James Carroll (Fianna Fail)

Gabhaim buíochas as an deis labhairt ar an rún seo sa Seanad. Tá áthas an domhain orm seans a bheith agam ráiteas a dhéanamh ar thuarascáil an Ombudsman. This is my first opportunity to speak in my new role in Seanad Éireann with the Minister of State, Deputy Tony Killeen, present. I look forward to working with him until June 2012.

As Senator Twomey said, we all acknowledge the great work done by the Ombudsman and her office, which is top drawer. The investigation carried out by her and her team into this specific case has been to the highest standard.

As the newly appointed spokesperson on fisheries, I am delighted to contribute to the debate. In recent months I have had the opportunity to meet and work with a number of fishermen in my own county of Louth at Clogherhead's Port Oriel, a great resource for the country, one we should develop further. Clogherhead's prawn festival, for example, is restarting this year after a lapse of 14 years. I look forward to working with those involved. I attended the launch of that festival a number of weeks ago by Clogherhead Tourism Council. We should be focusing on the tourism potential of areas like this. Other towns and villages throughout the country have taken on this mantle, including Carlingford in north County Louth which has transformed itself as a tourist hub for customers North and South. It is an example of how people and businesses in the South can appeal to businesses in Northern Ireland and how people in Northern Ireland can do their business North-South as opposed to the current position in terms of all business being South-North. The Government should strategically consider the development of places like Clogherhead.

As the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, indicated the lost at sea scheme was a limited scheme introduced in June 2001, with a closing date for applications of 31 December 2001. Many people were misled or, sadly, chose to be misled in regard to how the scheme worked. The scheme was specifically targeted at people who had been fishing and wanted to continue fishing. It is important to remember that it was a bounded, time-limited scheme which was intended to assist families obtain a replacement for a lost vessel which would be owned and skippered by the applicant or an immediate relation. The objective of the scheme was to allow fishermen or their immediate family, including women involved in fishing, to return to fishing and not to award any monetary benefit which, as articulated by the Minister of State, is key.

When the new sea fishing boat register was introduced in 1990 all vessels registered at the time were awarded the capacity of their vessels effectively free of charge. However, any vessel that had previously sunk or had otherwise been destroyed clearly could not be registered. Any person or team of people wishing to return to a career in fishing would have had to buy a replacement vessel and have the necessary capacity, which in time would become a valuable commodity because the overall capacity of the Irish fleet was capped under EU management rules.

The Minister of State mentioned earlier that the scheme, when introduced, was opposed and supported within the industry. Opinion was divided, which I can understand. It seemed unfair to be seen to be awarding free tonnage to some while others had to pay a high price for their tonnage. I reiterate the point made in this House and in the Dáil that, from an administrative perspective, it was important to ensure the scheme could be strictly limited to those who met the necessary criteria. Once the decision to have a scheme was made, the terms and conditions that emerged had to reflect the views of all stakeholders, national legislation and any EU rules.

As articulated by the Minister of State, the conditions which were objective and quite difficult to meet were intended to ensure that only those who met the criteria in full were successful, that only the immediate family could benefit from any capacity awarded, that the benefit of capacity for the scheme was to allow the family to return to fishing and that the capacity awarded could not be sold or turned into a monetary amount, as can happen with other schemes. Some 16 fishing vessels were at the time lost at sea, the owners of which received written notification of the new scheme and were invited to apply. The scheme was focused on those who had been in the fishing industry and wanted to continue a family tradition of fishing and where the grant of capacity would enable the applicant or an immediate relation to return to fishing. The advertising was quite successful and the scheme, despite its tight restrictions, was well responded to. As stated by the Minister of State and Senator Twomey, 68 applications were made, of which six were successful.

The scheme was aimed at people and families who had a tradition in fishing and was widely advertised in the major fishing trade, including The Marine Times, Irish Skipper and Fishing News. The 62 unsuccessful applications failed to meet one or more of the qualifying conditions. I want to reiterate the point that the scheme did not provide for the purchase of a replacement fishing vessel.

I noted when reading the report during the past few days that in November 2004 the son of the owner, who had been lost at sea with his vessel, had complained to the Ombudsman on two grounds: his family had not been made aware of the scheme's existence and their circumstances were such that they ought to have qualified under the scheme in the first instance. I recall, as a graduate of law in UCD, being taught on the first day that the most fundamental of legal rules is that ignorance of the law is no defence. Sadly, this same principle applies to this scheme. Following exhaustive examination and correspondence between the various parties, the Ombudsman found in her first report for the complainant. This appears at odds with the views of different Departments which had studied the report. The Ombudsman concluded that the particular family did not meet at least two of the conditions of the scheme and that advertisement of the scheme was not adequate despite it having been advertised in the three major fishing publications in Ireland. Also, the fishermen's representative organisations were notified of its existence and had communicated that information to the 16 known cases, which appeared to me to be the most appropriate approach in the circumstances. There is no 100% assured way of ensuring everybody eligible under a scheme is notified of its existence. We, as public representatives, are well aware of the considerations in terms of hitting one's target audience be it in respect of public meetings or clinics. All considerations, including how, when and where, must be examined fully.

The Ombudsman has expressly acknowledged that she found no evidence to suggest the scheme once launched was not applied fairly and equally. The compensation figure of almost €250,000 recommended by the Ombudsman was, as pointed out by the Minister of State, arrived at using the rates used in the 2008 decommissioning scheme, which is a totally different and separate scheme. I will not reiterate the specifics of that scheme given they have been already articulated by the Minister of State. Suffice to say that I concur with his views on the matter.

The Minister of State set out the Ombudsman's finding, that the design of the scheme and the manner in which it was advertised were "contrary to fair and sound administration". I do not accept this. The Ombudsman's desire for flexibility makes sense. We are all agreed on the need for flexibility in all schemes. However, how flexible is flexible in regard to this matter? Does that mean dropping one, two or three criteria and, if we do so, will any applicant be eligible under this scheme?

Deadlines are a fundamental feature of most schemes and need to be strictly enforced and adhered to when accepting or rejecting applications under schemes. Transparency is key. As stated by Senator Twomey, transparency in regard to deadlines and criteria in specific schemes like this is key for delivering the transparency we all wish to see. Totally discounting deadlines by more than 12 months and accepting as valid an application more than one year late, as has been suggested by the Ombudsman, would have extremely wide and incalculable financial and other implications for all Departments, semi-State agencies and schemes. To what will we be leaving ourselves open if we drop deadlines and accept as valid applications made one year late?