Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State. I step into the breach for my colleague, Senator Michael McCarthy, who is unavailable and I will speak on behalf of the Labour Party on this matter. It is important to keep the Byrne family to the forefront of our minds on this matter. At issue is the matter of natural justice and whether the Byrne family received due recognition for its complaint or an appropriate response from the agencies of the State was forthcoming. When he was an Opposition Deputy, my constituency colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Sargent, filed a complaint concerning the role in this affair of the former Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Frank Fahey, with the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO. While SIPO rejected the complaint, the Minister of State's action demonstrates that certain Members now in Government recognised that a problem existed.

The Ombudsman found the scheme to be seriously deficient and flawed and the European Commission was never informed of its existence. The Byrne family has been treated abysmally by the agents of the State, with the notable exception of the Office of the Ombudsman. However, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has decided to ensure that the family will not gain redress. For only the second time in the history of the State, we are left with a scenario in which the role of the Office of the Ombudsman has been completely undermined. As a result of its decision to reject the Ombudsman's findings, the Government has undermined the confidence citizens held that they could successfully resolve their complaints and it has severely compromised the independent statutory role vested in that office by the Legislature.

For the Labour Party, this is a case of ensuring that the organs of the State are not undermined or demeaned in any way. We must not neglect the significance of a rejection by the Government of the Ombudsman's report. That the report has been laid before the Houses, presumably as a last resort, speaks volumes about the contempt this Government holds for any independent arbiter whose role is laid out under statute. What hope can the ordinary citizen have that a complaint will be adjudicated upon fairly if a decision can be rejected by the Government of the day for reasons of political expediency? The Byrne family has been subjected to the ignominy of witnessing a report which offers redress and a measure of natural justice rejected for the sake of that political expediency.

It is clear from the correspondence between the Department and the Ombudsman that the Department is engaged in a cost saving exercise and will do anything to abdicate its responsibilities. The Labour Party seeks justice for the Byrne family and an acknowledgement of the Ombudsman's report. It is critical that we afford the Ombudsman an opportunity to present her findings to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Also, we should have the opportunity to hear from all interested parties to understand the issue fully.

It is important that the following statement from the Ombudsman is read into the record of the House. If this has been done previously I offer some apology, but I intend to include it in my contribution. The Ombudsman stated:

My role as Ombudsman is to ensure that our public administration system deals properly and fairly with members of the public and this is a task which I am committed to fulfilling, without fear or favour, in line with the statutory authority which has been granted to my Office by the Oireachtas.

My decision to make a special report in this case was not taken lightly. It is my statutory duty under the Ombudsman Act, 1980 to decide what is fair and reasonable in relation to each complaint that comes before me. Where a remedy is warranted I take great care to ensure that my recommendations are both appropriate and proportionate. The credibility of any Ombudsman depends on his or her ability to deliver adequate and appropriate remedies to people who have been treated unfairly. My investigation of the Byrne family's complaint has been painstaking and forensic. However, in this case, despite my best efforts, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food continues to dispute my findings and recommendations and I have been unable to resolve the impasse. My only option when this arises is to seek the intervention of the Oireachtas. It now has the task of deciding who is right and who is wrong in the context of good administration and fairness to the complainant.

The Labour Party proposes the House should adhere to the recommendations of the Ombudsman. I accept it is not within our gift to apply its findings and deliver some degree of natural justice to the family. It is not for the Minister of State to decide on the motivations of the family or to comment on them in 2010 in the context of a scheme that was in place from 1980 or 1981 to 1989. However, what is at stake is the role of the Ombudsman and the decision and findings of the office. The Ombudsman clearly stated that there was maladministration and that the scheme was not properly advertised. She made a decision to grant redress for the reasons outlined in the report. The issue is whether the Government decides to take on board the views of an independent arbiter which has a statutory function. We should not reject a report of the Ombudsman so easily.