• You are here:
• Home /
• Reports /
• Investigation Reports /
• 14 December 2009 - Lost at Sea Scheme

14 December 2009 - Lost at Sea Scheme

Part Two - Investigation Report - Appendix Two (Response of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to the Statement of Complaint)

31 July 2006             

Mr. Pat Whelan
Director General
Office of the Ombudsman
18 Lower Leeson Street
Dublin 2.

Dear Mr. Whelan,

I refer to your letter of 13 July 2006 enclosing a statement of complaint in relation to a complaint received  by the Ombudsman  from Mr. Danny Byrne regarding the Lost at Sea Scheme. As you know this Department has responded previously to points made by your office in relation to this complaint. I would like to add the following further comments on points made in the statement of complaint.

Design of Scheme

The statement of complaint states that the complainant alleged that the special circumstances of the family's case were not properly considered by the Department in drafting the Lost at Sea Scheme".  It also states that the Division concerned  "proceeded to draft the scheme based on the detailed information it had on 16 cases available within the Division." It also states that "the manner in which the Department went about devising and publishing the Scheme appears to have militated against the desired intention of  the Scheme in the Byrnes' case".

These statements appear to be based on the concept that the level of knowledge of individual cases had a significant impact on the scope of the scheme as eventually drawn up. This is incorrect. The purpose of the request to the Maritime Safety Division in September 2000 for information regarding lost fishing vessels was to ascertain an estimate of the number of lost fishing vessels there might have been rather than to analyse the cases concerned for the purposes of devising a replacement capacity scheme. (Examination of the papers shows that at  that stage the Sea Fisheries Division were not drawing up a proposed scheme.) The nature of the Scheme was simple in concept and did not require such analysis. It was simply to accept as replacement capacity proven cases of active fishing vessels lost at sea within the specified period where the owners were unable for bona fide reasons to acquire a replacement vessel  before or after the introduction of  the new Register in 1990. The detailed conditions of the scheme were put in place to reflect this objective. This is set out in the submissions of November and  December 2000. These submissions also show that, in order to avoid difficulties with Ireland's MGP fleet objectives, the Department was concerned to ensure that the scheme did not result in other types of cases qualifying for replacement capacity.

The statement of complaint quotes the Department's letter of 20 December 2005 which stated that "the purpose of the scheme was clearly for sustaining or maintaining a family tradition of seafaring". This purpose was not open-ended. It only applied to those who met the qualifying criteria. Restrictions relating to the use of any capacity awarded were imposed for the purpose of achieving that purpose.  To conclude in relation to design of  the scheme, the Department does not consider that specific knowledge of the Byrne family case or other cases at that time would have affected the scope of the Scheme as eventually drawn up. As indicated in our response of 20 December 2005, the Department does not accept your conclusion that there was a lack of equity in the design of  the scheme. Furthermore the Department does not share the view expressed in the statement of complaint that the design of the scheme militated against the Byrne family.

Advertisement of Scheme

The Department has addressed the points made in elation to advertisement of the scheme in its letter of 20 December 2005. For the reasons set out  in that letter the Department does not share the view expressed in the statement of complaint that the manner in which the Department went about  publishing the scheme appears to have militated against the desired intention of the Scheme being achieved in the Byrne's case.

Records relating to Establishment of Scheme and Qualifying Criteria

The statement of complaint states that there are  no  records  available  as  to why exactly it was decided  that  a scheme  should  go ahead or the precise grounds on which the seven qualifying criteria were drawn up. The Department has provided all of the documents available and the Department considers that they are quite clear in relation to these matters.

Yours sincerely,

Brendan Tuohy
Secretary General

Back to contents