Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important report before the House as a result of the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman to present a special report to the Oireachtas for consideration. As I understand it, this is only the second time since the foundation of the Ombudsman's office that such a report has been placed before the Oireachtas, which illustrates the extent and seriousness of the matter before us for consideration.

The phrase "lost at sea" is emotive. Every time we use that phrase we reflect on the many people, in the main from the fishing community, who have down through the years lost their lives in tragic accidents at sea. On this occasion we must remember with sadness the Byrne, O'Brien, Lafferty and McGovern families, all of whom lost family members in a tragic accident in October 1981. The genesis of this debate, and of the Ombudsman's investigation, is the complaint by the Byrne family that the scheme put in place by the then Minister, Deputy Frank Fahey, was unfair, inappropriate and unbalanced. It is significant that the Ombudsman has raised profoundly serious questions about the scheme.

Yesterday in the Dáil, much time as spent discussing the behaviour of one Minister, but what we are debating is every bit as serious, if not more so. We are asking fundamental questions. Was a scheme designed to suit a predetermined number of people? Was it designed by a Minister basically to provide assistance only to his constituents? I do not wish to be judge and jury in this matter and neither is the Ombudsman's office judge and jury, but serious questions have been asked and they must now be answered.

It has been argued by the Fine Gael Party leader, Deputy Enda Kenny, and our party's agriculture spokesperson in the Dáil, Deputy Michael Creed, that the Ombudsman's report should come before the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for deliberation. The presentation of the Ombudsman's report is helpful in summarising chronologically the events that have brought us to this point. We must go further, however, because a one-off debate on the report is simply not sufficient. We have used the words "transparency" and "accountability" so many times in this House and elsewhere, but a much more detailed discussion and analysis of the report will be necessary to provide a proactive response to the concerns of the Byrne family and others. That is why it is so important for the Government to consider having the report debated in full at the relevant Oireachtas committee.

The Ombudsman's findings are pertinent. I respect the point made by the previous speaker that the Office of the Ombudsman does not define or determine facts in a judicial fashion, as a court might do. The Ombudsman's office does, however, carry out investigations, asks questions, consults with the affected parties and makes strong recommendations, which are not legal findings. Important information and significant key findings have been presented by the Ombudsman, Ms O'Reilly's, office in this particular case. Poor administration by the Department has been highlighted as a matter not just to be noted but also, hopefully, to be acted upon through further debate and deliberation.

I may be paraphrasing, but the report stated that the design of the scheme and the manner in which it was advertised was contrary to fair and sound administration, and that there were poor record-keeping practices. That is a serious observation by the Ombudsman's office. The report's findings highlight the opposing views between the Minister and some of his key officials as regards the scheme's genesis, design and operation. The report also notes the Minister's determination to put the scheme in place notwithstanding some problems that had been highlighted by officials. In addition, the report comments on the way the scheme was initially designed and eventually put in place. I am paraphrasing again, but it observes that the actions by the Minister and his officials resulted in a scheme which was too focused on known cases and wrongly excluded some deserving cases. It said the overall design was faulty and left no scope for the exercise of discretion in the event of further deserving cases coming to light. That must be of concern to us.

There is strong evidence to suggest that an unfair advantage was applied to a very small number of applicants. The report found that the Byrne family at the centre of the complaint was adversely affected. Meanwhile, some prospective applicants were put in a more advantageous position than others as they were written to directly by the Department and the Minister to inform them about the scheme when it was launched. I stress that I am not the final judge or arbitrator, but that finding paints a grave picture of suspicion that the scheme was designed for only a small number of people and that it was not an open, transparent and fair process.

That is a brief summary of what the Ombudsman said, but we are duty bound to recognise that we cannot simply close this chapter of the report. I appreciate that under the legislation which established the Office of the Ombudsman, the State is not obliged to respond to every finding of that office, or to act on every suggestion that is made by it. It should be noted, however, that the vast majority of recommendations in the Ombudsman's annual report are accepted either in whole or in a modified version by whatever Department is the subject of a complaint. That is how such reports have been acted upon over the past two decades.

The only fair and reasonable step to take now is to have a much wider trawl, if Senators will excuse the pun, of the report, as well as its background and findings, at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is the least which the affected families can expect. They have endured not only personal loss, but also financial distress for more than 20 years. If we are talking about trying to build a new political environment of fairness and equity, which generates public confidence, then this type of report must be acted upon in so far as possible. The minimum requirement is to have a lengthier debate to investigate the Ombudsman's findings in this case. The natural vehicle for such work is the Joint Committee. I ask the Minister of State to ensure that his senior colleagues in Government will allow the report to be debated at that forum in the near future.