• You are here:
• Home /
• Reports /
• Investigation Reports /
• 14 December 2009 - Lost at Sea Scheme

14 December 2009 - Lost at Sea Scheme

Part One - Appendix C - Response of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Ombudsman's letter of 13 March 2009

23 April 2009

Ms Emily O’Reilly
Ombudsman
Office of the Ombudsman
18 Lower Leeson St
Dublin 2

Re:  Complaint by Mr Danny Byrne into rejection of application for replacement tonnage under the Lost at Sea Scheme in respect of the fishing vessel MFV Skifjord.

Dear Ombudsman,

I refer to your letter of 13 March 2009 recommending the payment of a sum of €245,570 in settlement of the above complaint in accordance with Section 6(3) of the Ombudsman Act 1980.

This amount derives from the figures provided by this Department in response to your request for the submission of a calculated sum using the methods set out in the Department’s 2008 Decommissioning Scheme for Fishing Boats, with an accompanying explanation of the methodology used. To that extent the Department provided information required by your office. The Department’s position in relation to the case has not changed and it should be clear that the Department is not supporting the payment of financial redress in this case.

The complainants did not apply for the scheme within the timeframe and were over a year late in applying. The family did not meet some of the criteria of the scheme. The Department maintains its position that the scheme was, once the Minister decided to proceed with it, scrupulously and fairly administered, in that each applicant was treated fairly under the scheme within specific terms, rules and conditions.

The Department is also of the view that financial redress is not warranted given the circumstances of the case, and that direct application of the 2008 Decommissioning Scheme rates is not appropriate. The situation of the Byrne family, where no replacement vessel was bought in the 20-odd years between the sinking of the MFV Skifjord and the inception of the Lost at Sea Scheme, and where no family member continued in the fishing industry, is not the same as a vessel owner who has had the expense of acquiring and operating a vessel for a number of years and who is now prepared to leave the industry, and the Decommissioning Scheme rates are intended to incentivise this. The Byrne family would not have been eligible to apply for the Decommissioning Scheme because only a fishing vessel can be decommissioned - the capacity could not be decommissioned on its own.

While not relevant to the scheme or the specific issues examined by your Office in relation to the Byrne case under  the scheme, the Byrne family indicated that they did receive a full insurance payment in respect of the sinking of the Skifjord.

The Department, in all the circumstances, does not support the payment of financial redress in this case.

Yours sincerely

Tom Moran
Secretary General
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Back to contents