THE GOVERNMENT rejection of the Ombudsman’s report on the Lost at Sea scheme was influenced by legal advice from the Attorney General that it could leave the State open to significant financial exposure, a senior civil servant said yesterday.
Secretary general of the Department of Agriculture Tom Moran said he was satisfied there was no basis to pay compensation to a Donegal fishing family which applied unsuccessfully for the scheme.
Two members of the Byrne family, and three other crewmen, were drowned when their fishing vessel was lost in 1981. When the remaining members of the family applied to the Lost at Sea scheme, the application was turned down on the basis that they were over a year late in applying.
The scheme, launched in 2001, was the idea of then minister for the marine Frank Fahey. It was designed to provide replacement capacity allowing families who lost boats between 1980 and 1990 to return to fishing. It has attracted controversy because the two biggest beneficiaries were two Aran Islands fishermen, constituents of Mr Fahey.
Ombudsman and Information Commissioner Emily O’Reilly found restricting the advertisement of the scheme to the fishing press, as well as a rule on continuous use of the vessel for two years discriminated against the Byrnes. In her report, she concluded the design of the scheme was contrary to fair and sound administration and recommended a compensation payment of almost €250,000.
However, the report was rejected by the Department of Agriculture. Appearing before the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries yesterday, Mr Moran said that the Byrnes’s application was properly refused as it was made over a year late.
In his submission, he also disclosed that the rejection was strongly influenced by the potential financial consequences for other schemes throughout the same sector. He said there was a genuine concern based on sound legal advice produced in conjunction with the Attorney General that accepting a late application could lead to a raft of other claims from other late applications, not only for the Lost at Sea scheme, but for many other schemes throughout the public service.
Separately, the Ombudsman also wrote to committee chairman Johnny Brady saying the contention made by Mr Fahey the previous week was not correct.
She said the scheme contained no requirement in relation to involvement in fishing in 2001. Several Opposition members took issue with the conclusions of the department.