Dáil debates

Thursday, 4 February 2010

Special Ombudsman's Report: Statements

 

Photo of Tony KilleenTony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy went on to suggest I was questioning the motives of the family. I was explaining the context of the scheme and how it would seem to apply to the family. We must be careful not to ignore the imposition of a totalitarian, Trotskyite approach so that I do not have the right to hold an opinion or have the temerity to comment. We must be careful because this is a House of Parliament. Anyone can hold a view and can enunciate it and should not be shot down for holding it or enunciating it. Deputy Sherlock could usefully examine the provisions of the 1980 Act, particularly in respect of the role of the Oireachtas in these matters.

Deputy Martin Ferris referred to tragedies, as we all have done. A competition to outdo each other in this regard would be unseemly and unfair to the families involved. Deputy Ferris seemed to be under the impression that the Department arrived at the compensation figure but that is not the case. That applies to a different scheme, as set out in the report. In 1990 everyone received tonnage free of charge. That was the beginning of the scheme.

Another point was why the Department contacted 16 individuals. The Department could only contact the people it knew about and it is interesting that only two of the 16 individuals qualified. Had the Department not contacted those who were known, we would be in more trouble.

Deputy Ferris also claimed the Department is corrupt or that some officials are corrupt. I am not sure what he meant and it is something he should address at a future date. He sought a forensic examination but in my view this has already been completed.

Deputy Frank Fahey took the opportunity to clarify matters. Regarding Deputy Niall Blaney, I have no difficulty with the Ombudsman briefing Opposition Members. We have much interaction with the Office of the Ombudsman in any event and I am aware I could have had a briefing.

Deputy Brendan Kenneally referred to an important point about the 1990 Act, that there is no procedure to deal with these matters. Deputy McGinley referred to constituents and that one incident was the third such tragedy in a short period of time in his area. In some senses I am taken by Deputy McGinley's point that it would be wonderful if we could find a way to compensate all of these people for their losses. Unfortunately, the scheme we are talking about was not set out in that manner. I understand his point when he suggests distress was added to when officials in the Department did not know about the Skifjord case but that is unfortunately the case. Some of what Deputy McGinley said was grossly unfair to officials. It was not what Deputy McGinley intended and it was important that he excluded officials present.

Deputy Sheahan referred to an official who he claimed played a starring role. In so far as that can could be construed as a derogatory remark Deputy Sheahan should reconsider it.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.