Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I do not have an answer to that question yet. It is a fair question, but I think the matter would have to be resolved satisfactorily before we would resume funding it. What we need is a clear line of correct and acceptable behaviour and a code of governance in place which does not reflect, in any way, anything that has happened in the past and is totally different. That is a problem for it. It is a big problem as far as I can see, although I do not know enough about the details of the legal contract it signed and I do not believe anybody else does at this stage. We would certainly not like to fund it if there are any outstanding issues which are a legacy of this particular controversy.

I tend to agree with most of what Mr. Justice Moran says. On the question of whether I regret the non-appearance of the former president of the OCI, I do. I respect the right of anybody not to self incriminate but I find it inconsistent that he has been able to answer questions for the media but not at this committee. I regret that he could not be here. He did say that there were inaccuracies in the report, which I do not accept, but it would be useful if he were to appear before the committee and elaborate on them and explain his point of view. I think that would be very useful and it would not necessarily in any way prejudice his trial.

The Deputy mentioned personal fiefdom in terms of the running of the organisation. I agree that the fact that he had been in his position for a lengthy period should have been a red flag. I would have thought that those who were sitting on the board with him would have been required to challenge him from time to time. I think he was challenged some time ago for the presidency and he won the election. It is clear from the report that it was a fiefdom. I cannot recall the exact expression used in the report but I think it mentioned that presidential-type decrees were happening. The evidence suggests that he was not consulting people, particularly about the ticketing. That was his preserve. The valuable tickets were also very much his preserve. We have a situation whereby the flagship of Irish sport in the Olympics was very much in the hands of one man. That is a principle which we should oppose in the future. I understand that the OCI proposes to make various separations of powers to ensure this does not happen again. The evidence supports the need for that change. Many of Mr. Hickey's colleagues gave evidence to the effect that he took charge over all these very sensitive areas. Obviously, that has to end. I am sure it has already ended and that it will not happen in Tokyo.

The Deputy mentioned that sham companies do not deliver. Obviously, they do not. My comments in that regard were in reference to Pro10, which are backed up by Mr. Justice Moran's statement that the distribution of tickets was chaotic and inadequate, although I believe he was probably being kind. I have not yet come across a person who managed to buy a ticket for the Olympics in Ireland. Pro10 was frustrating those who were looking for tickets, as set out in many of the stories told to the judge and to me during my visit to Rio, where I was told by many people that they could not get tickets, that when they rang the office the answering machine was on and even when they left a message, nobody got back to them. It was ridiculous. Pro10 was a sham company.

It was what one of the OCI staff called a "front" and a "cover". Sham companies do not deliver. That is what I meant by what I said.