Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received advice on the potential financial repercussions which may arise for his Department following contact from the Office of the Ombudsman relating to the lost at sea scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36518/09]

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The lost at sea scheme was a limited scheme introduced in June 2001, with a closing date of 31 December 2001. Its objective was to enable qualifying applicants, who were otherwise unable to do so for financial or related reasons, to continue a family tradition of sea-fishing.

The scheme provided replacement capacity, gross tons and kilowatts, that the applicant would otherwise have had to purchase on the tonnage market, for the purpose of introducing a replacement vessel in respect of fishing boats lost at sea between 1980 and the establishment of the fishing boat register in 1990. The terms of the scheme also specified further conditions pertaining to the use of the capacity once it was deemed eligible. The conditions of the scheme as published were:

"The capacity of a vessel which was lost at sea before the coming into operation of the (Sea Fishing Boat) Register set up by the 1989 Regulations will, as an entirely exceptional measure, be accepted as replacement capacity provided that the Department is fully satisfied, by reference to appropriate documentary evidence, that:

(a) the applicant was the owner and skipper of a registered Irish sea boat which was lost at sea;

(b) the boat in question was lost at sea after 1 January 1980 as a result of an accident, and that such loss has been verified by the emergency services or another independent source acceptable to the Department;

(c) the boat in question is shown, by reference to log sheet returns or other appropriate records, to have been in active and continuous use for a considerable period of years by the person concerned for sea fishing of a category now covered by the replacement policy rules, until its loss at sea;

(d) the lost vessel was the sole means (i.e. the only vessel) of the applicant for engaging in sea fishing;

(e) the applicant was unable, for verified financial or related reasons, to acquire a replacement vessel, or any other registered vessel, before the introduction of the new Register pursuant to the 1989 Regulations;

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister of State answer my question? His time will run out and I will not have received an answer.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a matter for the Chair. Will the Minister of State continue the answer?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They further read:

(f) the applicant has been unable also, for verified financial or related reasons, since the inception of the new registration system, to acquire a fishing vessel to engage in sea fishing of the same class or description as was carried out by the vessel lost at sea-----

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We had that in a written reply.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Allow the Minister of State to speak. Questions are put and Deputies are given an opportunity to listen.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tactics.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is then an opportunity for questioning, Deputy Creed. That is the way the operation of the House will continue. The Minister of State, without interruption.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----or any other sea fishing vessel which is subject to the replacement policy regime; (g) the applicant did not receive any financial benefit from the loss.

The capacity of a fishing vessel lost at sea will be accepted as replacement capacity for licensing purposes only if it is to be used for the purposes of sustaining or maintaining a family tradition of sea fishing. Any capacity accepted as replacement capacity must, therefore, be used for the purposes of introducing a replacement for the lost vessel which will be owned and skippered by the applicant or by an immediate relation of the applicant. Any capacity from a lost vessel so used may not be sold or otherwise disposed of.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, Deputy Sheahan raised a material question, namely, whether the Minister has taken advice in his Department. This is outrageous.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy knows these are Priority Questions and the only person who can ask a further question is Deputy Sheahan who tabled the original one. Please allow him speak. I am sure the Deputy will make a point and ask a question.

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I asked the Minister if he had received advice on the potential financial repercussions which may arise for his Department following contact from the Ombudsman's office relating to the lost at sea scheme.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There was no answer.

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I received no answer. I tabled a similar question last week to which I received a written reply yesterday which was what the Minister of State has just read out. The lost at sea scheme-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should put his question directly to the Minister of State.

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Concerning the lost at sea scheme, may I quote the Ombudsman?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am afraid the Deputy cannot quote during Question Time but he can refer to material.

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I shall refer to it. It points out that while acknowledging that the Department, under European Council Regulation No. 2371/2002, is of the opinion that the lost at sea scheme cannot be revisited, the Ombudsman's office considers that it did not address the central issue which is that the scheme was seriously deficient and flawed as outlined in previous correspondence to the Department. Accordingly, the office has reverted to the Department requesting that it outline how it proposes to address this issue.

The lost at sea scheme was introduced, as the Minister of State noted, to get people back fishing who had lost their boats. It was abused and in the Ombudsman's words, was "seriously deficient and flawed". I am led to believe the Ombudsman's report will be brought to the House next week with a recommendation that one family which was refused entry into the scheme would have to be compensated. The point is that 62 other applicants were refused. This is what I am trying to find out and that was why I posed the question as I did, to receive an answer from the Minister of State.

Has the Minister of State looked at the financial repercussions that may be present for the taxpayer and the State? Has he discussed this with his Departmental colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Trevor Sargent, who lodged a complaint with the Standards in Public Office Commission regarding the handling by former Ministers of the scheme? Does the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, still consider that Deputy Fahey's handling of the scheme is worthy of complaint?

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The silent Minister of State, Deputy Sargent.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was not my question.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State, Deputy Killeen.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Department is corresponding with the Ombudsman's office with regard to this scheme and the matter has not been concluded. Detailed legal advice was sought from the Attorney General's office, was considered and acted upon. It would be virtually impossible to answer the Deputy's question in detail, for a number of reasons. There are perhaps three considerations of some importance, two of which relate to the conditions of the scheme. First, if, finally, there were to be a recommendation for payment in this case, the applicant made the application considerably outside the application period. That would relate not only to the 62 vessels which were refused but to an unknown number of others.

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Others were approved before the scheme closed.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That might come into play. That is one element of the answer to the point made by Deputy Sheahan. Second, apart from the closing date that was not met by the applicant in question, it is difficult to speculate what judgments will be made regarding other applicants who might not have met other conditions of the scheme. It is impossible to know how many there were. It is also important to bear in mind that no money was paid to anybody, nor was any tradeable asset made available to anybody under the terms of the scheme. If money were to be paid arising from this it appears it would be in accordance with the decommissioning scheme which is entirely separate and has nothing whatsoever to do with this scheme. In the circumstances, while one would have enormous sympathy for the family concerned and would obviously wish to be in a position to provide some recompense, there would have to be no doubt that the motivation in setting up the scheme was along those lines. The fact is that unless one knew what conditions might be set aside in any judgment it would be impossible to predict what the cost might be.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A brief supplementary, Deputy Sheahan.

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They got no money. That is correct. However, they got 200 tonnes of quota, with a value of €10,000 per tonne between two men. That is 75% of the whole tonnage available to the 68 applicants. Two men from County Galway got 75% of it. It was because of the way it was worked-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A question, please.

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have to lead up to it. It was the way it was worked. Four months before the scheme was launched the then Minister met with the two applicants and told them to apply. The closing date for the scheme was December 2001 yet the Minister wrote to the two applicants in October 2001 and congratulated them. Thereafter, the Attorney General's advice was that they had to receive this settlement because of the Minister's letter. This was a con job and a set-up. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, while he is present, if he still believes this con job is worthy of a complaint to the Standards in Public Office Commission.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A final reply from the Minister of State.

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a very common error. People assume in these cases that a quota was provided rather than financial recompense. What was provided was tonnage and kilowatt hours, which is considerably different in many respects. A condition was imposed on the scheme which I understand was included at the insistence of the Minister, namely, that it could not be tradeable or otherwise disposed of to the benefit of the people who got it. There were also conditions in respect of the ownership and skippering of the vessel which ensured that only the family who had the loss could benefit from it.

In the circumstances, only six vessels of the 68 that applied were successful. In the setting up of the scheme it would have been impossible for anybody to predict what kilowatts and tonnage might have been required to be made available to vessels that were successful. If 20 vessels had been successful, or indeed one other large vessel, there would have been implications for the percentage that was awarded. At this stage it is very easy to be wise and say that particular people benefited for particular reasons. As far as I am concerned, the Department has administered the scheme fairly and in accordance with the conditions of the scheme. If those conditions are to be changed at this stage, I cannot tell the Deputy what the implications are because it is impossible to know.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is easy to be wise afterwards.

Tom Sheahan (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister of State believe a good job was done?

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Ombudsman does not agree with him.