Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister of State. What is interesting is that he makes it clear that those who contacted the Department in the year after the scheme closed to applications were several in number, which means that perhaps it was not advertised as widely as he might have thought. Six months is a short timeframe in which to make an application, particularly when the period began on 1 July and many do not pay attention to such matters in the summer months.

Will the Minister of State explain whether the Ombudsman examined how the successful applicants fitted into the criteria for the scheme and whether she considered the 62 unsuccessful cases? Did she make a comparison between the successful and unsuccessful cases to find out if there was much of a variation between the applicants? Did she examine all 68 cases, particularly the cases of late applicants? I ask this question to ascertain whether there are the continuity and fairness across the criteria to which the Minister of State referred. It would be useful to have an independent view on these applications.

I have raised a specific case with the Minister of State in regard to the payment of compensation in respect of a fishing vessel in County Wexford. A fisherman applied for compensation to an independent review group set up by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and headed by a senior counsel. The individual concerned was successful in receiving compensation from the independent review group but the Department did not accept its decision and, in fact, took its own independent review group to the High Court where it did not win. It then applied to have the case taken to the Supreme Court. When I raised the issue, the case was just about to go before the High Court and the Minister of State was able to get away with not saying too much because he was able to claim the matter was sub judice. If a person is seeking compensation for decommissioning a fishing vessel and the Department can drag that person through the High Court and the Supreme Court, in effect, it will win because it will break the applicant who does not have the resources available to the Department. In a sense of fairness, I ask the Minister of State to reconsider this case which I hope to take up again at some future point.

I do not accept some of the excuses used by the Minister of State such as that people can retrospectively take the Department to court, although I accept there is a risk of a precedent being set if an applicant is successful, as it would open up a range of other cases. However, the case I dealt with was not similar to any other; it was simply a matter of the Department obstructing this one individual and taking the case all the way through the courts. I am always concerned when the dead hand of government is used to block the rights of citizens. The role of a Minister is to facilitate in the decisions of Government bodies and allowing the average citizen the necessary flexibility.

In response to the Ombudsman's report I hope the Minister of State will not focus solely on the individual applicant dealt with in the report. What he must try to achieve is transparency for the ordinary person reading about the matter, whether in The Irish Skipper or one of the other fishing journals. When people read his response, they want to see the level of transparency to which I referred and perhaps him to ask the Ombudsman to review the 68 cases in which applications were made within the timeframe laid down and make comparisons between them to show that fairness and transparency were applied.

There is also a strong political element to this issue, of which the Minister of State is aware. Concerns have been raised that the criteria and their application might have benefitted certain individuals. There is a need to make absolutely certain that such a charge cannot stand up. The Minister of State should reopen the 68 cases to the Ombudsman to enable her to engage in a full and proper review. I also ask the Minister of State to examine the case to which I referred. I am sure he is aware of it and can access the file in the Department. Perhaps he could prevent the individual concerned being dragged through the Supreme Court. If he examines the file, he might do me the courtesy of contacting me to explain how many similar cases there are which would warrant the Department going all the way to the Supreme Court, having been beaten in the High Court and having rejected the recommendations of one of its own independent review bodies with regard to the decommissioning scheme. I accept the decommissioning scheme is completely separate and understand from where the Minister of State is coming in regard to it. However, as I said, there is bad stink about some aspects of the scheme which are being discussed among fishermen and those with an interest in this issue. For the sake of the integrity of the Department, as well as for the political integrity of the Ministers involved, both now and in the past, we should consider giving all of the files to the Ombudsman, to let her give an independent view on these matters and clear them up once and for all.