Seanad debates

Thursday, 7 February 2008

1:00 pm

Photo of Liam TwomeyLiam Twomey (Fine Gael)

It is appropriate, in light of what I am about to say, that we have just finished a debate on the 70th anniversary of the Constitution. Senators have spoken about what the Constitution means to the people of Ireland. Two sensitive cases which have made the news headlines over recent weeks have brought to our attention the abuse of citizens' constitutional rights by two Departments and two Ministers. The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, has decided that it is better to bankrupt the family of an autistic child than to provide a suitable educational service to that child. The Minister for Health and Children, Depuaty Harney, has decided that a child whose life is being endangered by spinal difficulties should have to wait until 2010 to get treatment. In the latter case, a decent and honourable individual has stepped in, fortunately, to make the HSE do what it should have done from the outset.

The case I wish to raise on the Adjournment concerns a fisherman in County Wexford who is also suffering at the hands of the State, which is using its power and money to crush him and his family. I ask the Minister of State responsible, Deputy Browne, who is from County Wexford, to do the honourable thing by dealing with the case of the man in his Department. I do not want to outline the complex details of the case, which we could discuss all afternoon. The basic point is that the man had an issue with the Department about the decommissioning of a fishing boat. When the Department decided to establish an independent inquiry, it asked an independent senior counsel to examine the man's case. The senior counsel decided that the man should receive compensation but, for some reason, the Department has initiated a judicial review rather than paying the compensation. If that is not an abuse of State powers, I would like to know what is.

The Department, with the consent of the Minister, established an independent inquiry to handle any complaints about the compensation scheme. The person whose case I am making submitted a claim to the inquiry, which ruled that he should be granted compensation. Why is the Department seeking a judicial review of a decision taken by a body it established? I contend that it is trying to crush the individual in question because it knows he does not have the financial resources and legal firepower to protect himself from the Department.

I do not want the Minister of State to tell me about nitty-gritty matters like dumping at sea, compensation or numbers of fishing days. The independent senior counsel and the Ombudsman have adjudicated on all such issues. The only body that seems to be acting out of order in this case is the Department. Rather than hiding behind the mistakes which have been made over the last 12 years, or feeling that it cannot walk away from this case without egg on its face, the Department needs to show some respect by paying the man in question the compensation to which he is entitled. It needs to bring the threatened High Court case to an end, as it would break the individual to whom I refer. This affair has been going on for the last seven years. The man in this case is expected to pay fees to tie up his boat. He is not sure if he can decommission the boat as things stand. It is not as if we are talking about a trailer or an old banger in his backyard — the boat in question weighs 180 tonnes. The Department needs to deal with this case in a way that is fair to the individual. When the Minister of State speaks I would like to know what is going on. I do not want to hear the background legal arguments. The senior counsel, the Ombudsman and people in the Department are more au fait with this and the independent individuals involved agree with this fisherman. I would like the Minister of State to make his contribution and if I have other questions I will put them at the end of his contribution.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.