John Carty (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State. He made a very comprehensive speech, with parts of which I wholly agree. I am delighted to note that he holds the Ombudsman in very high esteem. He has complimented her on the investigation she has carried out, which is very important.

I accord my sympathy to the family in question and the many families which have suffered bereavement during the years in tragedies at sea. Such tragedies have affected families in my county and all along the entire coastline. The tragedy we are discussing dates back to 1981. It took a long time — the best part of 20 years — for it to receive official recognition.

There was a closing date to the scheme. Based on my professional experience before entering the Oireachtas, departmental scheme closing dates always cause problems. This family is aggrieved that its application was not in before the closing date and I have every sympathy for those involved. However, closing dates exist for a reason and they must be adhered to, or every scheme would continue for long periods and no end would ever materialise. I am aware that in the case of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when closing dates were first mooted problems arose and extensions were given. Eventually a time came when a closing date was set and if one was late, a certain percentage was taken off one's entitlements for every day missed up to a ceiling of 20 days.

That was not the case in this instance and a closing date was stipulated. I find it difficult to understand and I disagree with the Ombudsman's view on the matter of advertising. The scheme was advertised in various fishery bulletins of which the fishery industry, a small knit community, would have been aware. That part of the report is somewhat difficult to understand. As the Minister of State rightly stated, the scheme was advertised in the Marine Times, Irish Skipper, and Fishing News. All the fishing representative groups were aware of the scheme as were the producer organisations. They were all asked to publicise the scheme and I believe they did so. A significant number of applications were received and several were unsuccessful: a figure of 62 was provided by the Minister of State. Such applications failed to meet the criteria. I do not understand the point of view of the Ombudsman in this case. The period of time allocated for the application was adequate. The scheme ran for six months from June 2001 until 31 December of that year. The application submitted by this family did not arrive until January 2003. I feel sorry for the family but I do not know what can be done at this stage.

I listened to my colleague, Senator Bradford, who is always very reasonable. He offered the view that this should be discussed in depth at the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but I disagree with him fundamentally in this regard because the sooner closure is brought to this matter, the better. We should not give false hope to people who may take the view that while the matter is under discussion, they may be entitled to some compensation eventually. Such a measure serves no purpose and prolongs the pain for the people concerned. There is no basis at present for such a suggestion. I compliment the Minister of State and the way in which he has handled the matter today and in the Lower House.