Frank Fahy is Lost at Sea

What's it all about? Well, in the year 2000, Frank Fahy, TD, landlord and property magnet, brought about a very short term compensation vehicle known as 'The Lost at Sea Scheme'. It functioned from June 2001 to 31st December 2001. The purpose of the scheme was to offer compensation in respect to any vessels lost at sea from 1980 to 1990 before the fishing boat registry came into being.

Specifically, this compensation was to be given to fishing families unable, for financial or related reasons, to continue with their tradition.

Seems reasonable? Hmm. There were 67 applicants for compensation, and only 6 were deemed to qualify for compensation. 2 of these happened to be constituents of Mr Fahy. It then transpires that of the €2.8m compensation paid, 75% of this money went to these same two constituents. Not only that, but Mr Fahy consulted with these two individuals 4 months before the launch of the scheme, and, wrote a letter two months before the scheme ended congratulating these same two constituents about the success of their application.

All of which was unlikely to have gone noticed except that 6 parties then complained to the Ombudsman regarding their lack of success in receiving compensation. 5 of these the Ombudsman did not uphold, but in the case of the sixth, the Byrne family, who lost a father, a brother and two other crew with the loss of the Skifjord in 1981, she agreed that €250,000 worth of compensation because the scheme was fatally flawed.

The design of the scheme and the manner in which it was advertised were contrary to fair and sound administration and that these shortcomings were factors in the Byrne family not qualifying for assistance under the scheme.


Weaknesses in the design process included a lack of adequate research of files held within the department regarding vessels lost at sea during the relevant period, lack of documented analysis of the pros and cons of the Scheme’s qualifying criteria and a failure to include provision for the exercise of discretion in the vetting of applications

(Advertising of the scheme) should have been more thorough, comprehensive and targeted ...some prospective applicants were put in a more advantageous position than others as they were written to directly by the department and the minister to inform then about the Scheme when it was launched.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1214/breaking49.htm

An interesting transcript of Dáil questions here:

http://www.kildarestreet.com/debate/?id=2009-10-15.343.10



Has Tom Sheahan (FG, Kerry South) saying:

It was the way it was worked. Four months before the scheme was launched the then Minister met with the two applicants and told them to apply. The closing date for the scheme was December 2001 yet the Minister wrote to the two applicants in October 2001 and congratulated them. Thereafter, the Attorney General’s advice was that they had to receive this settlement because of the Minister’s letter. This was a con job and a set-up. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, while he is present, if he still believes this con job is worthy of a complaint to the Standards in Public Office Commission.

As the Ombudsman has been unable to reach agreement with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, she has decided to refer to the Oireachtas, for only the second time since the office was founded in the 1980's.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0204/1224263735064.html

It can be argued that the Ombudsman's findings are incorrect as the Byrne's processed their claim outside of the terms of conditions of the scheme, but what can't be refuted, is that the scheme itself was fundamentally flawed and designed in part to favour and benefit the then minister's constituents.