Seán Connick (Wexford, Fianna Fail)

At the outset I too express my deepest sympathies to the Byrne family, who have been to the forefront of the minds of all, regardless of party politics, in this difficult case and issue.

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Ombudsman's special report on the lost at sea scheme. This issue has been extensively debated, both in this House and in the Dáil, as well as having been thoroughly analysed and considered by the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Indeed, I contributed to the debate in this House in March and I was also one of a number of witnesses who appeared before the joint committee during its consideration of the Ombudsman's report.

In the course of my contribution to the joint committee, I had been following the proceedings of the committee with great interest and I have read the committee's report and, in particular, noted and agree with its conclusions and recommendations. The committee is to be commended for the diligent manner in which it went about its work over the course of a number of meetings, to which a number of relevant witnesses were invited, including the Ombudsman herself.

When appearing before the committee in June, I stated I did not propose to cover all the ground already covered by previous witnesses, and I do not intend to traverse that ground today. However, there are a few important points I want to make about the process which has, ultimately, led to today's debate.

I want to pick up Senator John Phelan on the fact that he mentioned that we ignored the report. Nothing could be further from the truth. From my appointment on 23 March, this is one of the first issues I had to deal with in my new ministry. I read the report extensively, along with thousands of other pieces of paper and documents. I spent many hours with my officials debating the pros and cons of this case. I have spent a great deal of time on this matter, preparing for either the debates here or my appearance before the Oireachtas committee, and it is wrong to say the report was ignored.

When the Ombudsman published her special report on 14 December last, she invited the Houses of the Oireachtas "to consider my report and to take whatever action they deem appropriate in the circumstances." She also acknowledged that her findings were not binding on the Department and that it was free in law to reject her recommendations. Its response to her recommendations has been articulated on several occasions - in this House and the Dáil by me and my predecessor, Deputy Killeen, and by senior officials of both my Department and the former Department of the Marine, including my Department's Secretary General, during their dealings with the joint committee and in correspondence with the Ombudsman's office.

Having been invited to consider the Ombudsman's special report, the Dáil and the Seanad considered the report in February. In the course of the Dáil debate there were calls for the report to be referred to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Taoiseach confirmed to the Dáil that he had "no difficulty with the relevant committee dealing with any of these matters" and went on to say, "If the Ombudsman wants to come before that committee in order to discuss the matter, that is fine." During Private Members' time in this House there was a further extensive debate on the report.

At its meeting on 31 March the joint committee decided to consider the Ombudsman's special report and report to both Houses of the Oireachtas thereon. The committee held a series of five meetings with relevant witnesses between 21 April and 16 June. At the conclusion of these meetings, it wrote both to the Ombudsman and the Secretary General of my Department and asked that they engage in dialogue with a view to reaching a compromise. In response to this request the Ombudsman's office and the Department discussed the possibility of finding a compromise. However, as the committee concluded, "The respective positions of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as articulated before the Committee, are irreconcilable". The respective positions of the Ombudsman and my Department are set out in the committee's report and, as acknowledged in the report, "both parties have been consistent in their stance".

In this regard, it is worth recalling the Department's position which was based on a careful examination of all aspects of the matter and legal advice sought and taken. It is that the scheme was properly devised; that its terms and conditions were clear; that it was properly advertised in a targeted way to its target audience, namely, the fishing industry and related coastal communities, and in accordance with custom and practice for fishery-related schemes at the time; that it was scrupulously fairly administered, as the Ombudsman has acknowledged; that the application in this case was properly refused in the first instance as it was more than one year late for a scheme which ran for only six months; that there was no compelling case the applicants should receive any award under or on foot of the scheme; that there was no basis for the payment of compensation in this case, in the amount recommended by the Ombudsman or any amount; that there was a risk of undermining the administration of the wide range of schemes and programmes operated by the Department, all of which had strict terms and conditions, as well as many other administrative schemes across government that had application deadlines, terms and conditions. The Department's concerns are supported by the specific legal advice obtained. It is for these specific reasons that the Department has disagreed with the Ombudsman's finding and the recommendation for payment of compensation. As I have mentioned, the Department's view is supported by the specific legal advice available to it.

There is a genuinely held view that the Ombudsman's recommendation in this case could give rise to major financial liabilities arising from claims from other unsuccessful applications under the lost at sea scheme that may well undermine other departmental and public service schemes. My Department's position in this regard was addressed extensively during the joint committee's consideration and the basis for my Department's concerns about the potential precedent that might be set for other schemes was clearly articulated on that occasion. I am satisfied that it is clear from the information provided for the Ombudsman, the Dáil, this House and the Oireachtas joint committee, supported by the Department's files, that the scheme was carefully developed and fairly administered. I commended the committee for its work. It has performed a very useful function in teasing out the various issues and by providing a public forum in which such issues of public interest can be debated.

As this was only the second occasion on which the Ombudsman had published a special report, there was no prescribed procedure by which such reports should be considered. The Ombudsman's Act 1980 is entirely silent on what, if anything, the Houses of the Oireachtas should do with any special report laid before each House. In this regard, I agree with the joint committee's view that "the process for considerationof such reports should be clearly set out" and note that it has ''agreed to recommend to the Committees on Procedure and Privileges of both Houses that Standing Orders should be amended to provide that future special reports of the Ombudsman should be considered by the relevant Oireachtas committee on a specific referral motion by the House or Houses concerned".

On the subject of advertising schemes, I accept the recommendation of the joint committee that "all future administrative schemes should be advertised in the national newspapers". I also welcome the committee's conclusion that it is "not persuaded by the Ombudsman's views in relation to the design of the scheme" and, consequently, that "the Committee is not in a position to recommend acceptance of the Ombudsman's special report to the Houses of the Oireachtas". I commend the Government's counter motion to the House.