JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Jun 2010

Lost at Sea Scheme: Discussion with Minister of State

Chairman

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with special responsibility for fisheries and forestry, Deputy Seán Connick, and his officials. As this is the Minister of State's first meeting with the joint committee, I wish him well in his new position. On behalf of the joint committee and the delegation which travelled to Brussels for an important fisheries meeting a few weeks ago, I thank him and his officials for the briefing they provided. It was much appreciated by members.

The format of today's meeting, which will discuss the Ombudsman's special report on the lost at sea scheme, will be the same as previous meetings on the issue. Each spokesperson will have 12 minutes for questions and answers with the Minister of State, while other members will have ten minutes each.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite the Minister of State to make his opening statement.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Seán Connick)

I welcome the opportunity to appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as part of the committee's consideration of the lost at sea scheme. I hope I can be of assistance to the committee's consideration of the issue.

The committee has already heard from a number of witnesses, including the Ombudsman, whose report prompted this series of committee meetings, the former Minister, Deputy Frank Fahey, who introduced the scheme, the current Secretary General of my Department as well as the former Secretary General of the then Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and those officials who were serving in the Department at the time the scheme was introduced.

I have followed the proceedings of the committee with great interest. I found it particularly interesting to study the interactions between the then Minister and the officials in the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources at that time and how, through their respective roles, policies were developed and advanced. I do not propose to cover all of the ground which has already been covered by previous witnesses, although there is total common ground between my views and those of the current Secretary General of the Department.

Through the contributions of the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, and the former Secretary General of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, the committee has heard extensively about the circumstances through which the scheme was designed and introduced. The current Secretary General of the Department dealt extensively with the Ombudsman's report and the reasons the Department has taken the view it has on the Ombudsman's recommendations.

At the outset, I extend my sympathy to the Byrne family, whose tragedy is central to the Ombudsman's report. Their loss was, obviously, immense and, to reiterate what the current Secretary General said, the Department's attitude to their application and the position taken since in no way implies disregard for the tragic loss of life suffered and the circumstances in which the family found themselves as a result of that loss. Since my appointment as Minister of State with special responsibility for fisheries, I have been visiting various fishing communities and I have been emphasising my determination to work with those communities to advance the Irish fishing industry, not least in the context of the review of the Common Fisheries Policy.

I have already placed on record my respect for the Ombudsman and her office. In the case of this particular report, I accept that the Ombudsman exercised her right to submit a special report only after lengthy correspondence and dialogue with the Department. The report is both thorough and comprehensive. If the Department and I do not agree with the Ombudsman's findings, as in this case, that should not be taken to imply disrespect for the Ombudsman and the work of her office.

The background to the lost at sea scheme has already been set out in considerable detail, both by me and my predecessor, Deputy Tony Killeen. That background has also been considered exhaustively by the committee in its meetings with Deputy Fahey, the current Secretary General and the former Secretary General of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources and his officials who worked at that time on the design and promulgation of the scheme. The Department has made available all relevant records to the Ombudsman. I believe my Department has assisted the committee in every way possible. As anxious as I am to be of whatever assistance I can be to the committee, I do not believe I can add any facts today.

The former officials of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources who attended the committee and who were responsible for the design and promulgation of the scheme have explained in great detail the basis for the decisions they made in regard to every step of the process of designing the scheme, advertising it and evaluating those applications received. I have no reason to differ with the positions taken by those officials.

I am satisfied and I believe that it is clear from the information previously provided to the committee and supported by the Department's files, that the scheme was carefully developed and fairly administered. The Ombudsman has expressly acknowledged as much. She has also acknowledged that the Department is free in law to disagree with her findings and to refuse to implement her recommendations. Both the former Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, and I have previously dealt in considerable detail with the Ombudsman's findings in our respective contributions to the Dáil and Seanad debates.

I reiterate the comments of the current Secretary General who told the committee that the Department's decision not to accept the Ombudsman's findings or recommendations in this case was taken only after extensive analysis of the background papers relating to the scheme and to this particular case and only after taking account of all the issues surrounding it as well as the legal advice available.

There is a genuine concern that the Ombudsman's recommendation in this case could give rise to significant financial liabilities arising from claims from other unsuccessful applications under this scheme that may well in turn undermine other schemes right across the public service. In his presentation to the committee, the current Secretary General dealt extensively with this issue and the basis for the concerns held by the Department about the potential precedent that might be set for other schemes.

The committee has had a number of presentations and had the opportunity to interview a wide range of people, ranging from the Ombudsman to the current and former Ministers and the present and former Secretaries General. Members have heard a range of well informed views and opinions. I am confident that a fair and objective examination by the committee of all the written and oral evidence placed before it over the past two months will show that the Department's position is both fair and reasonable. I have nothing further to add to the detail of what has already been well covered at previous meetings of the committee. I await the outcome of the committee's deliberations and look forward to reading its report.

Deputy Michael Creed

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Connick, on his first appearance before the committee to deal with a complex and controversial issue which requires familiarity with much detail. I trust he is well briefed and on top of his portfolio. I am appalled at his opening remarks. Just because one repeats something ad nauseam does not mean it is true. The same goes for the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith, and the former Minister of State, Deputy Killeen. I take absolute exception to the paragraph at the bottom of page three of the Minister of State’s script which states:

I am satisfied and I believe that it is clear from the information previously provided to the committee and supported by the Department's files, that the scheme was carefully developed and fairly administered. The Ombudsman has expressly acknowledged as much.

That is patently untrue. I ask the Minister of State to retract that from the public record. I wish to read what the Ombudsman says on page 81 of her report. She found that:

The way the Lost at Sea Scheme was designed was contrary to fair and sound administration. The specific weaknesses in the design process included, lack of adequate research, lack of thorough documented analysis of the pros and cons of the various criteria and a failure to include provision for discretion in the vetting of applications.

That is but one of a number of her findings. It is unfair to the committee and to the Office of the Ombudsman for the Minister of State in his address to seek to hide behind a fig leaf. It was his contention that that was part of the Ombudsman's report but it is patently not the case that the scheme was "carefully developed and fairly administered". We are meeting because the Ombudsman found there was "maladministration contrary to sound and fair administrative principles". That was one of the Ombudsman's critical findings.

A second critical finding is in respect of the Byrne family. I invite the Minister of State to accept that what he has stated on the public record is inaccurate in respect of the Ombudsman's findings. That is my first question.

Deputy Seán Connick I thought the Deputy had a number of questions.

Deputy Michael Creed

I have 12 minutes so I will ask the others later.

Deputy Seán Connick

I am sorry the Deputy has taken that particular line. I will refer again to the Ombudsman's report. On page 18 she states: "I had found no evidence to suggest that, once the scheme was launched, that it was not applied equitably." That is the actual position.

Deputy Michael Creed

I refer the Minister of State to page 81 where the Ombudsman states in her findings, "The way the Lost at Sea Scheme was designed was contrary to fair and sound administration." One cannot say that her findings vindicate the manner in which the Department dealt with the matter. Her findings with respect to the Department is maladministration.

Deputy Seán Connick

The Department refutes that. Its view is that it did design——

Deputy Michael Creed

It is not right for the Minister of State to say in his address——

Chairman

Deputy Creed has asked a question. He should allow the Minister of State to answer.

Deputy Seán Connick

The Department does not take that position. It disagrees with it, as it is entitled to do. I refer Deputy Creed again to page 18 of the report that the Ombudsman found no evidence to suggest that the scheme was not applied equitably once it was launched.

Deputy Michael Creed

I will quote from page 18: "My finding of maladministration arises from my conclusion that, having regard to the nature and purpose of the scheme, its design lacked equity and it was not properly advertised."

Deputy Seán Connick

As I stated, we do not accept that.

Deputy Michael Creed

Yes, but for the Minister of State to say in his opening address that the Ombudsman has expressly acknowledged as much is not the case. One cannot put words into the Ombudsman's mouth. That is an insult to her office.

Deputy Seán Connick

I have read from page 18 of the Ombudsman's report.

Deputy Michael Creed

The Devil can cite scripture for his own purpose. The Minister is selectively quoting things that do not stack up in respect of page 18 or the findings of the report.

Deputy Seán Connick

The Department's position is as I have stated and I support it.

Deputy Michael Creed

I acknowledge the Minister of State's right to do so but he cannot say the Office of the Ombudsman defends that stance. It is offensive to those of us who put a lot of work into this and to the Office of the Ombudsman.

Deputy Seán Connick

I do not accept that the remark was offensive. It was a design issue dealt with by the former officials at the last meeting of the committee. What I am reading into the record is the position of the Department. I referred the Deputy to page 18 of the report. I stand over what I said in that regard.

Deputy Michael Creed

Let me move on to the maladministration finding. The Ombudsman, in her correspondence to Deputy Fahey, copies of which correspondence were forwarded to members, said there is no difference between the terms "maladministration", as mentioned in page 18 of the report, and "contrary to fair and sound administration".

With regard to maladministration, given that the Department acknowledged in the early days of designing the lost at sea scheme that it had in house details of all vessels lost at sea, does the Minister not believe it would have been appropriate to trawl through or inquire into the 120 files in the maritime safety division? That line of inquiry was never pursued. That 16 known individuals were the only people who were put on an inside track, thus adding insult to injury, backs up the finding of maladministration and gives the impression that there was an inner circle which was favoured during the design and administration of the scheme.

Deputy Seán Connick

The 16 cases to which the Deputy referred concern people who were lobbying intensively at the time. They were seeking the introduction of a new scheme. I am aware the sea-fisheries administration division sought from the marine safety division the information regarding other boats. The difficulty was that files were in deep storage, as the Deputy is well aware from the reports. It was not pursued through the Department following that particular answer. I cannot answer in that regard at this point but, at the time in question, it was felt that by going to the various organisations and consulting the industry representatives, people who were at a loss and whom the scheme might suit would be found.

Deputy Michael Creed

Given that the files were in deep in storage and that some individuals were lobbying local Deputies, be they Government or Opposition Deputies, does the Minister of State believe the manner in which the Department was being run was appropriate? Was it fair for the Department to design a scheme as it did and write 16 letters as opposed to 120?

Deputy Seán Connick

I do not accept that there was maladministration. I agree with Mr. Tom Carroll that the finding of maladministration is harsh. The issue of the files was dealt with at the previous meeting by the former Secretary General, who was in charge at that time. I do not have much more to add other than that I do not accept the charge of maladministration. There is quite a difference between maladministration and procedure that is contrary to fair and sound administration.

Deputy Michael Creed

Let us not get into a word game. I draw the Minister of State's attention to page 22, which contains Randall Plunkett's correspondence to the Ombudsman. With regard to the issue of maladministration, he said, "I do not wish to diminish the standing of the findings of the Ombudsman where she states that elements of the Scheme design 'were contrary to fair and sound administration', but the possible cascade from what might be described as minor administration failings, [...]". Does the Minister of State accept that if there was not maladministration, these were minor administrative failings?

Deputy Seán Connick

At the time I would probably have liked to have seen a heavier trawl. It was not done and I cannot comment on the time in question because it was ten years ago. I understand that efforts were made by Department officials at the time. One should remember the case was discussed for almost eight or nine months prior to its launch. Efforts were made and the decision was taken at the time to go down the advertising route and to launch the scheme.

Deputy Michael Creed

I welcome the fact the Minister of State would like there to have been a more extensive trawl of the files. Does he not accept that if the family representatives in the 120 cases had been written to, we would not be here today discussing this issue?

Deputy Seán Connick

I cannot accept that. It is not fair to ask me. I cannot answer that question because I do not know the answer, nor does the Deputy.

Deputy Michael Creed

Those people would not have a leg to stand on in respect of a claim against the Department, a charge of maladministration or a contention that they were discriminated against if the Department had been proactive and had written to them. The Minister of State said he would like there to have been a heavier trawl. If he accepts not doing so was a failing, be it through maladministration or a "minor administration failing", as it was described by Randall Plunkett, he must accept that if the 120 people had been written to, we would not be here. If they had been written to, they could have applied to enter the scheme and nobody could have been accused of being on the inside track. We are present today because of administrative failings. Let us not get hung up over word games in respect of whether they were minor or major. The Minister of State accepts there was a failing. Does he not accept that, if the Department had written to all 120 individuals, the case for the Ombudsman to carry out an investigation would not have existed?

Deputy Seán Connick

Some 68 people applied for the scheme. After its launch, it was successful in attracting quite an amount of attention from the industry.

Deputy Michael Creed

That is not the point.

Deputy Seán Connick

That is my response.

Deputy Michael Creed

If all 120 had been written to, the complainant would have been told very early on by the Ombudsman that he or she had the same information that the 16 people who were written to had and, therefore, had no case.

Deputy Seán Connick

Neither I nor the Deputy is sure that there would have been no more than 120. The number could have been greater.

Deputy Michael Creed

The specific record of the Department states 120.

Deputy Seán Connick

The figure 500 appeared somewhere in the reports I read. No one can say that writing to 120 families would have been sufficient and that had 120 been written to, we would not be here discussing this issue today. There could have been ten or 20 other potential applicants.

Deputy Michael Creed

The first chink in the armour is the acknowledgement that it was a failing not to have corresponded more extensively. I welcome this; it is an important concession.

Deputy Seán Connick

The Deputy should be careful when quoting me on that.

Deputy Michael Creed

The record will speak for itself.

Deputy Seán Connick

Absolutely.

Deputy Michael Creed

I believe it is significant and I welcome the Minister of State's comments in that regard.

With regard to maladministration, the Department accepted one late application but did not accept another. In terms of simple justice, is that defensible?

Deputy Seán Connick

The Deputy has been told on numerous occasions——

Deputy Michael Creed

It is a simple question that demands an answer of "Yes" or "No".

Deputy Seán Connick

It is not and the Deputy knows that. He knows the gentleman in the case to which we refer made contact with the Department ahead of the closing date for applications.

Deputy Michael Creed

He was one of the 16.

Deputy Seán Connick

He had been given misinformation or a wrong steer at the time and it was decided to allow him to apply after the closing date. The Deputy is well aware of the details on that case.

Deputy Michael Creed

May I ask a further question on the Randall Plunkett letter? On page 22, he refers to the financial implications of a possible cascade of applications. Does the Minister accept that does not stack up at all. There were 68 applications. The Department said that, of the 68, only six qualified. Of the 62 that did not qualify, six felt sufficiently strongly about their refusal that they went to the Ombudsman. Of those six, one was successful in the upholding of a complaint. By any mathematical analysis, the argument that there would have been a cascade of applicants had the Department yielded does not stack up. Since the recent publicity, the Office of the Ombudsman confirmed it has only received two further inquiries. The argument does not stand up.

Deputy Seán Connick

I do not accept that. We are not sure what would have occurred, nor is the Deputy.

Deputy Michael Creed

I am sure that is what occurred.

Deputy Seán Connick

The Deputy should note the advice from Randall Plunkett to the Department. I hope Deputy Creed will refer to the letter and understand the position in which the Department and I find ourselves.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

We need to take cognisance that the Minister of State must speak authoritatively about the design and promulgation of a scheme which predates his membership of the House. On one level and with a degree of equity, one must recognise it is difficult for him to speak with some authority on the scheme's good parts and flaws several years after it has finished.

Having said that, there is nothing new in what the Minister of State has said today. With respect to him, I must conclude he is following the line of his Department's Secretary General, which he acknowledged in his opening statement. When the committee was seeking witnesses to the lost at sea scheme, the obvious move was to request the current Minister with responsibility for fisheries to attend the committee. However, it is not surprising he has followed the same line. Who among us would not do so in a particular set of circumstances?

The issue for the Labour Party is whether this committee will support the Ombudsman's findings in her special report laid before the Oireachtas that there was maladministration or administration contrary to sound and fair principles of the scheme in question. The other issue is whether the Byrne family has a legitimate case in their complaint about the scheme to the Ombudsman.

My view, and that of the Labour Party, is that they have a legitimate case. However, it is clear from the Minister of State's submission he has made up his mind, along the same lines as the Minister and the Secretary General, that there is no case to answer. The Government will, therefore, run contrary to the Ombudsman's view.

If the Oireachtas is to give due regard to the Ombudsman's independent role, it must respect the findings of any report she lays before the House. If any citizen is to have confidence in making a complaint to the Ombudsman, the right option is for the Oireachtas to accept her findings, the independence of her office and move on.

Deputy Bobby Aylward took the Chair.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bobby Aylward)

That is a decision for the committee to make the next day.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

That may be the case but I have heard nothing today from the Minister of State to suggest there has been any shift in the Government's position. Instead, all I have seen is a further entrenchment of its position as to how it proposes to deal with this issue.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bobby Aylward)

Has the Deputy any questions for the Minister?

Deputy Seán Sherlock

I do not but I am entitled to use my time. I do not believe my asking questions would serve any purpose today. I have asked every possible question on this matter over the past several days. I do not believe the Minister of State is going to add anything further to what is known already.

Deputy Seán Connick

I know Deputy Sherlock has not asked specific questions but it is important I put some facts before the committee.

This case has troubled me and cost me some sleepless nights. I have looked seriously at it and I understand the human aspect and cost of it. I have had lengthy discussions with all my officials, including the Secretary General, and colleagues in my parliamentary party.

However, I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the committee's deliberations. We have followed a particular line of inquiry over the past several months. As I said in my opening statement, I await the outcome of the committee's deliberations and look forward to reading its report.

This is a difficult case with difficult circumstances. If I were to come to the committee and change it, I would be going against my Department, the legal recommendation it was given and the stance that was taken previously. A process is under way which has not been completed.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

With all due respect, it does not matter what the committee decides. Ultimately, the decision rests with the Government and the Minister has already made his case. Even if the committee decides to support unanimously the Ombudsman's report, it is clear from the Minister of State's statement today that the Government has already decided its position. Let us call a spade a spade.

Deputy Seán Connick

I do not accept that.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bobby Aylward)

The Minister of State also spoke from his personal view.

Deputy Seán Connick

Whatever report comes from the committee will be examined seriously.

Deputy Martin Ferris

Has the Minister of State met the Byrne family?

Deputy Seán Connick

I have not met the Byrne family.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I suggest he does so out of respect for the tragedy they endured. There is also the torment they have endured since they were excluded from this scheme.

It is ironic that today is an historical day in which after 38 years, 14 people in Derry got justice while we have a family, along with their community and other coastal communities, sitting in the Visitors Gallery fighting for justice from the Government. I hope it will not take 38 years for the Byrne family to receive the justice to which they are entitled.

Much information has been forthcoming during the committee's deliberations over the past several months yet I still cannot figure out the scheme's criteria. We were told one had to be involved for at least two years in fishing prior to applying for the scheme. If one was not actively involved in fishing, one did not fit the scheme's criteria. There was a timeframe but it was pushed out for one group, which the Minister of State confirmed today.

When the boats of Mr. Faherty and Mr. Mullen were lost at sea in 1983, in what sector were they involved?

Deputy Seán Connick

The Deputy will appreciate that I cannot go into the specifics of all the cases. I shall just give a general overview. I notice the Deputy raised a question at a previous committee meeting as regards polyvalent capacity and the pelagic sector. I know that one of my current advisers answered that question for him on the last occasion.

Deputy Martin Ferris

Perhaps I can help the Minister of State. There was overlapping of the various sectors at that point, I believe.

Deputy Seán Connick

They crossed two sectors, apparently. I appreciate what the Deputy is saying but he will understand I cannot get into the specifics of each and every case. It is such a complex case and there is quite an amount of material there. I am aware that the individuals who dealt with that at the time sat before the committee on a previous occasion, and they answered that.

Deputy Martin Ferris

As part of the criteria both these gentlemen were fishing at a point in time when the lost at sea scheme was introduced. What sector were they involved in then?

Deputy Seán Connick

I would not have the exact detail as regards which sector. All I know is that in one particular case the Deputy asked about there was a cross-over from polyvalent into pelagic. I am saying, however, that I cannot get into specific cases since I do not know.

Deputy Martin Ferris

What I am trying to do is to establish the criteria. We were told one had to be involved in a sector for two years before one could apply. That is part of the evidence that was given here. However, I know that in 1983 when the two Aran boats were lost, they were involved in a cross-over, because there were no specific sectors at that time. Subsequent to that and up to the introduction of the lost at sea scheme, they were involved in a sector that came within the register. What sector were they involved in?

Deputy Seán Connick

I cannot answer the question because I do not know, but perhaps the Deputy can inform me in that regard. Off the top of my head I do not know the answer.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I have a letter here, dated 19 July 2000, from Dermot Donegan where he claimed that Tony Faherty "holds a current sea fishing licence for aquaculture and bivalve molluscs". If one was part of a sector and lost one's boat when there was no actual definition but rather overlapping in this regard, one would find oneself in a situation where one would be involved in a different sector and yet would be given pelagic tonnage.

Deputy Seán Connick

I shall have to defer to my official in relation to that particular question.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

We are now talking about a different case, completely, to the Byrne case, the detail of which I have not got with me. However, to explain generally, at the last meeting the officials who were involved at the time the scheme was being formulated, decided upon and administered, dealt with that.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I could not attend the last meeting.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

The evidence is in the transcript, on the specific case. I can only say what they explained, since they were dealing with it at the time. Some confusion is creeping in because there is an RSW pelagic segment and a polyvalent segment which may or may not have pelagic entitlement. There are rules as regards whether the polyvalent segment would have pelagic entitlement. Some polyvalent tonnage, depending on its record of fishing, can have such entitlement and some will not. It does not make it pelagic tonnage. It is polyvalent tonnage without the inclusion of pelagic fishing. That was explained, as per the transcript of the previous meeting.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I am asking what sector the two Galway boats were involved in.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

I do not have that information on the detail for the Deputy.

Deputy Seán Connick

For the Deputy's information I can read the response from the last committee, if that will suffice. The response is to the effect that they were given polyvalent capacity and the answering official said:

Although I cannot be definitive on this, the rules stated that if a vessel was more than 65 ft. in length, a history of fishing for pelagic was required. They would still be given polyvalent capacity, but their history in fishing for herring and mackerel would determine whether they had a preclusion in their licence for these fish.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

There may be some confusion, also, because as I understand it, those vessels sank when they were herring fishing, and they were pair fishing at the time. They were polyvalent vessels which were pelagic fishing. That would put them in the polyvalent segment without a pelagic preclusion. In addition, people may have owned a vessel in the specific aquaculture segment side of that. That was not a segment which was subject to the tonnage replacement requirement, and therefore that would not have debarred people from applying under the lost at sea scheme if they had owned a vessel in the aquaculture-specific segment dealing with bivalve molluscs because they are outside the tonnage——

Deputy Martin Ferris

They were not involved in the segment they were given tonnage for——

Deputy Seán Connick

No, I do not believe that is correct.

Deputy Martin Ferris

——for the two years prior to when the tonnage and the kilowatts were granted. They were not involved in that sector.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

The criteria of governance for the scheme relate to when the vessel was lost, and what the vessel was doing.

Deputy Martin Ferris

Correction, we were told part of the criteria was that one had to be fishing in that sector prior to the lost at sea scheme.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

One may have had a boat outside the areas that were covered by the tonnage requirement under the fishing boat register. That was not relevant to eligibility under the lost at sea scheme. Eligibility under the lost at sea scheme related to the specific vessel that was lost, and what it was doing when it was lost. It had to be in use prior to the two years prior to it being lost, so eligibility relates to the actual vessel that was lost and not to whether one had a bivalve mollusc or aquaculture licence.

Deputy Martin Ferris

The point I am making is that it did not matter, then. If there was time lost as regards eligibility or in qualifying for the scheme, at the time of the loss, this did not mean one had to be involved in a particular sector for two years prior to that, before the lost at sea scheme was introduced.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

We are getting into a good deal of detail. The rules governing preclusion for pelagic licences are different.

Deputy Martin Ferris

Mr. Beamish is missing the point I am making. He has answered me to the effect that the fact they were involved in mackerel and herring fishing would qualify them to be part of the scheme because of the type of fishing they were doing, even though the sector was not defined, as such, at that time. However, this committee was told that one had to be involved in the sector for two years prior to that.

Mr. Beamish is saying that the fact Mr. Faherty was involved in aquaculture and bivalve mollusc fishing was irrelevant, based on the criteria he is using, as regards when the boat sank.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

I am sorry, but I do not use anything. Those were the criteria governing the scheme at that time and this was dealt with by the officials at the committee meeting the week before last. The issue is what the vessel was doing, which was the subject of the application under the lost at sea scheme.

Deputy Martin Ferris

If that is the case, the years preceding the scheme for people who were lost at sea should qualify their families as being eligible to apply. Mr. Beamish is defining the criterion here as when the actual boat sank, and what type of fishing was being done.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

I can add no more than that.

Deputy Martin Ferris

We shall move on. I am not trying to embarrass anybody. There are a number of other questions and I want to move on.

Deputy Seán Connick

We will try to get a response to the query the Deputy is raising.

Deputy Martin Ferris

That is fine. There are a number of other questions I have to ask. As regards the tonnage that was granted to the six vessels, we have been told here by a number of people and in particular the former Minister, Deputy Fahey, that it was of no monetary value. I have been involved in the fishing industry for a long time, and capacity is monetary value, and nobody can deny that because it is earning value.

Can the Minister of State give us any indication as to what the earning capacity was of the tonnage and the kilowatts given to the various boats during the period they were granted to the State?

Deputy Seán Connick

I cannot, and I would again refer the Deputy to Deputy Fahey's answers to the questions here before the committee. My understanding was that Deputy Fahey made moves to address the issue of the availability of the capacity to be sold. He took measures to ensure that the tonnage could not be sold on——

Deputy Martin Ferris

I do not dispute that and I have no problem with it.

Deputy Seán Connick

The Deputy's whole argument on that particular day was as regards whether it was value. He is getting into the minutiae of the actual debate at the time. This is something I do not have before me, and I cannot answer those particular questions.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I have contacts with various sectors in the industry. It is actually frightening, but the value was estimated at €10,000 per tonne, and that is the earning capacity.

Deputy Seán Connick

I have those figures, and €4,000 in a different sector, but will the Deputy not accept that the individuals involved could not sell the capacity?

Deputy Martin Ferris

That is the one part of the scheme that I applaud, but to say that it is of no monetary value is an insult to our intelligence, because there is an earning capacity.

Deputy Seán Connick

The bottom line is that when the Minister introduced the scheme, he also put in an adjustment to ensure that the capacity could not be sold on. He did that to prevent a monetary value being applied to it. I understand that if a person has the capacity, it will give him the ability to go to the bank to borrow money to get the boat and so on——

Deputy Martin Ferris

That is a monetary benefit.

Deputy Seán Connick

It provides the ability to go back into fishing, which is what the scheme is all about.

Deputy Martin Ferris

Is that not of monetary value?

Deputy Seán Connick

That is the bottom line.

Deputy Martin Ferris

A boat is actually of no value——

Deputy Seán Connick

If a person cannot sell something, then how can it be of monetary value?

Deputy Johnny Brady resumed the Chair.

Chairman

You have gone way beyond your allocated time. I have been very strict with everybody else.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I would like to ask one more question.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

Will the Deputy ask me something I can answer?

Deputy Martin Ferris

I fully appreciate the position in which the Minister of State finds himself. It is not of his making and he is doing a decent job trying to defend the indefensible. Was there an application for the tonnage that was granted to the two people in question to be put on a tank boat, which was rejected by the Department? The boat was formerly from Castletownbere.

Mr. Cecil Beamish

I do not know.

Deputy Martin Ferris

Would the name Sea Spray be of help?

Mr. Cecil Beamish

Sea Spray is an ex-tank boat. There is a general policy that ex-RSW pelagic vessels cannot be brought into the polyvalent segment under the current policy. Quite a number of people have sought to bring the vessels back under the tank boat. I do not know whether there was an application. It has been dealt with as an independent licensing authority under the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 2003. Individual applications in respect of individual vessels are made to that licensing authority and not directly to the Department. They are determined on the basis of the policy and the ministerial directives in place under the 2003 Act and European law. If somebody is not happy with the determination made by the licensing authority, there is an appeals process available. I am not aware of any individual applications made, but the licensing authority officials would be aware of anybody seeking to bring a former RSW tank vessel into the polyvalent segment.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I welcome the Minister of State to the meeting. It is his first time before the committee as Minister of State and I wish him well in his new job. This is our seventh or eighth day of hearings on this scheme, and we now have to bring a report before both Houses, so it is important that we get all the answers and have all the information possible. Most of the questions have been asked over and again, so I will only ask a few questions and I would like to hear some straight answers.

In the Minister of State's opinion, was the scheme administered properly and according to best practice, as laid down by the Department?

Deputy Seán Connick

A straight answer to that is "Yes".

Deputy Bobby Aylward

The Ombudsman's report stated that maladministration occurred. What is the Minister of State's opinion? Does he refute that?

Deputy Seán Connick

I think it was harsh. Both the Minister of the day and the officials set out to tackle a particular difficulty in the sector. Since my appointment to this job a few weeks ago, I have been on a bit of a tour around the different harbours, meeting the various organisations, talking with the officials and meeting fishermen, and there is a great number of concerns out there. Deputy Fahey would have done the same at the time. I am already identifying a number of areas which I hope to change. I do not know whether I can deliver on that, but at the end of two to three months of travelling around, I will come back to the Department with recommendations. In fairness to Deputy Fahey, when he was Minister he identified this as a particular area of concern to the industry and tried to address it. The officials at the time had their own concerns and they tried to work within the constraints in which they found themselves. Ultimately, that is how the scheme came about. I do believe that everybody had the best intentions in doing what they did.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

The reason we are here is due to the Ombudsman's report, particularly in respect of the Byrne family. Two reasons were given for the refusal of the scheme to the Byrne family, namely, an application that was 12 months late and the fact that they were not continuously fishing at the time. The Ombudsman took on several people, but she only recommended that the Byrne family get some monetary reward out of the decommissioning scheme.

Was justice done to the Byrne family? Was the system fair, in that six people got a reward under the scheme, even though there were 86 applications? Why did the Ombudsman make a recommendation for the Byrne family only, while refusing other cases? These are the questions that we need to answer for our report to be laid before the Oireachtas.

Deputy Seán Connick

I cannot really comment on the justice aspect of it. I am aware of the difficulties for the family in this instance and the losses they suffered. I cannot answer whether justice has been served. Justice is ongoing at the moment because the process is continuing. We will await the outcome of the deliberations of the committee and whatever recommendations it sends back to the Oireachtas. Ultimately, it will be a Government decision.

The Ombudsman has said that once the scheme was up and running, it was operated fairly. I cannot say why only six boats benefitted from the scheme. They all fitted the criteria at the time. The Ombudsman looked at a number of cases, because a number of people approached her, but she just pursued this one particular case. She outlined her position on that and we have taken our position on her findings. That is where it sits at the moment.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

The Department seems to be very set on the principle that no monetary reward should be given. The Minister of State said that this would give rise to a significant financial liability, arising from claims from other unsuccessful applicants under the scheme, which may in turn undermine other schemes right across the public service. I would like him to elaborate on that. In her own evidence here, the Ombudsman said she did not feel this was the case. She said that she only made a recommendation on one case, the Byrne family, and that other cases would not resurface if this happened.

I know that it is up to the Department to accept or reject our recommendations and that it is obvious the Department officials will not change their minds at this stage, but what consequences will that have for other people? If the Byrne family was successful and we got some monetary reward for them, what effects will this have across the public service and on other fishing vessels that were lost?

Deputy Seán Connick

It was not a redress scheme. It was a scheme that would award capacity to allow families that had a tradition in fishing to get back into the industry. At no stage was monetary compensation an issue with the Department and this is its strongest argument in favour of its position on this. Monetary value was never considered. I understand how the Ombudsman came around to the monetary value she chose in her report. She used a decommissioning scheme process. On the basis that the family was fishing for six years since the award of the capacity, she worked out that they would have an income of over €40,000 and that is how she came up with a figure of €250,000. The Department officials agree with that particular process. All of us around the table know that many schemes are run across all Departments and all of them have closing dates. There is very little flexibility, if any, and most committee members will be aware of people being a day late and their applications being refused.

There is concern that this could set a precedent that would open up other applications for late entry into various funding schemes. That is the concern of the Department and its legal adviser.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

The Ombudsman does not seem to agree with that. She said this was her recommendation on one scheme and it was the only scheme that would be affected. Does the Minister of State not accept that?

Deputy Seán Connick

She is dealing with this specific case and with one Department. The legal advice to the Department is that it could set a precedent and could open this up to the wider sector. We must have regard to that.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

On a final question, Deputy Fahey has come in for much criticism in regard to the scheme. There has been innuendo against his name and character, and character assassination has happened in this room while this hearing has been taking place in recent days. Is it the case that Deputy Fahey set up the scheme but had no hand, act or part in implementing it, and it was Department officials who implemented it? Opposition members can laugh all they like but I am entitled to ask these questions and get a straight answer. While he set up the scheme, was it not officials who implemented it and he had nothing to do with it? This innuendo about two people from his own constituency getting the largest monetary——

Chairman

People in the public Gallery should refrain from sneering. The Deputy should continue.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

This is very important to Deputy Fahey's character. His character is being assassinated on a continuous basis by innuendo but nothing has been proven. I want to make the point that while he set up the scheme, it was the Department which implemented the scheme as set up and as laid down by best practice. I want to know whether this is true and what is the Minister of State's view. We all have constituents, as I do in the south east, including some in Waterford who would also have claims. The smear seems to be that he was responsible for two of his constituents getting favourable treatment. I would like to hear the Minister of State's view on that point.

Deputy Seán Connick

Again, having considered the report and read through the case in recent weeks, my view is that the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, set out on an honourable crusade to try to do something to solve a particular problem within the industry. Although my officials are beside me today, I will say that I would already be questioning particular policies the Department is following. From my perspective, I would be asking them for the one reason we can do it instead of the 50 reasons we cannot.

The then Minister, Deputy Fahey, saw this particular issue as one about which he might be able to do something, so he pushed forward with trying to develop a scheme. I believe he did that with the best of intentions. He was not and could not have been aware that six boats or 26 boats would get the funding — it was not something he could have made a judgment call on. The Ombudsman has referred to the fact the scheme was fairly administered, once it was up and running, and that Deputy Fahey did not have any further involvement in the scheme once it was set up.

Ultimately, Deputy Fahey did what he thought was right at the time. I believe the officials at the time cautioned him over the difficulties that it could perhaps cause within the fishing sector, not the difficulties it could cause in any one individual case. Ultimately, his intentions were honourable and of a good nature. I have nothing further to add to that.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I welcome the Minister of State and wish him well in his portfolio. I have no doubt he will be working closely with us in the interests of the industry, an industry which is very important to us all. Most of the questions have been asked. I most definitely respect the views that have been expressed in the committee, where all views have been heard, and in particular I respect the Ombudsman's view, although I do not necessarily agree with it. I will be making my mind up on this issue when the final day comes. Other than that, the issue has been well aired and has taken up a lot of our time.

I have a particular concern. Coming from a constituency where there are quite a few fishing ports, I have spoken to people who made applications under this scheme and felt those applications were more entitled to being accepted than the case that is being dealt with before us at present. I have my opinion on that, as will other members present, and we will have our day to make a decision. I thank the Minister of State again for attending.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

It is ironic that when the issue of justice was mentioned, the Minister of State had no comment, which surprises me. This is what the matter is all about — justice for the family. The Minister of State said he would consider the recommendations of this committee when we draw up our report. That is a fob job. The Department received a special report from the Ombudsman but it did not take cognisance of it. It refuted it and said the Ombudsman was wrong. How does the Minister of State expect this committee to have any confidence that the Government will yield to this committee, following its deliberations, when it would not be directed by the Ombudsman's report? Let us be blunt and honest about this point.

Deputy Aylward asked in regard to the two successful applicants who got the majority of the fund in kilowatts and tonnage. To the best of my knowledge, although I do not have the paperwork in front of me, there was much communication with those two applicants prior to the scheme being set up. I would go so far as to suggest the scheme was designed for those two people, through communications between the former Minister of State and the two people at constituency level as well as at Department level.

Now that Deputy Connick is Minister of State, I ask that for any future schemes he will introduce for the fishing industry, and I hope he does so, he will expect his Department to check the bona fides of every application and the information in it.

Deputy Seán Connick

First and foremost, with regard to the justice issue, I referred to the fact the process is still ongoing. This whole episode is not complete but, when it is, we can at that stage make a decision as to whether justice has been served or not. It is unfair to suggest I would not have an opinion on it. I just do not believe it would be appropriate for me to make a comment on it ahead of the outcome of all the deliberations.

With regard to cognisance of the report, we certainly did take note of the report. I know from my officials and from my own information that we have spent many hours considering and reading through the report. In terms of debating it within the Department, the position taken is that we feel the accusation of maladministration is harsh.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Harsh?

Deputy Seán Connick

Absolutely.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Not incorrect, but harsh?

Deputy Seán Connick

Harsh. That is the word I am using. It is unfair to say we are not taking cognisance of the report because we absolutely have done so.

With regard to the two applicants and the scheme being designed for them, surely the Deputy is not suggesting he does not consult with his own constituents on an ongoing basis. I am sure the Deputy talks to farmers and fishermen every day of the week, as we all do. There are invariably people within one's own constituency from whom one seeks advice, but that does not necessarily mean one will build a scheme around them. At the same time it would be irresponsible not to take cognisance of what those in a particular industry or sector are saying. I do not accept the contention that the then Minister built the scheme around two particular applicants. Once the scheme was launched, he had no hand, act or part in its subsequent administration. That was recognised by the Ombudsman and everybody else, so I am surprised by the Deputy's accusation in that regard.

In regard to any new schemes that will come forward, I will be working with my officials to ensure, as far as possible, that we do not make any mistakes. However, one can never be 100% sure that one will not encounter some difficulty with a particular scheme.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

The Minister of State says he has spent many hours reading the Ombudsman's report. I put it to him that the Ombudsman spent years investigating this issue in order to produce her report. The bottom line is that one of the successful applicants should have been disqualified because his application contained a falsehood. The applicant in question was later shown to be joint owner in two boats, a fact which should have led to his automatic disqualification.

In the administration of any such scheme, would the Minister of State, Deputy Connick, consider it acceptable to write to the successful applicants two months before the closing date in order to congratulate them? The Attorney General pointed out that this letter of congratulations from the Minister made it very difficult for the applicant's acceptance into the scheme to be revoked. Would the Minister of State, Deputy Connick, write such a letter in those circumstances, long before the closing date for applications to a scheme? Through some inexplicable error of administration the falsehoods in this person's application were not noticed or were not brought to the attention of the Minister. I do not know what was going on in the Department. The bottom line is that one of the successful applicants should not have qualified.

Deputy Seán Connick

I will begin by dealing with the first issue the Deputy raised, relating to the late applicant. I am informed the Secretary General of my Department, who attended an earlier meeting of the committee on this issue, is preparing an information note on that particular case.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

It is nothing to do with the application being late.

Deputy Seán Connick

Was that not the first case to which the Deputy referred, the case of the late applicant?

Deputy Tom Sheahan

No, I am talking about the successful applicant who was subsequently found to be part owner of not one but two boats.

Deputy Seán Connick

The Deputy is aware that this specific issue was addressed by the former officials at the meeting of this committee on 2 June 2010. It is all set out in the transcript. He will also understand from the information provided at that meeting that the scheme was a rolling scheme. This meant that over the period during which applications were admissible, an applicant could be notified of his or her success without having to wait for the closing date. That is what happened in this particular case. That information has already been given to the committee.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

I am talking about an applicant who was successful despite not meeting the qualification criteria.

Deputy Seán Connick

There was no need to wait for the closing date before informing successful applicants of their success because applicants were not competing against each other. The Deputy referred to the then Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, saying there were only six successful applications. Some 26 or 36 boats could potentially have succeeded because there was no ceiling on the scheme. The Deputy is aware of these facts because these questions were answered at the meeting of 2 June by the officials who handled the scheme.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

The Minister of State is evading my point that an application with false information was accepted. I am asking the Minister whether or not, in his view, that applicant should have been disqualified?

Deputy Seán Connick

I am not prepared to answer that question because I do not have the information before me.

Chairman

Deputy Sheahan has one minute remaining.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

That is of little use to me if the Minister of State will not answer my question. Does the Chairman not agree it is unacceptable for the Minister of State to say he is not prepared to answer the question?

Deputy Seán Connick

The Deputy knows I cannot do so because I do not have the information to hand. In any case, the question has been answered in detail by the officials who dealt with the scheme.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

One of the successful applicants furnished false information. It subsequently came to light that this person was part owner in not one but two boats, which should have meant automatic disqualification. The criteria stipulated that applicants must not currently be owners of a boat. The Minister wrote to this applicant two months before the closing date offering congratulations on his successful application. If the other 120 files had been examined, who knows how many would have been successful? It is incredible that applicants were informed of their success before the closing date, when it could not be known how many applications would eventually be submitted, or perhaps the Minister or the Department did know that 120 files were left in the back vault.

Deputy Seán Connick

The Deputy knows his reference to 120 files is not correct. He should stick to the facts. I understand there is an element of playing to the gallery here, but he is fully aware that what he is claiming is not true. Of the 68 applicants, six were successful. There is nothing to suggest that 120 applications would have led to 120 successful applicants; perhaps there might have been 12 successful applicants or perhaps more or less than that. Neither I nor the Deputy can say what that figure would be.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

We will never know because the files were left in the vault.

Deputy Seán Connick

The scheme was not designed to exclude anybody.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Is it right that when it subsequently transpires that a successful applicant to a State scheme has furnished false information, that he or she should nevertheless benefit from the scheme? Is that not maladministration?

Deputy Seán Connick

At the meeting of this committee of 2 June, Deputy Sheahan received the following response from the individual who dealt with the administration of the scheme:

As soon as the information was made available, the Department contacted its legal adviser — the Attorney General — and followed the procedure recommended by him, namely, advising the applicant of the situation. There was a subsequent meeting with the applicant and his legal advisers at which they made a particular case. As is normal with good administrative practice, that case had to be examined, which included getting legal advice on it. The Department collected all the relevant information it had at that time and made a fairly detailed submission to the Attorney General's office. Effectively, as soon as the letter issued, I was moved from that area and so was not further involved in any of the cases, including this one. While I understand there were detailed discussions between the Attorney General's office and the Department, I had no further involvement.

The Department investigated the case and found for the individual.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

The applicant was deemed eligible for the scheme despite furnishing false information. That should preclude any applicant.

Chairman

The Deputy is four minutes over time.

Deputy Seán Connick

The Attorney General fully investigated the case and awarded the applicant access to the scheme.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

He had little choice but to do so.

Deputy Seán Connick

The Deputy is now engaged in conjecture.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I welcome the Minister of State,Deputy Connick, and wish him well in his new role. I thank him for being as honest, open and frank as he could be, which is only what I would expect of him. The Ombudsman fully accepted at the meeting of this committee which she attended that the Government of the day may or may not accept the findings of her or any other Ombudsman's report. The raison d’être of the Minister of State in politics is to ensure justice for all, so the allegations that have been put to him are very unfair. He has not had much time to research all the background before attending this meeting and I thank him for his open and honest contribution.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

While I welcome the Minister of State, I am a little disappointed that he does not appear to be the harbinger of good news. He appears already to have made a cut and dried decision not to deviate from the information that has been put before the joint committee by other departmental representatives. It is clearly evident that the Ombudsman would not have made the decision she did, were it not for the fact that she correctly considered the Byrne family to have been treated shabbily. It is also clear to all concerned that the Department has dug in its heels and that unless he is convinced today against his will, the Minister of State is of the same opinion.

It appears that from the outset, justice was not delivered in the Byrne case. Moreover, it is evident that there is growing inaccuracy in respect of much of the information that has been elicited from several speakers on the matter. Therefore, as a man who has been newly given responsibility in the Department, I advise the Minister of State to re-examine seriously this case. He should examine the details as outlined in the Ombudsman's report as he may be sure that the Office of the Ombudsman went to great pains in arriving at its decision. No matter what is stated here, it appears as though the Department has dug in its heels and that it considers the case to be a fait accompli.

The irregularities that were outlined by my colleague, Deputy Sheahan, emphasise clearly the point that these allegations require investigation. The Minister of State should take this into consideration because the air has been completely polluted as far as this report is concerned. The report demonstrates clearly that justice was not done to the Byrne family. No one went to the trouble of advising the family of the scheme. Although the Department must have a register of what fishing boats were lost within that period, for some unknown reason the Byrne family was overlooked. Therefore, the case exists for the Minister of State to make a decision on the matter. Even at this late hour, I appeal to him to take into consideration the facts and to make his own decision, irrespective of the written advice provided by the Department officials. Two wrongs do not make a right and the Minister of State should be advised that this case stinks of inefficiency. Moreover, no opportunity has been given to air it rightfully because the Department appears to have copperfastened its ideas and does not intend to change. However, this prerogative lies in the Minister of State's hands and I appeal to him. I have much respect for the Minister of State and he should take into consideration the serious situation that has arisen as a result of the lost at sea scheme.

Deputy Seán Connick

I assure the Deputy that I take seriously the entire debate on this case. I cannot accept that it has not been aired, as much time has been devoted to this case through statements to the Dáil and the Seanad, as well as through the work of this joint committee over recent weeks. There is a process under way towards an endgame and an end target and the joint committee's report will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas when members' deliberations are complete. Obviously, the Government will then review the position in light of that report. However, I cannot go further than that at present. I cannot go against my Department and my legal advice on this matter. While my heart might say "Yes", my head and all the advice available to me suggest that I am not in a position to so do. Consequently, justice must be allowed to play out in this regard. I note the word "justice" has been used a lot all day today and at the end of the deliberations, I hope that everyone will consider justice to have been served.

Senator Eugene Regan

The Minister of State's script puts words in the Ombudsman's mouth when he states:

I am satisfied and ... believe ... it is clear from the information ... provided ... and supported by the Department's files, that the scheme was carefully developed and fairly administered [and] the Ombudsman has expressly acknowledged as much.

From where in the Ombudsman's report does the Minister draw the "carefully developed" finding?

Deputy Seán Connick

First, there is a lot of play on words here. The Department states the scheme was fairly developed while the Ombudsman stated it was fairly administered. These are two facts.

Senator Eugene Regan

Therefore, the Minister of State accepts that while he suggested the Ombudsman acknowledged this, she did not acknowledge that the scheme had been carefully developed.

Deputy Seán Connick

Again, that depends on the manner in which one reads the actual sentence. The Senator is aware that it is a play on words. The Ombudsman actually used the words "fairly administered"——

Senator Eugene Regan

It is the Minister of State's play on words——

Deputy Seán Connick

—— and that scheme was carefully developed.

Chairman

The Senator should allow the Minister of State to answer the question.

Senator Eugene Regan

Do not worry about the Minister of State.

Deputy Seán Connick

Perhaps a full stop would have changed it.

Senator Eugene Regan

The Minister of State speaks of justice and fair play. However, in support of his statement he has relied on the Ombudsman's statement on page 18 of her report that "I had found no evidence to suggest that, once the scheme was launched, that it was not applied equitably". However, in the same paragraph of her report, she states "My finding of maladministration arises from my conclusion that, having regard to the nature and purpose of the scheme, its design lacked equity and it was not properly advertised." Consequently, the Minister of State cannot possibly state that the Ombudsman stated or acknowledged that it was carefully developed because what she does acknowledge, to the extent that it was developed and designed, is that it was designed to facilitate two constituents of Deputy Fahey and I can quote that from her report.

However, the point is that Deputy Fahey stated publicly on television that he was vindicated by this report. The Minister of State is suggesting the same here, when the exact wording of the joint committee's report and its finding of maladministration states something quite different. The design of the scheme was flawed and that was where the inequity of the scheme lay. This is the reason her findings applied to the then Minister and this is the reason a party line has been laid down in this regard. The Minister of State rejects outright the findings of the Ombudsman's report because the former Minister has been included with the Department in her findings of maladministration.

Deputy Seán Connick

In fairness, the Senator, who has a track record in this regard, is playing the man in respect of this case——

Senator Eugene Regan

I am speaking to the report.

Chairman

Senator Regan should allow the Minister of State to answer.

Deputy Seán Connick

—— as opposed to considering the case in its overall context.

Senator Eugene Regan

I am dealing with that.

Deputy Seán Connick

When I came to consider this case, I examined all the facts and figures associated with it and I do not accept that point. I believe the former Minister, Deputy Fahey, set out to tackle a difficulty within the sector. He did not restrict the scheme to six people. As I have stated repeatedly by now, 50 or 100 people could have qualified for this particular scheme. The Senator's agenda pertains to the former Minister, Deputy Fahey.

Senator Eugene Regan

No, it is about the Byrne family.

Chairman

Allow the Minister of State to conclude.

Deputy Seán Connick

I do not think it is. I examined the work the officials carried out on this scheme. The scheme was discussed and passed around the various sections of the Department. The industry was consulted and word went out to the various fishing and coastal communities. Moreover, it was advertised in what I would describe as three periodicals because they are not like daily newspapers, in that they are retained. I recently have been in receipt of The Irish Skipper and it is a very good publication that one retains in one’s house for a month or six weeks. All the advice at the time from the individuals putting together the scheme was that they had done their research in respect of publicising this scheme. I accept the word of the officials in that respect. I accept the then Minister, Deputy Fahey, acted in the interests of the industry, not in his own interest.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I do not know where Senator Regan got this point because the Ombudsman stated in her report that Deputy Fahey had done no wrong. Senator Regan should have read all of the report.

Senator Eugene Regan

I will read from page 77 of the report:

The case is also unusual in that it embraces the actions both of a Minister and those of his officials. [...]Having regard to my remarks above, my findings below apply to both the Minister and his officials.

What is Deputy Aylward talking about? She made a finding of maladministration. I should be directing my remarks through the Chair to the Minister of State. The Ombudsman finds this is not surprising, given that the whole scheme was initiated by the Minister following representations to him by two constituents, that the scheme was discussed with, and criteria amended, to suit these two constituents and that two constituents were personally notified of the scheme by the Minister.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

What about the 16 others?

Senator Eugene Regan

I am not making this up, it is in the report of the Ombudsman. I find it regrettable that the Government has chosen to take a line on this come hell or high water. We have exposed flaws in the appreciation by the Minister and the former Minister of the scheme. However, there is no suggestion that there could be reconsideration of the scheme. The Minister of State replied to Deputy Sheahan that he had no opinion on this matter and that it is an ongoing process. He referred to sleepless nights and awaiting the outcome but he concluded in his report, on page 4, that he is confident a fair and objective examination by this committee of all the written and oral evidence over the past weeks will show the Department's position is fair and reasonable. He has prejudged this and come to a conclusion——

Deputy Seán Connick

I have said on at least three occasions that I have not prejudged this.

Senator Eugene Regan

Deputy Aylward said that Deputy Fahey said some weeks ago that one had to be fishing at the time and to have applied before the deadline and that these two conditions were breached by the Byrne family in the application and that this is why it was rejected. We know about Deputy Fahey and deadlines and his application for a ministerial pension two years ago to the then Minister for Finance.

Chairman

Some members of Fine Gael qualified for that pension also.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Senator Regan is choosing words to suit his cause.

Chairman

It is very unfair that Senator Regan referred to only one Deputy.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Deputy Aylward and the Chairman are using up Senator Regan's time.

Senator Eugene Regan

Fair is fair. We cannot have one rule for Deputy Fahey and another rule for the Byrne family. The letter from the Ombudsman on 11 May specifically informs the Chairman about the exchange in which Deputy Fahey states that this scheme applied to people involved in the fishing industry in 2001. He went on to say that this was the entire point misunderstood by the Ombudsman's office, namely, the point of the scheme. We pay great respect and suggested deference to the Ombudsman but then we suggest she made mistakes. We have dealt with the suggested mistakes, by Deputy Fahey at this committee and the Deputy Aylward today. The Ombudsman states:

I have serious concerns in relation to the accuracy of the foregoing statements having regard to the actual terms of the Lost at Sea Scheme and how it was applied by the Department following the receipt of applications. The clear implication of the foregoing statements is that the Byrne family could not have qualified for the Scheme as they were not involved in fishing in 2001. This is not correct.

Deputy Aylward is wrong and Deputy Fahey was wrong when he said that. His case is fatally flawed in making his entire submission to this committee based on that premise. In a letter to this committee of 10 May, the Ombudsman has shown it to be false. That false analysis and spin by Deputy Fahey has brought us here. The Ombudsman's report and recommendations should be respected by this Government.

Deputy Seán Connick

I am not aware Deputy Fahey is on trial, yet it sounds like a trial by Senator Regan.

Senator Eugene Regan

We are talking about statements and corrections——

Deputy Seán Connick

I am talking about the scheme, its administration, the role played by the Minister of the day and officials and the situation that pertains now. Senator Regan is playing the man instead of the ball. Everyone involved in this case acted in the best interests of the fishing industry. The fishing industry is very complex and difficult. From travelling around and negotiating different aspects of this industry, I know it is acutely complex. Those from coastal communities know these are difficult cases. It is not a case of one size fits all. We must go back to the start of the scheme when it was launched and decide whether it was for good intentions. My opinion is that it was. It was set out with the best of intentions.

Senator Eugene Regan

It was set up and designed for two constituents and it succeeded.

Deputy Seán Connick

I do not have that letter, it is from Deputy Fahey to the Ombudsman.

Senator Eugene Regan

I am sure it will be provided to the Minister of State.

Chairman

I am being strict with members of the committee and Senator Regan is two minutes over time.

Senator Eugene Regan

In the report, the Ombudsman indicates that the then Minister wanted to ring fence the scheme and capture two cases and he succeeded. Regarding advertising——

Deputy Bobby Aylward

She never said that.

Senator Eugene Regan

I refer to pages 63 and 64.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

She never said that.

Senator Eugene Regan

It is all there.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

These are false allegations.

Senator Eugene Regan

Can the Chairman control Deputy Aylward?

Chairman

Please, Deputy Aylward.

Senator Eugene Regan

How much was spent on advertising the scheme compared to other schemes at the time, such as decommissioning or the salmon drift netting scheme? Can the Minister of State or the Department supply that information for comparative purposes?

Deputy Seán Connick

The scheme took a number of months to be rolled out. There was wide consultation with the organisations on the ground and coastal communities. The advertisements were placed in what were considered at the time to be the three main forms of communication with the industry, The Fishing News, The Irish Skipper and The Marine Times. It was considered a successful trawl at the time. Some 68 people applied. The figure of 120 people is thrown out by other members and the figure of 500 is buried somewhere in the report. From an application and advertising perspective, that 68 people applied to the scheme is quite a success. The Department thought so at the time.

Senator Eugene Regan

Can the figures be provided to the committee?

Chairman

I thank the Minister of State for his presentation to the committee and for answering questions.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.20 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 23 June 2010.