James Carroll (Fianna Fail)

I will cite some facts, although I am sure the Minister of State will reiterate them. The lost at sea scheme was a limited scheme introduced in June 2001 with a closing date for applications of 31 December. It must be remembered that the scheme was specifically targeted at people who had been fishing and wanted to continue fishing. It is also important to remember it was a time-limited scheme intended to assist families in obtaining a replacement for a lost vessel owned and skippered by the applicant or an immediate relation. The objective was to allow fishermen or their immediate families, including women, involved in fishing to return to fishing and not, as some inside the Houses have been led to believe, to award any monetary benefit. The then Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, made this point numerous times when he spoke in the Seanad.

Any person or group of people wishing to return to a career in fishing would need to buy a replacement vessel with the necessary capacity that, in time, would have become a valuable commodity, since the overall capacity of the Irish fleet was capped under EU management rules. The scheme, when introduced, was both opposed and supported within the industry. Opinion was divided because some considered it would be unfair to award free tonnage to some, while others had to pay a high price for theirs. I reiterate the point made previously that it was important to ensure the scheme could be strictly limited to those who met the necessary criteria. Once the decision to have a scheme was made, the terms and conditions that emerged had to reflect the views of all stakeholders, national legislation and any appropriate EU rules. The conditions were objective and difficult to meet. They were intended to ensure that only those who met the criteria in full would be successful, that only the immediate family could benefit from any capacity awarded, that the benefit of capacity for the scheme was to allow the family to return to finishing and that the capacity awarded could not be sold or turned into a monetary amount, as can happen in other schemes.

The scheme was focused on those who had been in the fishing industry and wanted to continue a family tradition of fishing and where the grant of capacity would enable the applicant or an immediate relation to return to fishing. The advertising was successful and the scheme, despite its tight restrictions, was well responded to. Some 68 applications were made, of which six were successful. The scheme was widely advertised in the major fishing manuals, including The Marine Times, Irish Skipper and Fishing News. The 62 unsuccessful applications failed to meet one or more of the qualifying conditions. I reiterate the point that the scheme did not provide for the purchase of a replacement fishing vessel.

I noted when re-reading the report during the past few days, in order that I would be fully briefed for this debate, that in November 2004 the son of the owner who had been lost at sea with his vessel had complained to the Ombudsman on two grounds. His family had not been made aware of the scheme's existence and their circumstances were such that they ought to have qualified under the scheme in the first instance. It is a fundamental legal rule that ignorance of the law is no defence. Sadly, this same principle applies to the scheme. Following exhaustive examination and correspondence between the various parties, the Ombudsman found in her first report for the complainant. This appears to be at odds with the view of the Department of Agricultur, Fisheries and Food. The Ombudsman concluded that the particular family did not meet at least two of the conditions of the scheme and that advertisement of the scheme was not adequate, despite it having been advertised in the three major fishing publications in Ireland, which seems odd. Also, the fishermen's representative organisations were notified of its existence and had communicated the information to the 16 known cases, which appears to be the most appropriate approach in the circumstances.

As public representatives - I am a new public representative - we are aware of the considerations which must be met when we examine various schemes. The Ombudsman has expressly acknowledged that she as found no evidence to suggest the scheme, once launched, was not applied fairly and equally. The compensation figure of almost €250,000 recommended by the Ombudsman was, as pointed out by the Minister of State, arrived at using the rates used in the 2008 decommissioning scheme, which is a totally different and separate scheme. It seems odd that such a scheme would be used to calculate this figure.

Deadlines are a fundamental feature of most schemes and need to be strictly enforced and adhered to. Transparency is the key. That is what we all want to see. No one wants to see schemes used as political footballs. When criteria and deadlines are put in place, they must be adhered to and applied.

I commend the amendment to the House.