Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I thank all the Senators who participated in the debate for their views on this matter. I sometimes believe it is a lot easier to respond to a debate in the Dáil where debates tend to be extremely political and where it is possible to respond in almost entirely party-political terms. I frequently find in the Seanad, as I do today, that the contributions of Senators are very considered. In so far as possible, they look behind the scenes and raise questions that are actually very difficult to respond to. One can well understand why somebody in government might prefer that there were no Seanad. When I come to the House to consider legislation, Senators, for whatever reason, be it related to interest or time, consider issues deeply and propose amendments. I hardly ever came to the House with legislation without accepting amendments and driving everybody mad elsewhere.

I find myself in disagreement with many of the points Senators made on the lost at sea scheme. However, one fundamental point was made in virtually every contribution, namely, that there is not a prescriptive outcome provided for in the original Ombudsman legislation of 1980 with regard to what happens following the referral of a report to the Houses of the Oireachtas. This is a great weakness and it was outlined in considerable detail by Senator O'Toole and others. Perhaps the Oireachtas will address it at some point.

I will try to address the specific points of individual Senators. Senator Twomey asked about the extent to which the Ombudsman examined all 68 cases. I do not know the answer but certainly agree with the Ombudsman's assessment that her examination of a case and everything relevant thereto is thorough and painstaking. I find it very difficult to imagine that an Oireachtas committee or any other body charged with responsibility in this area would find it possible to do a better job than has been done.

I have tried to set out in my opening contribution the key points on which I disagree with the Ombudsman. The principal one relates to closing dates of schemes, irrespective of what schemes they may be. Every Member in each House understands Senator O'Toole's point on people waiting on the quay wall and praying for the safe return of family members, friends and relations who are on a trawler engaging in one of the most dangerous occupations in the country. He referred to the kind of heartbreak this brings to families.

One difficulty with the lost at sea scheme relates to the entitlement to conclude that an element of what is provided for involves the making available of some kind of compensation to people who have lost families in the tragic circumstances that apply to the Byrne family and many others. A huge part of me would want to find a way to do that for the Byrnes and many other families but other considerations that come into play create difficulties.

The manner in which the Ombudsman went about examining these issues seems extraordinarily thorough and professional but that does not address the point being made. Senator O'Toole said very eloquently that it as possible that the Ombudsman could be as wrong as the Minister. I came into the Department fairly late in the day and examined all the material and reached a conclusion as fairly as I could thereon. With regard to Senator Twomey's question, I do not know the extent to which the Ombudsman considered the other 67 applications. However, with regard to the one in question, nobody could dispute the thoroughness of her consideration.

Senator Twomey referred to a case concerning the decommissioning scheme. It is entirely inappropriate to this debate and, in any event, it is not sorted at Supreme Court level. Suffice it to say the Senator was making the important point that solving difficulties through the courts is both expensive and, for many reasons, not very desirable. He also made the point there is a political element to this debate that would make it very difficult for the Oireachtas to adjudicate were it its role. It simply is not the role provided for in the legislation.

Senator Carroll outlined the issues that arise in legal terms in a way that explains better than I can what exactly is being dealt with in this instance. My training is not in this area. The Senator's contribution was very helpful in this regard.

Senator Bradford said this is only the second occasion on which the Ombudsman has referred such a report to the Oireachtas. Many will not be aware that in the previous case, which arose during my tenure, although I was not a member of the committee, the resolution was anything but straightforward. One could not say it was resolved in a manner along the lines outlined by the Ombudsman. Perhaps, therefore, the Oireachtas should be considering the next step, which is not clearly provided for.

Many questions arise over the administration of the scheme. What appears clear from the Ombudsman's report is that there is no question about the administration of the scheme which was designed and set up. It is inevitable that a scheme in gestation since early 1999 and which finally came into play two years later would be subject to the input of very many people. Representatives of the fishing industry, in its various guises, had an input and some were opposed and some were in favour of the scheme. Various other interested parties had an input, as did Members of the Oireachtas. The scheme was naturally informed by the input of a series of people, including Department officials, who had views thereon.

The point is often made that a small number of people were written to and informed about the scheme. The records appear to indicate that 16 people were written to and that only two of them were successful. The choice the Department would have had at the time would have been either to write to the people it knew about to let them know about the scheme or not tell those to whom it knew the scheme applied about it. In such circumstances, it is considerably better to tell the people to whom one knows the scheme applies about its existence rather than run the scheme and perhaps run the risk of them not finding out about it. That is a difficulty.

The difficulty points to another shortcoming in the era in question, namely, that there was no real means of having a definitive list of boats lost at sea. The then Minister, Deputy Fahey, addressed this when he set up the operation that deals with this area, which is now under the Department of Transport. One of the issues raised was how families feel they have been left out and disadvantaged by the system, and that there was not even a record of their loss.

Senator Bradford also referred to the Ombudsman legislation and the Oireachtas procedure. No more than anybody in the House, I wish I were in a position to compensate all the families who have lost in this manner.

Any files in the possession of the Department which were requested by the Ombudsman were sent forward. One of the difficulties is at that stage one is dealing with a massive amount of documentation, not all necessarily filed in a manner that makes it easy to do the job that the Ombudsman must do, and it was a very difficult job to do in that regard.

Senator Ned O'Sullivan also mentioned the tragic human circumstances of which we all must be cognisant and the fact that it is a dangerous occupation. He mentioned there was a reasoned debate, although I think he attributed particular views and statements to the wrong MEP. My recollection is that he may have been referring to Mr. Jim Higgins, MEP, rather than Mr. Joe Higgins, MEP, but that is a slip of the tongue that one could easily make. He also made the point about the targeted advertising.

I mentioned already one of the points made by Senator O'Toole on where the legislation hangs and at the end there is not a clear place to go to, and that does seem to be something that needs to be addressed. He made the point quite strongly that the Ombudsman might be right or wrong, or I might be right or wrong, and that is an important point because some kind of resolution in those circumstances would seem to be desirable.

He also mentioned issues in the courts. Unfortunately, in the fishing industry many issues are decided in the courts by injunctions and by all kinds of procedures, and that is probably not a healthy way to do business.

The Senator also made the point, of which I was very cognisant, that the part of my address where I referred to the quantum of the award and took issue with it, weakened the argument. I tried to make the point that the really major consideration was the closing date and the fact that the integrity of schemes depend to such an inordinate extent on the integrity of closing dates, and then went on to deal with other ancillary matters arising from the Ombudsman's report. There are other important points which in the time available I did not manage to address but which require to be addressed. However, the Ombudsman did an extraordinarily good job.

I am informed that I am needed for a Dáil vote. I will make a brief reference to the points made by Senator Carty on the integrity of closing dates, with which I agree.

Senator Ryan made a number of points on the Ombudsman's findings which are important. I want to assure him that there is no intention on my part, or the part of Government, to undermine the Ombudsman. I strongly believe that were this to become a political football in the way that the current proposals would have it, it would do irreparable damage to the Office of the Ombudsman, and that anything that is happening currently certainly does a great deal less damage.

Senator Ó Brolcháin mentioned that the Ombudsman believes it is not a good scheme. He also made a point on the compensation in Galway West. It is important to bear in mind that there was no finite amount of compensation and that the outcome depended entirely on the size of the boat, and that is where the capacity came from. It was based on the size of boat rather than any other consideration.