Deputy Sherlock has requested that we invite the Ombudsman to appear before the committee.
Lost at Sea Scheme: Motion.
Perhaps I can contribute because I also have a motion for debate in public session which is not dissimilar to Deputy Sherlock's request. We have had statements. There is an impasse. Statements do not bring about a resolution of the problem that faces the committee. I contend, in respect of the impasse that exists between the Office of the Ombudsman and the State, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this case, that somebody must adjudicate; otherwise the complainant is left with no redress. The motion does not suggest that we implicitly accept fully the findings of the Ombudsman's report, nor does it suggest we accept that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is correct. It is that somebody——
We are still on Deputy Sherlock's letter. Is that what the Deputy is discussing or is he discussing his own motion?
We are in public session. They are broadly similar. What I have said in respect of Deputy Sherlock's suggestion is——
The Deputy must move his motion.
I move:
That the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food conduct an investigation on the findings and recommendations of the Ombudsman's Special Report on the Lost at Sea Scheme to the Houses of the Oireachtas in accordance with sections 6(5) and 6(7) of the Ombudsman Act, 1980.
The effect of the motion, if agreed, would be to listen to all sides and make a recommendation to the Houses in respect of this matter. The Ombudsman lays a report before the House but the House conducts statements which do not make findings for or against the report. That does not progress the matter. There is a precedent in respect of a previous Ombudsman's report which was considered by a committee and resolved subsequently to the satisfaction of the complainant and in accordance with the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman.
It is important to state that the Office of the Ombudsman conducts a crucial role in any democracy, that is, it gives people who feel aggrieved with the manner in which the State has dealt with them an avenue to pursue that grievance. That office has found in favour of the complainant and the Oireachtas should not thumb its nose at either the complainant or the Office of the Ombudsman by ignoring that finding. Irrespective of what way the matter is addressed, statements in both Houses of the Oireachtas do not amount to an investigation of the Ombudsman's report.
I do not wish to be provocative but there is a crucial issue at stake here and that is the integrity of the Office of the Ombudsman. If we treat it in this cavalier manner, in a way that suggests we can ignore her findings, it has very serious implications for the Ombudsman's office. I urge that this committee, not accepting either side of the issue, come to the table with clean hands, investigate the issue and examine both sides of it. For that reason I am in agreement with Deputy Sherlock's proposal that we invite the Ombudsman to attend the committee. However, my motion is more broadly based on the grounds that we look at all sides of the issue.
For the record I had formally requested that the Ombudsman be invited to the committee to address the content of her report on the Lost at Sea scheme. The issue is very simple. It is about whether any citizen can have confidence in the fact that if he or she makes a complaint to the Ombudsman and where he or she makes an adjudication that the recommendation is adhered to. In this case somebody made a complaint to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman made a recommendation that was subsequently rejected by the Government. If the Ombudsman has placed the reports before the Houses of the Oireachtas that is a very serious matter and has serious implications for the faith the State can have in the Office of the Ombudsman and whether the citizen can reliably make a complaint and have confidence in that office.
The Ombudsman should be given the opportunity to appear before this committee to facilitate an exchange of views and a question and answer session on the contents of her report. It is totally inadequate that we had a scenario whereby we had statements in the Dáil because that did not facilitate a process where I, as a member of this House, could have had time to question the Ministers involved in this process. It was a set piece and as a process it was fundamentally flawed. The only way we can address that is by giving the Ombudsman an opportunity to present herself to the committee to allow us have a proper discussion on the contents of the report.
In terms of the way the State works it is a sad day if we choose as a democratic body to ignore the findings of the Ombudsman's report because it will have implications for any citizen who makes a complaint in the future. We should tread carefully on an issue such as this one.
I concur with the two previous speakers. I am in favour of an investigation by this committee into the Ombudsman's report and the Lost at Sea scheme debacle. Being part of a fishing community I would be conscious of the entire aspects of this issue, not least the pain and suffering in terms of the people who lost their lives but also the vessels that were lost and the effect of that on coastal communities, but what is more alarming is the lack of confidence on the part of people who believe they have been discriminated against as a result of this matter. We would fail in our function as a committee if we did not investigate the Ombudsman's report and the position regarding the lost at sea scheme.
When we were in private session Deputy Aylward mentioned that this was advertised. I refer him to Fishing News of 22 June.
Not across the floor, Deputy.
I am just bringing it to his attention and I believe I am within my rights in doing so. This organ is not widely available in fishing communities. That is one of the aspects that concerns me greatly, as well as the way it worked out eventually for the Byrne family and the loss they have suffered as a result of it.
The Ombudsman's office was set up to give citizens an opportunity to outline how they believe they have been let down by the system. The Ombudsman brought forward a detailed report but to date we have not had the opportunity to examine and ask questions on that report, which is essential. If we are to continue to have any function in terms of fairness as political representatives, we should have the opportunity to examine that report and ask questions about it. The Department must be questioned on it also. I do not understand why anybody who calls himself a democrat would be afraid of that process. It is our process and I do not understand how anybody could have any reservations about that process.
People referred to the statements in the Houses of the Oireachtas but that is what they were. They were statements, not an examination, setting out one stall. If we are to have any function in this Chamber it is incumbent upon us to give due process and justice to everybody involved in this issue, not least entire fishing communities. The fishing communities have effectively revolted against the political process because of the way they have been treated consistently. If we are not seen to do the right in this case we will be letting down coastal communities, the Byrne family and all others who believe they have a grievance as a result of it.
We are opposed to this proposal. We believe bringing the Ombudsman before the committee would result in the office being brought into disrepute since it would be the political football in the politically motivated row it has now become. The point I want to get across is that this scheme was not to make payments to the families of people tragically lost at sea. We sympathise with the family involved but this scheme was not to pay people for loss at sea but to get people back into fishing.
The Lost at Sea scheme was a limited scheme introduced in June 2001 with a closing date of 31 December 2001. The objective was to enable qualifying applicants who were otherwise unable to do so for financial or other reasons continue a family tradition of sea fishing. The object of the scheme was to allow fishermen or their immediate family to get back fishing, not to award any monetary benefit. That is the first point that must be made.
This matter was already voted on in the Dáil and it was decided not to refer it to the committee but to proceed by way of statements both in Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. The Taoiseach offered to refer the matter to the committee but the Opposition wanted it dealt with in the House.
That is not correct. I have provided the Deputy and others with the Official Report on that matter. That is not correct.
In the interest of the family and the Ombudsman's office I ask members not to play politics with this issue. The Ombudsman's office is neutral. The Ombudsman is an arbitrator in cases that come before her. Incidentally, the Ombudsman met three of the political parties but we did not meet her.
The Deputy will have an opportunity to meet her when she comes before the committee.
The Ombudsman's office is neutral but we are politicising it by bringing her before this committee. I am opposed to that. Those of us on this side of the House believe there was ample opportunity in both the——
(Interruptions).
The Deputy will get an opportunity to speak.
——Dáil and the Seanad, and in the statements, to address it but we are now politicising the issue. We are opposed to that.
What is the Deputy afraid of?
I am not afraid of anything.
As Deputy Aylward said, the Ombudsman makes impartial decisions but this is about the Government of the day not accepting the decisions she makes. The Deputy said she made——
She made a recommendation——
The Deputy can come back in later.
——a decision but that was not accepted by the Deputy's party.
By the Department.
By the Deputy's party. It must be recorded that as late as last week in Limerick, the Ombudsman publicly criticised the former Minister, Deputy Fahey, for his role in this debacle. She apportioned blame to the Department and to the Minister of the day. I believe the Ombudsman is muzzled by this Government.
What are we afraid of?
I am sure she is being whipped by this Government to keep her mouth shut but we must afford her the opportunity to come before this committee and put her findings on the record.
I resent Deputy Tom Sheahan's statement about muzzling the Ombudsman. There has never been Government interference with the work of the Ombudsman. I challenge him to identify instances where we have interfered with the work of the Ombudsman.
Why does the Deputy not want her here? He is muzzling her by not allowing an inquiry.
Please, Deputy.
It is an outrageous statement to make. We have never done anything like that.
The Deputy is muzzling her now by not allowing her——
Deputy Sheehan——
We do not have to accept the findings of the Ombudsman.
Is the Deputy afraid of her evidence?
Deputy Sheehan, please. You will get an opportunity to speak later if you so wish. If you indicate I will call you.
Chairman, the Ombudsman has never been brought before a committee. Why are we setting a new precedent? The Ombudsman is above politics. Ombudsmen are arbitrators. That is their job. The Ombudsman made a recommendation to the Government. In her statement the Ombudsman acknowledged that the Department is free in law to reject her recommendations. That is in her statement but we are trying to politicise the matter because it suits the Opposition to bring the Ombudsman before this committee.
On a point of order, I reject any contention by any Member of the House that I am seeking to politicise this issue. What is at the heart of this issue is the facilitation of the Ombudsman to allow her expand on her own report. All that I ask is that she would be facilitated to expand on her report in this committee. She has not been given that opportunity and I am merely requesting, devoid of any political motivation, that she be given that opportunity. This is a serious matter, regardless of the political party one is a member of, when the Houses of the Oireachtas are furnished with her report. That is a rejection of the report and we are merely seeking an opportunity for the Ombudsman to present her findings to this committee. I have questions about the Lost at Sea report which I wish to pose to her in a public forum such as this. All I ask is that she be afforded that opportunity. I will not be accused of politicising this issue by a Member of the House.
There are two issues, and the Ombudsman accepted this. We all respect the Byrne family and it was on their application that the decision was made. The application was made a year and some months after applications were closed. That is a fact. They were not actually fishing prior to his loss.
Did you give the facts to the people who qualified?
Please, Deputy.
The Ombudsman accepted that in her statement. She made a recommendation and the Department in its wisdom refused it, which it had a right to do. I believe it would be politicising the Office of the Ombudsman to bring her before this committee.
I apologise for missing the commencement of the meeting due to a vote in the Seanad. I have listened with interest to my colleagues and I agree with the tone of Deputy Sherlock's intervention. We must first recognise the fact that since the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsman over 20 years ago, when Mr. Michael Mills was appointed Ombudsman, it is unusual for a report of the Ombudsman to be presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas for consideration. I believe this is only the second such occasion. It should be noted that we are not dealing with normal circumstances.
We should also note, as Deputy Creed said, that an Ombudsman's report is not biblical. It is an opinion, but something to which we must give deep consideration. Rather uniquely, on this occasion the Ombudsman has made it known that she would be willing to be interviewed on the matter. It is not a matter for us to prejudge, but to deliberate and investigate further. We would be remiss in our duty if we did not invite the Ombudsman to take questions from us. I do not have a closed mind on the subject; I would be very disappointed if any member of the committee has a closed mind on it or has read every page and understands every paragraph. If we are to be fair both to the Ombudsman and to people who hold a different view on her recommendations, the only way to inquire is by having the Ombudsman present.
It is not a question of politicising the matter. Under the committee's terms of reference we are obliged in so far as possible and practicable to investigate matters which concern us and are within our ambit. This scheme is covered by both criteria. I appeal to my Government colleagues not to wrap a political flag of defence around this report. It is a report from an independent officer of the State and we must respect her right to investigate and to make a report and recommendations. We have a duty to engage with her in so far as we can. It would be disappointing if the committee divided over shutting down further debate on this report. It is only the second time the Office of the Ombudsman has laid a report before the Houses so we cannot ignore it. We must take the decision of the Ombudsman very seriously and this is the forum to do so. Witnesses on all sorts of subjects have appeared before this committee and they have been interviewed fairly, impartially and non-politically. It would be the same with the Ombudsman.
It would be a negative signal and most unhelpful to all concerned to try to pull down the shutters on this. I appeal to my colleagues to allow debate and consideration. Their arguments are just as valid as mine, perhaps more so, but let us present those views, arguments and concerns to the person who drew up the report and try to bring this issue to a conclusion. This is a democratic forum and that is what we are here to do. We are not here to rubber stamp, but to question, determine and seek further information. As a person who does not know the full facts and does not claim to be an expert on the subject, I would welcome an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Ombudsman and to examine her thinking. We can row and divide on this but that would mean all of us making a political statement, which is not what the report is about.
I appeal to my Fianna Fáil colleagues in particular in this regard. Deputy O'Keeffe said there had never been an attempt to shut down the Office of the Ombudsman. That is more or less correct, even if there was an attempt once to ensure the Ombudsman would not be re-appointed. Notwithstanding that unfortunate episode, the Ombudsman holds an independent office not just in the political system but in the State. It would be a grave mark of disrespect to that office not to allow the Ombudsman to present a report before the committee and to take our questions.
It would benefit everybody if we could question the Ombudsman. That is equally true of the Government Deputies. If we believe in the integrity, honesty and impartiality of the Ombudsman, we have the right to challenge, question and tease out all aspects of her report. Preventing an impartial person, appointed by the Oireachtas, from being questioned by the committee is effectively bringing politics into the matter. I resent the accusation that we are bringing politics into it because we want to discover the truth and get to the bottom of the matter. If the Government members try to deny that opportunity to us, they are effectively playing politics with it.
It is democracy.
Act democratically.
We always do.
Please, Deputy O'Keeffe.
By acting democratically they will give us the opportunity to ask questions. I believe Deputy Frank Fahey would want that. He believes he has been vilified. The Government members are doing a disservice to Deputy Fahey, the Department and to democracy if they continue to prevent that opportunity being made available to democratically elected representatives in the House.
I remind members that a group has been waiting for the last hour. We must proceed rapidly.
It was said that the family concerned was 18 months late in applying. Deputy Aylward should check the bona fides of the people who did get tonnage.
With regard to the Ombudsman, I propose as an addendum to the motion that the Department's representatives should also be brought before the committee.
That is not a motion.
The Department's officials should be brought before the committee because, as I said last week, the Ombudsman publicly criticised both the Minister of the day and the Department. Both parties should be part of our investigation. I urge my Fianna Fáil colleagues not to muzzle the Ombudsman.
I call Deputy Scanlon.
On a point of order, the Ombudsman has made her report and nobody is trying to muzzle her.
Please, Deputy O'Keeffe.
Deputy Sheahan is behaving outrageously.
The report has been produced by the Ombudsman. The Deputy is saying we are trying to muzzle the Ombudsman when her report is available for everybody to read. Saying we are trying to muzzle somebody is complete nonsense.
There is no point in having it when the Deputies are carrying on like this.
It is because it suits the Deputy's political agenda.
It is not political at all. The Ombudsman did not come down on the Deputies' side.
(Interruptions).
The Chairman should put the question.
I must call Deputy Scanlon.
I must admit I know nothing about sea fishing. I received a letter this morning that was sent to the Ombudsman. Mr. Randall Plunkett, head of legal services, states in the letter that this boat was lost 20 years prior to the scheme being introduced. Is that correct?
What?
The scheme was introduced 20 years after the boat was lost.
I respectfully propose that we do not open up this debate now. The issue here is the motion before us and whether we agree to it.
(Interruptions).
Please let Deputy Scanlon continue.
I want to establish the facts because I do not understand sea fishing.
Read the letter into the record.
According to the legal people in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the scheme was introduced 20 years after the boat was lost. Apparently, the boat was not fishing for two years prior to being lost.
(Interruptions).
I must ask the person in the Public Gallery to leave.
Does Deputy Scanlon realise that the man's father and brother were lost on that boat?
I did not know that.
That is the man who has been put out. It is disgraceful.
I am calling on Deputies Creed and Sherlock, and I will then put the question. Is that agreed?
I am only trying to assist the committee.
Are these facts right or wrong? That is the question.
We have now descended into a regrettable mode in dealing with this issue. I am trying to deal with it in a non-partisan, non-political way. I regret to say, from what I have heard from the members opposite, that there is a circling of the wagons going on here. The briefing material that has been supplied to members opposite is designed to undermine the case that is being made. This committee has distinguished itself in the past by its ability to conduct investigations. I recall, in particular, the pork dioxin issue when it worked exceptionally well. The charge is that there is a cosy cartel between Fine Gael, Labour or Sinn Féin and the Ombudsman's office, but that is a farcical allegation.
No one said that.
I did not interrupt the Deputy.
We never said that.
Please, Deputy O'Keeffe.
The Ombudsman's office is independent and appointed by the Government, so that allegation is beneath contempt. We should be careful not to bring the Office of the Ombudsman into disrepute. The points made by Deputies Scanlon and Aylward should be put to the Ombudsman to give her an opportunity to defend her report and findings. That is the import of my motion, which is broader than what Deputy Sherlock is talking about. It says that we would conduct an investigation and therefore give an opportunity to Deputy Fahey, if he so wishes, as well as the Department — with which the Ombudsman's office is in direct conflict in respect of her findings — to comment. Let us then make a recommendation. It is extremely regrettable, and apparent, that the members opposite are in here on instruction from their party leader, the Taoiseach——
The Deputy is making allegations.
I am, Deputy.
Does he consider that we cannot think at all?
Please, Deputy Aylward.
That is the allegation he is making.
They are allegations that I have made previously. All the Deputies' actions to date vindicate those allegations — that they are afraid to give an independent constitutional officeholder a platform to defend herself here. The departmental officials should come in to give their side. The complainant should also be given an opportunity to come here to give his side of the argument.
I move that, in accordance with the motion before us, this committee should conduct an investigation on the findings and recommendations on the Ombudsman's special report on the lost at sea scheme to the Houses of the Oireachtas, in accordance with sections 65 and 67 of the Ombudsman Act 1980. I appeal to members to live up to the committee's previous record of doing its own business and making findings fearlessly and regardless of where we find fault.
I formally second that motion. In so doing, I agree that some opportunity must be afforded to the Ombudsman so that we can fulfil our democratic functions, as well as allowing her an opportunity to present the findings of the report as part of such an investigation. I hereby second the motion.
We are opposed to the motion. I admit that this committee has been a good one and apolitical in certain ways. All the business we have done since I came here two years ago has been useful and beneficial, in line with the committee's remit. I do not like to see divisions occurring. In case anyone thinks that we are stifling debate, that is not true. The Ombudsman has made a decision on this matter and has produced a report on it, which was refuted by the Department. It was debated in statements both in the Dáil and the Seanad. We are bringing it in here now. I respect the Ombudsman's office and, as part of my duties as a politician, I daily refer many things that I cannot sort out to the Ombudsman for decision. I respect the position of the Ombudsman, which is why I am saying that she should not be brought before this committee because she is neutral. Her decisions are neutral and she must arbitrate on matters that are put to her office by us and by others. By bringing her before this committee we would be criticising the office, and we are opposed to the motion on those grounds.
Is the motion agreed to?
It is not agreed.
As there are fewer than 17 members present, under Standing Orders we are obliged to wait eight minutes until a full membership is present before proceeding to take the division.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 9.
Tá
- Bradford, Paul.
- Creed, Michael.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Ferris, Martin.
- McCarthy, Michael.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Sherlock, Seán.
Níl
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Carty, John.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- O’Brien, Francis.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- O’Keeffe, Edward.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
Question declared lost.
I apologise that I must leave to deal with the Fines Bill in the Dáil.