Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus déanaim comhghairdeas leis as an ardú céime a fuair sé ar na mallaibh.

I welcome the fact that the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agreed this morning to invite the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, to a meeting to discuss the report on the lost at sea scheme. I hope this will be the start of an overall investigation of the scheme, as is called for in the motion before the House. I support the motion which is different from the amendment tabled by the Government in that it calls for a full investigation of the findings made in the report. I am glad to be one of the signatories to the motion, with my Fine Gael colleagues and Senators Norris and O'Toole.

The Ombudsman's report describes the lost at sea scheme as "seriously deficient and flawed". It is clearly an accurate summary of what took place. The Ombudsman has found that the Byrne family who are from my own county were treated unfairly in their claim for compensation following the loss of two members of the family and three crewmen when their boat sank in 1981. The family were excluded from the scheme because they applied one year after the period for the submission of applications had closed, but they argued that the scheme should have been publicised more widely, as we have heard, and that they were unaware of it, as were others who might have been eligible. The reason given for the failure of the Department to notify the family was that the then Department of the Marine and Natural Resources claimed to have no record of the tragic incident that led to the loss of the vessel and those on board. It seems strange the Department responsible for overseeing the fishing sector which is so meticulous in other areas related to fishing vessels and fishing regulations was not aware of it and had not officially recorded it.

Although it failed to advertise the scheme more widely and inform the Byrne family, the Department had written to others who had applied in order to inform them of its existence. We know it was the former Minister who has now left the Chamber who did this. On what basis was it decided to contact these individuals and not others? There are also serious issues to be addressed regarding those who were deemed eligible, the criteria employed and the level of compensation awarded to some but not others.

The Ombudsman agreed with the Byrne family in its complaints regarding all of these issues and also concluded that, because of the way in which it had been designed, it had been applied inequitably. On that basis, she recommended that the family be compensated and a figure of just under €250,000 was calculated as an appropriate amount. However, this was rejected by the Department, even though it was officials within it who had arrived at the compensation figure. The attitude of departmental officials probably reflected their own scepticism about the lost at sea scheme. When the scheme was proposed, there was opposition to it from within the Department on the basis of concerns about allocating quota, but the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, overruled these objections. The manner in which the scheme was operated only heightened that concern.

The Ombudsman also referred to the fact that two constituents of the former Minister, Deputy Fahey, had originally suggested the establishment of the scheme. The two people in question were granted compensatory tonnage worth €2 million under the scheme, out of a total of just €2.8 million awarded to the six successful applicants. There is also evidence that the two people concerned were accepted, despite the fact that the Department had ruled that they were ineligible because their vessels had been registered before 1990. The Minister made much of the fact that the Byrnes did not suit the criteria in that regard, but it is clear that neither did the two constituents of the former Minister. Others in the same position were rejected. The criteria were then altered, apparently, to facilitate the former Minister's two constituents. That alone substantiates the Ombudsman's conclusion that the scheme had not been administered equitably.

Of the 67 applicants who applied between June 2001 and the closing date for the scheme of December 31, only six were accepted. Some €2.8 million was paid out to the six successful applicants and the two people to whom I have referred, the then Minister's constituents, received 75% or €2.1 million of the total value of the replacement tonnage. It was later discovered that, although the scheme did not close until 31 December 2001, the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, had written to his two constituents in October congratulating them on being successful. They were among the six, of the 67 applicants, who were successful. However, it was found that one of the persons to whom the Minister had written did not actually qualify, according to the original criteria, but he appealed and was accepted in 2003, with one of the reasons cited for the award being the fact that the then Minister's letter of congratulations had created a reasonable expectation that he would receive compensation. This constituent was notified of the scheme, ineligible under the criteria and refused an award but then appealed and was granted an award because of the then Minister's letter in 2003. This application, appeal and award were all made after the date the Byrne family had applied. In the context of the Ombudsman's report on the Byrne family's application, it should be noted that it was being processed before the decision in the aforementioned case, yet it was still turned down. Even on that basis, the Byrnes were treated unfairly.

These issues have raised serious concerns which have been referred to in a number of press reports. They were also mentioned in the Lower House by Deputy Sargent in June 2006. I was, therefore, interested to hear what the Green Party Senators had to say. During the course of an extensive survey of Deputy Fahey's property holdings, Deputy Sargent specifically mentioned the fact that two of the then Minister's constituents had received such a large share of the compensation paid under the lost at sea scheme and went on to call on the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, to sack Deputy Fahey. How things have changed. The claim regarding the two individuals was reported in a piece in Ireland on Sunday two weeks later in which it was also claimed that the two people concerned had suggested setting up the scheme in the first place and that the criteria governing applications were changed in order to facilitate one of them. All of this has been confirmed in an investigation of the documents relating to the scheme and the processing of applications.

It is clear from the Ombudsman's report and all the other reports surrounding the scheme, including those to which I have referred, that a full investigation needs to be carried out into all aspects of the way in which the lost at sea scheme was operated. That is why it is necessary that it be referred to and fully discussed by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I welcome this morning's decision by the committee to invite the Ombudsman and hope it will be the start of a more intensive investigation. The whole issue must be investigated. The investigation should focus on the issue as it relates to the Byrne family, a family which suffered a tragedy at sea and which was unfairly treated by the Government. They deserve, as suggested in the Ombudsman's report, to be compensated for the way in which the Government treated their application. I hope the report and subsequent debate will lead to the family finally being treated in the way the Ombudsman ruled.

There is no doubt the Ombudsman's report is damning, not only with regard to how the lost at sea scheme was operated, but also with regard to the former Minister, Deputy Fahey. One item that jumped out at me when reading it was the handwritten note the former Minister sent to his departmental officials with regard to the parameters on which the scheme would be drafted which stated: "I want to see how we can ringfence the six to eight genuine cases." As we know, awards were granted in six cases and 75% of the amount granted went to two of the then Minister's constituents. How the hell did the then Minister know at the time, before the scheme was even drafted, that there would be six to eight cases when many more people had lost their lives and boats at sea? If the Byrne family were not in my constituency but in that of the former Minister and they had the same access other individuals had, there is no doubt the scheme would have been drafted to ensure they received compensation. It was drafted to suit a certain number of people.