Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)

Ba maith liom fáilte a chuir roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Tony Killeen, agus tréaslaím leis as ucht an sár obair atá á dhéanamh aige.

I am conscious at the outset that this debate concerns a tragic loss of life at sea, which should inform all our deliberations. That is more important than any other aspect that will be raised here. Fishing has always been a dangerous occupation. I congratulate the former Minister, Deputy Frank Fahey, on taking the initiative in introducing a scheme which was designed to assist survivors and bereaved families of those who had drowned. It aimed to give them an opportunity to continue in fishing despite the major setback of losing their loved ones. I am glad we are having a very reasoned debate here. I compliment the speakers on the other side. A cursory reading of the Official Report of the debate in the other House shows that it degenerated very quickly into a political boxing match. There was more heat than light in it. Much of the argument on the Opposition side was based on statements issued by Mr. Joe Higgins, MEP, which are proven to have been entirely incorrect and which have never been withdrawn by him in respect of statements he made about the then Minister, Deputy Fahey. It is unfortunate that Mr. Higgins would not even at this stage admit that the statements he made on that occasion were entirely erroneous.

There are two elements in the debate. The first issue is whether the scheme was administered properly or not. The second issue is whether the Ombudsman was correct in proposing to include people retrospectively in a scheme even though they did not comply with all the necessary regulation during the period when the scheme was operational. I wish to deal with the second issue first.

Like every other scheme and every form or support that the State implements, this scheme was conditional. In other words successful applicants needed to be able to tick all the boxes in order to qualify. While the timeframe was quite limited, the Department did its best to disseminate the information in the proper way by targeted advertising in trade publications and fishing magazines and through the fishing organisations. We have all learned from the waste in which we indulged when we had a looser economy. One needs to trim down. There is no great advantage in placing big advertisements in the back of the Sunday Independent, which would be read by less than 1% of those affected, when one could target the particular group by placing the advertisements in specific magazines or periodicals that were going to be read by the people with a natural interest in the scheme. There is no doubt in my mind that advertising was the correct way of doing it. There was no hidden agenda and no going behind closed doors. It was pretty well known. I know fishermen as I know farmers. If farmers have any inkling that a grant or some other support might be available for something, they will be onto it before it is even properly promulgated by the Department. They do not need to wait around to see advertisements in the back of the Sunday Independent to find out about it. Fishermen are the very same.

I again express my sincere sympathy to the Byrne family over their great loss and naturally we all have a human response to this issue. However, if the exception were to be made for them or any other applicants, it would create a very serious precedent not only in the operation of the lost at sea scheme, but it could also generate a plethora of retrospective applications for support under a myriad of State schemes run by all Departments, including the Departments of Education and Science, Health and Children, and so on. It is necessary to balance the human element with the fact that, like all schemes, it was operated and regulated under rules and a regime that needed to be followed in order to qualify.

Another point was very confused at the time Mr. Higgins, MEP, made his complaints. The scheme was never intended to provide monetary compensation to anybody. There was never a question of financial compensation. It was designed to assist families still in the fishing business at the time the scheme was introduced and to make up for their loss of capacity to fish. They were being offered a limited scheme to grant replacement capacity if they were still involved in the industry. This capacity, or tonnage, could not be sold or traded for gain and suggestions to the contrary are completely wrong. People have suggested to me that it was like a milk quota. This was not the case. A farmer could sell a milk quota, which has a realisable value. This just provided an opportunity to continue fishing. Many of those who took up the offer have since lost money. It was not a money-making or grant-endowing scheme at any stage.

There is no evidence of any wrongdoing or deviation from regulation in the administration of the scheme during the time when Deputy Fahey was Minister or thereafter. It is amazing how the general public was given the impression that a limited number of families were given a bonanza, as was suggested in one newspaper. At the time I believed that people were getting money and that was the idea that was abroad, but it is absolutely erroneous. The regulations were tight and a number of families qualified. It was as simple as that.

I come to the other aspect of the argument, namely, the Ombudsman's position. The Ombudsman has a very important and difficult job. I have the utmost respect for both the position and the present incumbent. It would be part of the job description of Ombudsman to be caring and to look to support those most in need who are suffering the greatest trials and tribulations. That is what one would expect of an Ombudsman. That needs to be weighed up by the Government in the wider context of what is good for the overall wellbeing of the State. The Ombudsman, like anybody else, can be wrong. In this case the Government had no option but to make the decision it made. I do not agree with Senator Bradford, whose contributions I always respect. There is no great value or merit in continuing this type of debate, sending it back into the committee for discussion, having more stewards' inquiries into it or bringing it back to the Ombudsman. Overall it is a very sad story. It has been exacerbated by mischief making by Mr. Higgins, MEP. We should draw a decent veil over it, in respect for those who have died and move on.