04/02/10

I don't want to start with a litany of platitudes and I don't want to patronize anyone in any way. But I do feel it is vital that we recognize the suffering and hardship endured by the Byrne family for too many years in seeking to attain redress for their suffering. We must also acknowledge the loss of lives of three crewmen and the father and uncle of Mr Danny Byrne, the complainant. It is important that we keep this family to the forefront of our minds when speaking to the issue. The matter at hand is a simple one. To my mind it is about natural justice and whether or not the Byrne family received due recognition for their complaint and whether the agencies of the State responded proportionately to their needs.

Indeed, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Sergeant, filed a complaint over former Minister Mr. Fahey's role in this affair with the Standards in Public Office Commission. SIPO rejected the complaint but this shows that members who are now on the government side of the house acknowledged the maladministration inherent in the scheme.

We know that the Ombudsman found the scheme to be "seriously deficient and flawed" and we also know that the European Commission had never been informed of the scheme's existence.

It is my firm belief that the manner in which this family has been treated was abysmal by any standard except, and this is a notable exception, in their dealings with the Office of the Ombudsman. There can be no doubt but that the Office of the Ombudsman dealt with the compliant in a proper manner and in a way that was conducive to the powers vested in that office.

As for the role of the Department of Agriculture, there can be no doubt but that a decision was taken by this Department to ensure that the Byrne family would not gain redress. And that is why we are here today.

As a legislature, we are left, for the second time in the history of this State, with a scenario that has completely undermined the role of the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Government, by its very decision to reject the findings of her Report into the Lost at Sea Scheme, has undermined any confidence that any citizen might have in making a complaint in the future and has severely compromised the independent and statutory role vested in that office by this legislature. And why are we here today?

For the Labour Party, this is about ensuring that the organs of the State are not undermined or demeaned in any way. We must not undermine the significance of a rejection by the Government of the Ombudsman's Report. It must not pass with but a whimper.

That the Report has been laid before the House, presumably as a last resort, speaks volumes of the contempt which this government now holds for any independent arbiter whose role is laid out under statute.

What hope can the ordinary citizen have, that their complaint will be adjudicated upon fairly, if it will be rejected by the Government of the day for reasons of political expediency? The Byrne family has been subjected to the ignominy of having a Report which gives them redress and some measure of natural justice, rejected for the sake of political expediency.

I have studied the correspondence between the Department of Agriculture and the Ombudsman's office. To a layman like me, who has no legal training, it is clear that the Department is engaged in a parsimonious exercise and will do anything to abdicate its responsibilities.

The Department's response is not proportionate with the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman. In her own words (and I quote) the role of the Ombudsman "is to ensure that our public administration system deals properly and fairly with members of the public and this is a task which I am committed to fulfilling, without fear or favour, in line with the statutory authority which has been granted to my Office by the Oireachtas. My decision to make a special report in this case was not taken lightly. It is my statutory duty under the Ombudsman Act, 1980 to decide what is fair and reasonable in relation to each complaint that comes before me. Where a remedy is warranted I take great care to ensure that my recommendations are both appropriate and proportionate. The credibility of any Ombudsman depends on his or her ability to deliver adequate and appropriate remedies to people who have been treated unfairly. "My investigation of the Byrne family's complaint has been painstaking and forensic. However, in this case, despite my best efforts, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food continues to dispute my findings and recommendations and I have been unable to resolve the impasse. My only option when this arises is to seek the intervention of the Oireachtas. It now has the task of deciding who is right and who is wrong in the context of good administration and fairness to the complainant."A Ceann Comhairle, I now propose that this House moves to support her recommendations. If it is not within the gift of this debate to decide to apply her findings, then I propose that we facilitate the Ombudsman at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture Fisheries and Food so that she and her Office may be afforded an opportunity to outline further, her findings to enable the members of this House to come to a satisfactory conclusion on these events.

Print