Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

Thank you. The committee examined the report. If it had found the Ombudsman had erred in the facts in her interpretation of the legislation or otherwise, that would have been grounds for setting aside her report and the recommendations. However, the committee examined each allegation and the defences put up by the former Minister who claimed the Ombudsman and her officials had misconstrued the scheme. In reality, it was the former Minister, Deputy Fahey, who had misconstrued the scheme. Even in the committee he continued to state that the scheme was for individuals who were still involved in fishing. The Ombudsman had to write to the committee to ensure this error of Deputy Fahey was corrected. Therefore, the very basis of his defence and his suggestion that there was some frailty in the report were found to be incorrect.

There was a suggestion that the scheme did not contravene EU regulations, which was also discussed at the committee. Of course, the scheme was never notified to the European Commission so the Commission never had the opportunity to suggest the scheme was fair, reasonable or otherwise.

Deputy Fahey stated persistently there was no finding of maladministration. In her intervention in the committee the Ombudsman specifically stated that she saw no difference between the term "contrary to fair and proper administration" and maladministration. On that point she found that the maladministration was in the drafting of the actual scheme. The maladministration applied to the Department in total, to the Minister as well as to the officials. She stated, "The difficulty I have is that I found maladministration in respect of the lack of fairness of the scheme". When she was asked to clarify the difference between maladministration and "contrary to fair and proper administration" she said they were the same.

I reiterate the extraordinary anomaly in all of this is that one of the two main beneficiaries of the scheme which the Minister sought to enrich did not qualify. That was confirmed at the committee. The lack of advertising was based on a misconception by the former Minister that a person had to be involved in fishing at that time and therefore there was no need to advertise it widely. The committee's report has a conclusion and analysis consisting of one paragraph: "The committee is of the view that the manner in which the scheme was advertised was not adequate but not to the extent that it could be considered contrary to fair and sound administration".

Therefore, the committee is substituting its judgment for that of the Ombudsman, which is not its role. There is no basis set out in its report for that conclusion. The reality is the committee's report does not, under any circumstances, reflect the debate, analysis and clear contradictions in the position which Deputy Fahey sought to advance at that committee. On each suggested frailty, fault or error in the report the Deputy was found to be wrong. It is my view that because the committee has not found any errors in the report and there is no evidence before the committee which would justify the calling into question of the report and the recommendations, there is no basis for rejecting the report as the committee proposes.

I propose, therefore, that this House upholds the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman. She has made the point in subsequent public comment in regard to the committee that it did not carry out a full analysis and its report does not reflect the findings of the committee. We are examining enlarging the powers of committees and the Joint Committee on the Constitution is examining this issue. If the work of the agriculture committee is an example of how committees function in the Houses, where the Whip is applied, in this case the Government Whip, to ensure an outcome, then no reform of committees can make them fulfil a meaningful role in the Oireachtas.