be compensated and tonnage ought to be replaced. I have absolutely nothing against that but I have everything against the underhand way in which the scheme was carried out. In plain political language, it has every indication and manifestation of a political stroke, nothing more and nothing less.

As a representative of that constituency, I was angry that when the family eventually found out such a scheme existed, it was out of fishing because it could not buy a new boat. The family members had been out of fishing for many years before the scheme was announced but that does not mean some would not get back into fishing if they had the opportunity. The scheme was announced and closed a year afterwards. The family approached the Department dealing with marine and fisheries matters but the people there told the family they had never heard of the Skifjord tragedy. What kind of a Department is that and what sort of people are working in it? The family had insult added to injury; not alone would the Department not accept a late application but the family was told that the Department personnel had never heard of the tragedy in which five young Irish men - fathers and brothers - were drowned at sea.

That is enough for me to know what was behind the scheme. It is obvious that the scheme had two tracks, an inside track and an outside track. It was a tailor-made scheme for certain people and they had to cover themselves. Crumbs were given out but the major benefits of the scheme went to favoured people. I do not care what denials comes from anyone on that side and that is how I see it. It angers me that the Department is carrying on in that way.

I have been a Member of this House for almost 30 years and I have had many dealings with the Department. I do not say it lightly when I say it is one of the most difficult, mysterious, intransparent, enigmatic and opaque Departments that I know of, and there are 15 of them. Nothing is as it seems; it is smoke and mirrors. What we are discussing today is just the tip of the iceberg of what has been going on in the Department through the years.

Fishing licences - very valuable assets - have been given out, along with grants and quotas, on a political basis. That cannot be contradicted. Licences and quotas have been politically-traded commodities. I can put it in no other way. There is a culture of nods, winks and nudges running through the Department and what we are discussing today is only one example brought to light by the determination of the Byrne family, which has suffered a grievous loss, and the diligence and support of the Ombudsman. I salute the Ombudsman for taking up this case and following it diligently on behalf of this family, which has lost so much to the seas and the fishing industry.

We will bury this report this afternoon and the shutters are down again in the Department. I will not blame the officials sitting beside the Minister of State. They are just officials and can go between Departments while subject to political direction. The gates have been closed and locked and the report will be obfuscated. We have had perfunctory statements in the Dáil this afternoon for an hour or two; after that the report will be buried and things will proceed as normal.

It is not acceptable to me and I hope it is not acceptable to anybody on this side of the House. I do not know whether I will be here but I look forward to the day when some courageous Minister will go into that Department, open it up and see what is contained in the files and in the bowels of that Department. It should be opened and made transparent. Nothing should be given out on a political basis in this country and everybody has rights. We are all citizens of the country but that has not been the way the Department has been ruled.

I seldom agree with Deputy Ferris on many issues but I agree with him on this. The Department is badly in need of reform. I hope somebody will come along and do it before I leave this House. I look forward to it.

Deputy Fahey, who was a Minister of State at the time, has said he has been vindicated. I also went through the Ombudsman's report and neither the Deputy nor the Department has been vindicated. There was maladministration in the Department. The report states there was poor administration, with Department officials failing to meet the required standards by fair or sound administration in the dealings with families covered in this report.

It was also stated that the design of the scheme and the manner in which it was advertised was contrary to fair and sound administration. If I were the Minister, I would be very concerned with a finding like that coming from the Ombudsman.

I am sure the officials here were opposed to the scheme because they saw it for what it was. They had to go along with the wishes of the Minister of the day. I do not expect any of the officials to admit it because if they did they would be looking for another job. That is the way it is. They are loyal to the Minister of the day and that is the way it goes, but we see through it. The Minister of State was determined to push ahead with the scheme, regardless of the consequences. There were people on the inside track and people on the outside track. My constituents were unfortunately on the outside track, because they were not from the right constituency.

The report mentions "faulty design" and "unfair advantage to some applicants". These are the findings of the Ombudsman. The report found the family at the centre of the complaint was adversely affected while some prospective applicants were put in a more advantageous position. Is that the way to conduct the public affairs of a republic? The report states that some people were written to directly by the Department and the Minister of State to inform them about the scheme when it was launched. When my constituents, who suffered so grievously, went to the Department the officials had never heard of them nor of the terrible tragedy that they suffered. That beggars belief.

I hope that this report will not be buried at 3.30 p.m. when this debate comes to an end. There is a majority on the other side of the House but, as has been said, "A majority has no right to do wrong". Members of the other side of the House will know who I am quoting when I say that. He was one of the great chiefs who used to sit over where the Minister is currently sitting now. A majority has no right to do wrong. The Government had a majority in the House this morning and it voted 68 to 63 to bury the report. If this does not go to a committee, I will be looking for a judicial inquiry and to have the issue opened up. We need to get the truth out and then reform the Department in the process.

See this speech in context