Sean Sherlock
Question:89 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his views on the proposal to electronically tag sheep; and if he supports these proposals. [3979/10]
Priority Questions.
Animal Identification Scheme.
I have on many occasions expressed concern about the mandatory introduction of electronic identification, EID, in the sheep sector. My consistent view has been that the introduction of EID of sheep should be on a voluntary basis. This position was most recently articulated to the European Commission and fellow Ministers at the Agricultural Council on 20 November 2009. Regretfully, there was not sufficient support among other member states and none from the European Commission for any further roll-back on the mandatory deadline, 31 December 2009, set for the compulsory introduction of EID or for a voluntary scheme.
The prevailing view at EU level is that member states should proceed with implementation. Other member states have already proceeded with implementation of EID on a mandatory basis. Therefore, I have no discretion as regards the date of implementation for electronic identification and there can be no question of deferring its introduction for a further period. In these circumstances, we must now proceed with its introduction.
During the period of debate at EU level, I placed a strong emphasis on pressing our case for a voluntary scheme and in this regard I have secured, in discussions with the European Commission and Commissioners, major concessions in regard to EID. These concessions include a slaughter derogation, which means that all lambs intended for slaughter and under 12 months old can now be exempted from EID. This will result in EID being largely confined to replacement breeding stock born after 31 December 2009. This means the vast majority of Irish sheep will be excluded from EID requirements, which will minimise costs for producers.
Furthermore, lambs identified under the slaughter derogation and subsequently retained for breeding purposes can be tagged with an EID device at the second holding. This is a major breakthrough in facilitating existing trade practice in the sector and addresses the concerns raised by Irish farming organisations that the new EID system would eliminate the sale of breeding sheep at marts, which would otherwise have an adverse effect on competitiveness in the industry.
My Department has circulated to farm organisations and other stakeholders for comment a technical document outlining the proposed changes to the National Sheep Identification System, NSIS II. This is part of a consultative process which has been ongoing for some time. The stakeholders have been asked to examine this document carefully and to engage with my officials to ensure that whatever revisions are made to the NSIS best suit Irish conditions and minimise the burden on farmers within the parameters of the new legislation. I urge the various organisations to contribute specific input to the proposed system.
It is not too often I am first to speak at Question Time. Does the Minister acknowledge that this will place a further cost on the primary producer given the cost per tag is estimated at between €2 and €2.50? Farm organisations are suggesting this will place a burden of up to €30 million on primary producers. Does the Minister acknowledge that the current traceability regime is adequate and that it is ludicrous that any European Union proposal would seek to electronically tag any animal for the purpose of meeting some bureaucratic designation?
I accept that there will be some additional cost to primary producers. One of the first meetings I had as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was with the EU Commissioner for Health, Androulla Vassiliou, in regard to this issue which comes under her remit within the European Union. I met Ms Vassiliou while she was here in Dublin and have spoken to her on a number of occasions in Brussels at Council of Agricultural Ministers meetings and elsewhere at which times I outlined our total opposition to the mandatory implementation of this proposal.
When we raised this issue at the Council of Agricultural Ministers, few member states, with the exception of Hungary, which supported us in recent times, Britain, which had previously supported us, and Northern Ireland, which had also expressed concern about this proposal, backed us. We had no support for our case around the Council of Ministers table. Indeed, some countries were robust in their criticism of all countries not having implemented this decision. There was total opposition to Ireland being given a further derogation. It should be remembered that this decision was agreed in 2003, postponed until January 2008 and subsequently to the final day of 2009.
As regards the cost of implementation to producers, I too have seen the figures which Deputy Sherlock accurately quoted. However, officials in my Department in consultation with officials in Teagasc, who are specialists in this area, undertook a thorough analysis and forecast in regard to costs. It is estimated that with the derogations we have received the additional cost to the primary producer will be less than €1 million on an annual basis. That is the best estimate available to the Department.
Is the assumption of €1 million industry-wide or is it divided by 30,000 sheep farmers? Is that the basis of the Minister's claim? Did the European Commission put forward this proposal in 2003 or did it come directly from a Council of Ministers initiative? I would like to know the Council's stated reason for refusing the derogation on the Irish position.
I am not quite sure from where the proposal initiated in 2003. I am not sure if it was proposed by an individual member state or by the Commission. I believe — I am open to correction on this and will check this for the Deputy — it was a Commission proposal initiated by the then Commissioner for Health and Public Safety. The analysis undertaken by my Department indicates that the additional cost to the average farmer with a flock of 100 sheep is estimated to be approximately €30 to €40 on an annual basis. Deputy Sherlock referred to the cost of tagging. We expect that the first year of tagging will probably be expensive on the basis that we will be adopting a standards based approach rather than a specified tender supplier. A number of people will have an opportunity, once they meet the standards, to supply this particular product. It is estimated that the cost will reduce rather than increase each year. This is based on the belief that EID will apply to more than 18% of the national flock.
We appreciate that the sheep sector is hard pressed. The only additional funding available to us under the national reserve in 2009 was the €7 million derived from what is commonly known as unused funds. I devoted this entire sum to an upland sheep payment. This year, an €80 million per annum scheme will be introduced for the sheep sector. The additional funding that will be provided to assist the sheep sector will be many multiples of the additional cost imposed on the sector through Europe insisting that EID is implemented.
We will now return to Question No. 88.
Common Agricultural Policy.
Michael Creed
Question:88 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his position on the proposed change to the calculation method of the single farm payment in the context of ongoing negotiations on common agricultural policy reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4245/10]
Formal negotiations have yet to commence on the future of the CAP and in that respect there are no proposals to change the calculation method of the single farm payment. However, policy debates have begun in a number of member states, including Ireland, and at EU level on the shape and direction of future EU agricultural policy. Among the issues that are being debated are the shape and format of the future single farm payment.
There is active debate about the credibility of the current historic payment model, based on average coupled payments received between 2000 and 2002, and the current differentiation of direct payment rates between and within member states. This debate is in part about the distribution key for national envelopes that provide the financing for the single payment and to the models used by individual member states to allocate their national envelopes among individual farmers.
There is a view in some member states that the rates of payment should be equalised between member states by applying an EU-wide flat rate. Some others believe payments should continue to be differentiated according to historical uptake, land use, land quality, production costs, and so on. A large number of potential payment models have been suggested in the formal and informal discussions to date.
As to my position, I oppose an EU-wide flat rate payment and I continue to see significant advantages to the historic model. While this view is supported by some others, there is little doubt that the number of member states that actively support the historic model is reducing. In this context, it is important that we look carefully at all the alternatives so that we can play a full part in the debate as it evolves. Some useful research has already been done on other payment systems but this work will need to be extended and intensified with greater stakeholder involvement.
I launched a public consultation process in July last inviting interested stakeholders to let me have their views on what EU agriculture policies would best serve Ireland and the EU in the years to come. I was pleased with the number and quality of the submissions received. In continuation of stakeholder involvement, I intend to establish a consultative group to advise on the best policy options for Ireland in the forthcoming negotiations, including with reference to direct payment models.
It is early days in these negotiations and I will meet the new Commissioner well in advance of any proposals being tabled to, among other things, outline my position on the type of payment system that will best serve the interests of Irish farmers. I will also continue to keep in close contact with colleagues in other member states on these matters. My overarching view is that, first and foremost, we need a strong and adequately resourced CAP after 2013. This is a point I have pressed strongly in discussions to date and for which there is good support in the Agriculture Council.
I welcome the Minister's reply. I heard alarm bells ringing when I read the Minister's press release of 30 December last where he stated, "For example, there is huge pressure for changes to be made to the historic basis used to calculate single farm payments and I believe we owe it to ourselves to at least examine the alternatives".
I am pleased the Minister now sees that the national interest is in ensuring that resources are targeted at people in active production and whereas the reference years that were used in the previous CAP reform, of 2000, 2001 and 2002, need to be updated, we need to ensure that resources are targeted at those in active farming, and the flat rate is obviously not a runner.
On the broader issue, what initiatives does the Minister plan to ensure that the budget is adequate? It appears there is a softening up process going on at present for a reduced budget for the Common Agricultural Policy. We need to forge alliances to put food security of the Union centre stage. If one puts that centre stage, one must have the resources to back it.
I welcome recent comments, for example, by an unlikely source, the UK Secretary of State for Agriculture who stated that food security in the Union was now as important as energy security. We need to work on those kind of alliances. There will be an east-west fault line in the negotiations, but it must be remembered that new accession states witnessed a rise in commodity prices. We need to forge alliances and I want to know what efforts the Minister is making to ensure there is an adequate budget and to ensure that the single farm payment is targeted at those who are involved in active primary production of commodities.
I share Deputy Creed's views on the issues on which he has touched. At a Council of Ministers meeting in September 2008 under the French Presidency we had our first discussion on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy. At that meeting I, along with some other members, outlined that we had to have an adequately resourced CAP and that my preference would be that we should know the parcel of money that we will have for CAP in the financial perspectives going forward to 2020. In the meantime the issue has also been discussed under the Czech Presidency, and under the Swedish Presidency as well. There were no Council conclusions on those issues, but there were extremely worthwhile discussions.
We have reached a point where in December last, at a meeting in Paris, 22 of the 27 member states signed up to a declaration on the need to have, first and foremost, an adequately and well-resourced CAP. We were active in that group. That group grew from work that we did along with the French Minister, the German Ministers and some others, and thankfully, it reached the stage where 22 member states attended the meeting and signed up to this declaration.
I want to see the CAP resourced adequately so that we have food security in Europe, we protect the food production base in Europe, we protect, encourage and assist family farming, and we are also active in supporting rural development. Deputy Creed's comment on supporting active farmers is one that I share absolutely.
Arising from the Lisbon treaty, the Parliament is now a co-decision maker in respect of the agriculture budget and there is a big job to be done in ensuring that the agriculture budget is protected and increased. There are traditionally hostile elements within the Parliament to the Common Agricultural Policy. People ask why we should spend 40% of our budget on the Common Agricultural Policy. We should, because it is one of the few areas where we have a common policy. We spend one third of what the Americans spend in supporting their agricultural primary producers.
We need to have a proactive approach in the Parliament as well. Has the Government given any thought to a strategy that embraces the new co-decision function of the Parliament in respect of the reformed Common Agricultural Policy?
Deputy Creed is correct on the co-decision and the influence of the European Parliament. Some time ago officials at senior level within my Department met all our MEPs and gave them a full briefing on the Common Agricultural Policy discussion document. I hope to meet all the MEPs when I attend the next Council of Ministers meeting in February. In the meantime the rapporteur of one of the groups of the agriculture committee of the European Parliament will visit me, I think, next week to discuss this report. We intend to keep our MEPs fully briefed and to work with them very closely, and we want to do the same with the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The assistant secretary general in charge of this division gave a detailed presentation to a Teagasc conference last week outlining the situation as it is evolving, the particular interests of other countries and the different models and how they would affect us, negatively or positively.
I would like to see the joint committee involved in that discussion as well. I thank the spokespersons who contributed and responded to my invitation last summer to send us a submission on the Common Agricultural Policy. Shortly, I will put together a consultative group representative of the industry to work along with us, at Department, Government, Oireachtas and European Parliament levels in what is an important issue for this country.
Question No. 89 answered in advance of Question No. 88.
Departmental Agencies.
Michael Creed
Question:90 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has an influence on the direction or work programme of agrifood research in Teagasc; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4246/10]
Under the Agriculture (Research, Training and Advice) Act 1988, Teagasc has statutory responsibility for the provision of research, education and advisory services to the agriculture sector.
In accordance with section 13(3)(a) of the Act, Teagasc is required to submit a report in writing to my Department before the end of the financial year outlining its proposed programme of activities for the following year. The report, in the form of a programme of activities, covers the principal functions of Teagasc in the provision of education, research and advisory services to the agriculture sector.
The current programme is informed by the Teagasc statement of strategy, which sets out the strategies and priority actions for the Teagasc food and agriculture research programmes over the period 2008 to 2010. Teagasc research activities are designed to support Irish food and agriculture within the framework of Government policies and priorities. They are consistent with national objectives to support agrifood research and development as set out in my Department's Agri-Vision 2015 strategy. They are also in line with Government plans to build a knowledge economy as far as the agrifood and wider bio-economy is concerned.
Teagasc continually develops its research programmes in conjunction with its clients and partners including the main stakeholder groups in the agrifood sector. Particular emphasis is placed on transferring the outcomes of research and development activities to the farming and wider agri-sector to support increased efficiency and economic sustainability at farm and firm level.
The programme also provides the scientific basis for a range of other public good activities in food safety, biodiversity protection and climate change mitigation, and to meet the demand for environmental goods and services.
During the past 15 years Teagasc has built up internationally recognised research programmes in areas such as food safety, food technology, animal breeding and functional foods. Teagasc is currently investing significant resources in restructuring its research and development resources into centres of excellence. The Moorepark Food Research Centre is internationally renowned as a significant research hub. Several major multinational companies are collaborating with Teagasc researchers and in the process, strengthening their commitment to Ireland as a location of choice.
Did either the Minister or one of his ministerial colleagues recently write to Teagasc complaining about research published in the agency's research magazine on the issue of a GM-free island, which is Government policy, and the impact this would have on the pig sector? The research quantified that Government policy is costing the sector in the region of €13 million per year. If such correspondence exists, will the Minister publish it? If that is the case, what can we expect? The Government tours the world promoting a knowledge and science-based foundation for economic regeneration. Can we expect the Minister for Education and Science to write to UCC to ask it to cease research in its biotechnology centre? Can we expect the Minister for Health and Children to write to the HSE to advocate that we no longer use drugs that have been developed with the aid of biotechnology research? What will the endgame be with this nonsense in the programme for Government on a GM-free island? It has reached ludicrous proportions and it will damage our reputation internationally as a knowledge-based economy. Will the Minister publish the documentation sent to Teagasc?
I am not aware of any documentation to which Deputy Creed referred.
The Minister should research the matter and revert to the House with the information.
It is important to recognise the excellent work carried out by Teagasc at all its research centres throughout the country. One such eminent centre is in the north of the Deputy's county of Cork at Moorepark, where there is great collaboration with many major international companies based in the country, both of Irish and foreign origin. The Deputy will be aware of the development alongside the Moorepark research centre involving a collaboration between industry and the State. The Deputy will be aware also of the initiative, Food for Health Ireland, in which Teagasc is a leading player.
That is not what I was referring to. I was referring to correspondence from Teagasc.
There was nothing in the Deputy's question that I could ascertain in respect of GM crops. It was a general question——
The Minister anticipated my intervention well because he tried to have the question ruled out of order.
The Minister knows full well to what I am referring.
Teagasc works to the Government programme and priorities. It does so in a very effective way and will continue to do so at all its research centres that it is developing as centres of excellence.
The Minister is being disingenuous. He knows full well to what I am referring because he attempted to have the question I tabled on the Order Paper ruled out of order. The Minister should not be so disingenuous. I asked the Minister if he will publish the correspondence sent to Teagasc either by him or the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent. What will the endgame be for this nonsense in the programme for Government? Will research in biotechnology in our universities close down as a result?
That is not the solution.
What are the consequences for the knowledge-based economy that Ireland goes throughout the world promoting as the cornerstone of our economic recovery? Will the Minister publish the correspondence in question?
A final reply from the Minister.
May I say that——
Will the Minister publish the correspondence?
The Deputy has asked his question. He should allow the Minister to reply.
Deputy Creed should note that in no way am I being disingenuous. We are entitled to check if a question is suitable when it refers to the detailed work of a semi-State organisation.
The Minister is aware of what I was referring to. I laud Teagasc for its research.
That is good and I appreciate it. The Deputy might also consider lauding the Government for the major investment in the past——
It has its head in the sand with regard to GM research.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to reply.
This is a backward approach.
The Deputy should also laud the Government in parallel terms for the major funding that has been put into research, development and innovation in recent years, including in our universities, institutes of technology and our research centres.
The Minister is working against innovation and development.
We are not working against innovation and research; we are supporting it very well and we work in collaboration with Teagasc to ensure the needs of Teagasc are addressed and that it works to priorities.
Will the Minister publish the letter?
I did not send any such letter and I am not aware of any correspondence.
Did the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, send a letter?
I am not aware——
Will the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, comment on whether he sent such a letter? Did he send a letter to Teagasc?
The Deputy is not allowed to hector Ministers. He has put a question——
I cannot get an answer.
That is a matter the Deputy should pursue in another way. The Deputy is aware that there are a variety of ways of getting access to information under the law.
That is what makes a mockery of the Parliament.
We will now move on.
It is not possible to get answers to questions. Will the Minister of State acknowledge that he has seen such correspondence, that it exists and will he publish it?
The Minister has answered the question. The Minister of State is not entitled to answer separately.
That is ridiculous.
Fishing Vessel Licences.
Sean Sherlock
Question:91 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his attention has been drawn to the report of the Ombudsman entitled Lost at Sea; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3980/10]
Tom Sheahan
Question:92 Deputy Tom Sheahan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his views on the recently published Lost at Sea report of the Ombudsman; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4247/10]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 91 and 92 together.
In her report, the Ombudsman stated she received several complaints in respect of the lost at sea scheme. She recommended that compensation should be paid to one family. Following further correspondence between the Ombudsman and the Department, the Ombudsman laid a special report before the Dáil and Seanad on 14 December 2009 outlining her findings and invited the Houses to consider the report and take whatever action they deem appropriate in the circumstances. I understand the matter will be debated in the House next week.
The Ombudsman concluded that the particular family's application did not meet at least two of the conditions of the scheme and that the family was adversely affected by the decision to reject its application. The Department's position has been consistently that it does not support the payment of financial redress in this case and that it handled the family's application fairly and in accordance with the terms of the lost at sea scheme as published.
The lost at sea scheme was a limited scheme introduced in June 2001 with a closing date of 31 December 2001, under which replacement capacity, gross tons and kilowatts that would otherwise have had to be bought on the tonnage market was provided free of charge to qualifying applicants who had lost a fishing vessel between 1980 and the establishment of the fishing boat register in 1990, but who had been unable to replace it for verified financial reasons. The scheme was intended to assist families to introduce a replacement for the lost vessel which would be owned and skippered by the applicant or by an immediate relation of the applicant.
"Capacity" is a term used to describe the gross tons, GTs, a measure of volume, and kilowatts, kWs, of power of a fishing vessel. The total capacity of the Irish fishing fleet is limited to 88,700 GTs and 244,834 kWs under EU Regulation No. 1438/2003. Under the so-called "entry-exit regime", capacity coming on to the Irish register must be matched by the removal of the equivalent capacity from the same fleet segment.
When the new sea fishing boat register was introduced in 1990, all vessels registered at the time were awarded the tonnage of their vessels, effectively free of charge. However, any vessel that had sunk or that had otherwise been destroyed clearly could not be registered. Any such owner seeking to return to fishing would have had to buy a replacement vessel and the necessary capacity, which in time became a valuable commodity because the overall capacity of the Irish fleet was capped under EU fleet management rules. By 2001, it was argued that there were several cases where the cost of purchasing replacement capacity was a factor in preventing families from getting back into fishing after losing a vessel.
The conditions of the scheme were intended to ensure that only genuine cases were successful and that only the immediate family could benefit from any capacity awarded.
Some cases were more genuine than others.
Under the conditions, any capacity awarded could not be traded, sold on or otherwise disposed of, and the vessel to which it applied had to be skippered by the successful applicant or an immediate family member. The success rate of only six from 68 applications received reflects the stringent conditions of the scheme. The case, which is the subject of the Ombudsman's report, was not one of these 68 applications and the application was received in January 2003 for a scheme which closed in December 2001.
It is important to take account of the conditions of the scheme as published to appreciate the Department's view and its position on the report. These included that the capacity of a vessel which was lost at sea before the establishment of the sea fishing boat register set up by the 1989 regulations would, as an entirely exceptional measure, be accepted as replacement capacity provided that the Department was fully satisfied, by reference to appropriate documentary evidence on several points, the first of which was that the applicant was the owner and skipper of a registered Irish sea boat which was lost at sea. Second, that the boat in question was lost at sea after 1 January 1980 as a result of an accident and that such loss has been verified by the emergency services or another independent source acceptable to the Department. Third, that the boat in question was shown, by reference to log sheet returns or other appropriate records, to have been in active and continuous use for a considerable period of years by the person concerned for sea fishing of a category now covered by the replacement policy rules until its loss at sea. Fourth, that the lost vessel was the sole means, that is, the only vessel, of the applicant for engaging in sea fishing. Fifth, that the applicant was unable, for verified financial or related reasons, to acquire a replacement vessel, or any other registered vessel, before the introduction of the new register pursuant to the 1989 regulations. Sixth, that the applicant has been unable also, for verified financial or related reasons, since the inception of the new registration system, to acquire a fishing vessel to engage in sea fishing of the same class or description as was carried out by the vessel lost at sea, or any other sea fishing vessel which is subject to the replacement policy regime and, finally, that the applicant did not receive any financial benefit from the loss.
It was provided that the capacity of a fishing vessel lost at sea would be accepted as replacement capacity for licensing purposes only if it would be used for the purposes of sustaining or maintaining a family tradition of sea fishing. Any capacity accepted as replacement capacity must, therefore, be used for the purposes of introducing a replacement for the lost vessel which would be owned and skippered by the applicant or by an immediate relation of the applicant. Any capacity from a lost vessel so used could not be sold or otherwise disposed of.
Applications under the scheme had to be received by 31 December 2001. These conditions were intended to ensure that only genuine cases were successful, and that only the immediate family could benefit from any capacity awarded.
The Minister's response is utterly disingenuous. Would he not acknowledge the fact that justice has not been served for the Byrne family, who had no way of knowing the terms of the scheme and no way of benefiting by way of tonnage under the scheme for the reasons outlined by the Ombudsman? She found that the advertising process was utterly inadequate and the family had no way of benefiting from the scheme as a result. Would the Minister acknowledge that her decision to grant compensation was based on her acknowledgement of the wrong that was done and that there was no way the family could benefit from tonnage?
The Ombudsman found that some prospective applicants were put in a more advantageous position than others as they were written to by the Department and the Minister to inform them of the scheme when it was launched. The Minister must respond on this matter. Third, the very fact that the Ombudsman deemed it necessary to place the report before the House must be significant. The Government side of the House is disregarding and disrespecting the decision of the Ombudsman and the Minister must answer for that.
I am happy to respond to the points raised by the Deputy. With regard to the family not knowing and therefore not benefiting, the scheme was advertised in a number of industry publications — the Fishing News in June 2001, the Irish Skipper in July 2001 and in the Marine Times in August 2001. It is a matter of opinion as to whether advertising in the trade papers is the appropriate way to proceed, but that is what was done. There is a conflict of viewpoint in that regard. The Ombudsman also spoke about a discretionary element, which is something on which people would have very diverse and conflicting views.
With regard to the Deputy's point that a number of people were notified, the Department had in its records at that time information relating to 16 cases. The 16 people in those cases were notified. It should be borne in mind that only two of those 16 were successful so it cannot be said that the Department wrote to people and they were subsequently successful. I also understand that the Department notified the representative organisations at the time. A very strong case can be made on this issue. The final point made by Deputy Sherlock was that I am disregarding the Ombudsman's report. I am taking full account of that report. I have a difference with it regarding interpretation at various points, but that remains the position.
Personally, I have good time for the Minister and I respect him. It must kill him to stand here and try to defend what happened with this lost at sea issue. He is trying to defend the Department and his predecessor. I imagine that does not sit well with him.
A question for the Minister.
We do not know what the consequences will be. I agree with Deputy Sherlock that the Office of the Ombudsman is being called into question here. It is an independent constitutional office and this is the second time in 25 years that it has put a report before the Oireachtas. The last occasion involved a Revenue Commissioners case and the Government of the day had to agree with the Ombudsman's recommendations and settle with the aggrieved party. Where does the Office of the Ombudsman stand now, given the attitude of the Government to this report? Serious deficiencies and flaws have been outlined in the Lost at Sea report by the Ombudsman. In what regard does the Minister hold the report? Deputy Sherlock has said he is disregarding it. I remind the Minister that there are 60 other families, who did not send a complaint to the Ombudsman.
I assure the House and both Deputies that I have the height of regard for the Office of the Ombudsman and the work it does. I have no difficulty defending the Department and I also have no difficulty accepting that either I or the Department is wrong if that happens to be the case. In this instance, the Department has clearly stated that it was scrupulous in administering the scheme. Each applicant was treated fairly, and the Ombudsman accepts this contention. She states in the report that she has no evidence to suggest that this was not the case and she accepts the Department's assurances on this point. That is very important. It is not just a case of defending the Department. What the Ombudsman says in that regard is very clear. Where there are differences of opinion, they relate to conditions of the scheme. I hold a strong view about the closing date and conditions of schemes generally; it is not just the Department's view.
To suggest it was incumbent on every applicant to read the fishing press is a disgrace. In this situation, a father had passed away as well as three crew and a brother. Does the Minister think their extended family would be reading the fishing press? What we are seeking here is natural justice. This is borne out by the fact that the Ombudsman, an independent arbiter, has made a ruling in the case. On this basis, we are seeking to press the Department for a change of heart so this family can benefit from natural justice, as well as other people who might be adversely affected by this scheme.
Has the Minister sought legal advice from the Attorney General on this matter and the report? Has he calculated the potential financial liabilities for the State not only in this case, but in the cases of the other 60 applicants who have not complained to the Ombudsman?
A final reply from the Minister of State.
The advertising issue is a matter of opinion and, clearly, Deputy Sherlock and I take opposite views on it. I am not sure that people in any community necessarily read the advertisements in the daily newspapers, for example, which is another medium where advertisements might have been placed. It is highly unlikely. I certainly do not——
They did not get a telephone call from the Minister to tell them the scheme was available either.
The Minister without interruption.
It is also important to bear in mind that this information was made available to the fishing organisations and to the only cases that were on file in the Department. Interestingly, only one in eight of those cases actually qualified under the terms of thescheme.
Certain people got a heads-up from sources about the scheme.
Lines were sold after the draw had taken place.
Allow the Minister to make his final reply to the very serious questions.
I appreciate that point but the argument cannot be brought to any conclusion because it is impossible to know where one would need to have put this information to ensure that everybody received it. However, had the Department been aware of 16 cases, as it clearly was, and had it not informed the people concerned that this scheme was in place, a case could be fairly made that information was available to the Department which it had withheld from people. Frankly, I do not see how the Department could have informed people of whom it was not aware in the first place, and I certainly do not see how it could defend not telling the people of whom it was aware. That point is absolute rubbish and does not withstand any type of examination.
With regard to the tragedy that befell this family and all 68 applicants in this case, and quite a number of others who did not apply for a variety of reasons, it is incumbent on all of us to take a sympathetic view. It would be a wonderful world if we were able to design a scheme under which——
Deputy Michael Creed: What about the Attorney General?
——it will be possible to pay compensation on those criteria. It is not possible to do that. On the question of taking legal advice on the issue, not only did I take it but it is outlined in the Ombudsman's report.
On the question of taking legal advice on the issue, not only did I take it but it is outlined in the Ombudsman's report.
I asked a question about the Attorney General's advice which was never answered.
It is in the letter.
The Minister of State specifically replied to that, but the Deputy was on his feet at the time and was not listening.