James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to introduce this Bill for the House’s consideration. One of its main objectives is to provide for the establishment of a marine accident investigation unit, MAIU, within the Department of Transport. It provides for a transition from the current structure, in which the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, MCIB, is the designated investigative body, to the establishment of a full-time permanent marine accident investigation unit analogous to the Air Accident Investigation Unit, AAIU, and the Railway Accident Investigation Unit, RAIU.

The Bill provides for a regulatory regime to be put in place for the construction and operation of offshore service vessels operating in Ireland to support the offshore renewable energy sector and for the carriage of industrial personnel. This will provide the most robust system to ensure that such vessels are safe to operate and provide protection to the crew and the industrial personnel being carried. I will explain what I mean by “industrial personnel” shortly.

I am also taking the opportunity to update the references to two conventions, namely, the International Maritime Organisation’s safety of life at sea, SOLAS, convention and the International Labour Organization’s Maritime Labour Convention. We are updating these conventions in existing law to enable more recent amendments to them to be addressed in national secondary legislation.

I will go through the Bill’s sections and the issues covered later. Before I do so, to assist Members and provide some context, I will outline the background to the Bill, the history of marine accident investigation in this State and the reasons for the proposed transition from the MCIB to the MAIU as provided for in the Bill.

Historically, the legislative provision for marine accident investigation dates to the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, which then applied to Ireland and the UK. We then had the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act 2000, which implemented the recommendations of the investigation of marine casualties policy review group, namely, the establishment of the MCIB as an independent State body to investigate marine casualties and publish reports of such investigations. The group’s report to the Minister for Marine and Natural Resources was published in 1998. Later EU legislation in this area focused on larger commercial vessels via a 2009 directive that required the designation of a marine accident investigative body. The directive was transposed in 2011 and the MCIB became the designated body in Ireland. In July 2020, a judgment by the Court of Justice of the EU found that, due to the presence of two departmental officials on the MCIB who were seen as persons whose interests could conflict with the task entrusted to the MCIB, Ireland did not fully comply with the independence elements of the directive. To be clear, there was no finding of wrongdoing by any court on the part of any member of the board or in respect of any investigation carried out by the MCIB, but the judgment raised procedural issues with the board’s structure and membership and the potential for conflicts that were important to address. Immediate steps were taken to address the judgment, including the resignation of the two board members concerned and the amendment of secondary legislation. Following this, the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) (Amendment) Act 2022 facilitated a revised board composition and the appointment of new members.

Following the judgment, my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Ryan, took the opportunity to commission a fundamental review of Ireland’s marine casualty investigation structures in the context of international, European and domestic obligations. The review was undertaken by Clinchmaritime Limited, headed by Captain Steve Clinch, a former chief inspector of marine accidents for the UK’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch. The final report of the review was received in July 2021. Its second recommendation that the Minister for Transport should establish a functionally independent MAIU within the Department of Transport and that the reporting structure and staffing model should be in line with that already in place in the AAIU and the RAIU forms the basis of the Bill’s provisions.

In March 2022, the Government approved policy proposals for the development of a revised legislative framework for the marine accident investigation structures based on the establishment of a full-time, permanent MAIU. A draft general scheme was approved by the Government in December 2022. Pre-legislative scrutiny was carried out by the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications and its report was published on the 2 May 2023. Where appropriate and possible, the recommendations of the committee have been incorporated in the Bill. I thank colleagues from the committee for their assistance in that.

Turning now to the Bill proper and looking at the specifics, it consists of five Parts and 52 sections. Part 1, Preliminary and General, is comprised of sections 1 to 5. These sections provide for standard legislative matters, including Short Title, interpretation, regulation-making powers, expenses and repeals and revocations. The 2000 Act will be repealed and the European Communities (Merchant Shipping) (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 2011, Statutory Instrument 276 of 2011, will be revoked. Section 2 includes the definitions for Parts 1 to 4. In particular, I highlight the broad definition of "ship", which allows for the MAIU to investigate marine accidents involving any kind of marine vessel. Some definitions, including those for "marine accident" and "marine casualty", for example, are taken directly from the International Maritime Organization's casualty investigation code.

Part 2, Marine Accident Investigation Unit, is comprised of sections 6 to 15. This Part sets out the key provisions of the MAIU. Section 6 provides for the Minister to appoint a day for the establishment of the MAIU. Section 7 establishes the MAIU within the Department and provides for the MAIU to be independent in its organisation and in the performance of its functions of any other person or body whose interests could conflict with it. This section also designates the MAIU as the marine safety investigation authority for the purposes of Article 8 of the EU directive. Section 8 provides for the functions of the MAIU, which include carrying out marine safety investigations, making safety recommendations and publishing reports on each investigation. Section 9 provides that the MAIU will be staffed with independent investigators, including a chief investigator who will lead the new unit. Section 10 provides for the functions of the chief investigator, which include the management of the MAIU and responsibilities in relation to ensuring its compliance with the independence requirements of the EU directive. It also provides that the chief investigator shall not receive instruction from any official in my Department with a role in maritime policy or operations.

Section 11 provides for the Minister to develop a policy to manage conflicts of interest for staff within the MAIU, the Department and external consultants and advisers. It also provides for the Minister to designate a civil servant within the Department, who is not involved in the maritime area, as a point of contact for any issues arising with conflicts of interest. Section 12 provides for the removal of an investigator from an investigation due to a breach of the conflicts of interest policy. Section 13 provides for the engagement of consultants and advisers by the chief investigator for the purpose of conducting a marine safety investigation. Section 14 provides for the MAIU to keep itself informed where a public authority may have a function which has a bearing on matters with which the MAIU is concerned. Section 15 provides for the MAIU to publish an annual report identifying the marine accidents that occurred during that year.

Part 3, Marine Accidents and Reporting, comprises sections 16 to 34 and provides for the marine accident investigation criteria and the requirements of reporting marine accidents to the MAIU. Section 16 provides for the requirement of the MAIU to investigate very serious casualties involving ships within the scope of the EU directive. It also provides for the MAIU to carry out a preliminary assessment to determine if a marine safety investigation is required depending on the nature of the vessel and the marine accident.

Section 17 provides for the requirements of the master and-or owner of a ship, and certain maritime authorities, to notify the MAIU of marine accidents. Failure of the master or owner to notify the MAIU of an accident is an offence. Section 18 provides for the requirement of parties involved in a marine accident to provide relevant information regarding the causes of a marine accident as requested by the MAIU. Section 19 provides that the purpose of a marine safety investigation is not to attribute fault or blame but that it shall not preclude the MAIU fully reporting on the causes of a marine accident if fault or liability could be inferred. Sections 20 and 21 transpose requirements of the directive to provide for the notification to the European Commission if the MAIU considers urgent action is required to prevent the risk of new casualties and for the MAIU to provide mutual assistance to member states carrying out a marine safety investigation.

Sections 22 to 27, inclusive, provide for the powers of investigators to conduct investigations, obtain a search warrant, take possession of objects, give directions to secure a marine accident site and obtain records or other information as appropriate when conducting an investigation and for the preservation of evidence following a marine accident.

Section 28 provides for the disclosure of confidential information by staff within the MAIU to be prohibited unless authorised by the designated person or required by law. Section 29 provides for an investigator to request a person to undergo a medical or physical examination if deemed relevant for the purposes of a marine safety investigation. Section 30 provides for the detention of a ship if an investigator deems it necessary and for an investigator to require crew members to stay in the vicinity for a period not exceeding 24 hours. Section 31 allows for the MAIU to reopen a completed marine safety investigation if new evidence becomes available that is likely to materially alter the findings. Sections 32 and 33 provide for the process around providing observations on a draft marine safety investigation report and on the publication of a marine safety investigation report. Section 34 provides for immunities from claims for the Minister and for consultants and advisers where they act in good faith.

Part 4, Dissolution of MCIB, comprises sections 35 to 43, inclusive. Section 35 provides for the dissolution of the MCIB on the appointed day. Section 36 transfers the rights and liabilities from the MCIB to the Minister. Section 37 transfers the records of the MCIB to the Minister. Section 38 provides for any claim for liability or loss occurring before dissolution to be transferred from the MCIB to the Minister. Section 39 provides for the final accounts and the final annual report of the MCIB to be completed by the MAIU. Section 40 provides for the completion by the MAIU of anything that was commenced by the MCIB. Section 41 provides for anyone who has acted on behalf of the MCIB to be immune from claims following its dissolution, as long as they have acted in good faith. Section 42 provides for the transitional investigation provisions for marine safety investigations already under way when the MAIU is established. Any investigation commenced prior to the establishment of the MAIU may be completed by the investigator warranted by MCIB. In a situation where an MCIB investigator cannot complete the investigation, an investigator for the MAIU will complete the investigation instead. Investigations commenced prior to the establishment of the MAIU will be carried out under the legislative provisions of the Act of 2000. Section 43 provides for the admissibility in evidence of documents kept by the MCIB to still be admissible after the appointed day.

Part 5 is concerned with the regulation of offshore service vessels and updates to the references to two IMO conventions in legislation. It comprises sections 44 to 52. Section 44 sets out the definitions associated with Part 5. In particular, definitions are included for industrial personnel, offshore industrial activities, offshore service vessels and the IP code which are all definitions associated with the SOLAS Convention. In addition, a definition of "passenger" has been provided for to specifically exclude industrial personnel from being classed as passengers. A definition is also provided for an industrial personnel safety certificate which is the certificate which will be issued to the vessel following a survey confirming compliance with legislative requirements. Industrial personnel in this context are envisaged as being workers on the offshore rigs who are being transported to and from their place of work at sea.

Section 45 provides for the application of Part 5. This Part applies to Irish offshore service vessels, foreign-flagged offshore service vessels that wish to operate on regular domestic voyages in Ireland and foreign-flagged offshore services vessels while they are in a port in the State. Section 46 sets out the ability to make offshore service vessel and industrial personnel rules. These rules may provide for the design and construction of the vessel, its machinery, installations, equipment and systems. In addition, the rules may provide for the carriage of industrial personnel and include requirements on training, medical fitness, health and safety and accident prevention. The rules may also set out the number of passengers, industrial personnel, crew and other persons who are permitted to be carried on board. Different rules may be made for different classes of offshore service vessel having regard to such matters as the size and speed of the vessel, nature and duration of its voyage, numbers on board and the type of cargo being carried. Furthermore, the rules may provide for the surveying of such vessels and the different types of surveys that can be carried out. These surveys will either be carried out by the Marine Survey Office or by a recognised organisation acting on behalf of the Minister for Transport. Any such recognised organisation will be one recognised at EU level with which a formal agreement with my Department has been put in place.

Finally, there is scope to exempt a class of offshore vessel from a provision of the rules.

Section 47 provides for the powers of authorised persons. As mentioned, this will be either a surveyor from the Marine Survey Office or a recognised organisation acting on behalf of the Minister for Transport. This section sets out the general power to board a vessel and survey and inspect it, including its machinery and equipment, along any documentation kept onboard. There is also the ability to question the crew and take copies of any records. The section also provides for the ability to set fees for surveys and inspections with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Under the section, it is an offence to obstruct or interfere with an authorised person in the course of their duties or to make any false declaration to such an authorised person.

Section 48 provides for the issuing of an industrial personnel safety certificate. This section sets out the process to be followed when a surveyor from the Marine Survey Office has completed the survey and is satisfied a vessel meets the requirements of the rules. Once a declaration of survey has been issued by a surveyor, the vessel can be issued with an industrial personnel safety certificate. Where this certificate is issued to a vessel within the scope of the SOLAS Convention, that is, a vessel of more than 500 gross tonnes on international voyages, it will be issued with an international industrial personnel safety certificate. In the case of any other offshore service vessel, it will be issued with an Irish industrial personnel safety certificate. Under this section, there is also the ability for a recognised organisation to issue a certificate to vessels falling within the scope of the SOLAS Convention. Only the Marine Survey Office, however, can issue an Irish industrial personnel safety certificate.

Under this section, the owner of a foreign-flagged offshore service vessel is not permitted to operate on domestic voyages without first securing an Irish industrial personnel safety certificate. In these circumstances, the certificate may be issued where the vessel has been built to a standard set by the flag state that is of a standard equivalent to that which is required under the Irish rules and, therefore, the usual principle of reciprocity applies. An industrial personnel safety certificate will be valid for a period of no more than five years and will be linked to the other safety certificates applicable to the vessel. Should its underlying safety certificate be suspended, withdrawn or revoked, the industrial personnel safety certificate will become invalid.

The industrial personnel safety certificate for the vessel will specify the number of persons permitted to be carried on board, whether crew, passengers or industrial personnel, and it is an offence for the owner or master of the vessel to carry persons in excess of the number specified in that certificate. In addition, a master or owner of a vessel is not permitted to operate that vessel as an offshore service vessel without such a valid industrial personnel safety certificate and the master is not permitted to proceed to sea without having a copy of that certificate on board. Furthermore, no changes are permitted to the structure of the vessel or its machinery or equipment without the Department’s prior approval, unless it is to replace or repair defective equipment, which should then be done to the same or higher standard.

Section 49 sets out the criteria for the endorsement, extension, suspension or revocation of an industrial personnel safety certificate. Following periodic surveys, an authorised person can endorse the certificate to record that the vessel continues to comply with the relevant rules. Where this certificate expires during a voyage, it can be extended for a maximum period of three months to allow the vessel time to get to a port where it can undergo a renewal survey. This section also sets out the circumstances under which a certificate may be suspended or revoked and the ability of a certificate to be reinstated after suspension once any identified deficiencies have been rectified. Provision is made for a person to appeal such a suspension or the revocation of a certificate to the Circuit Court.

Section 50 provides a surveyor from the Marine Survey Office with the power to detain an offshore vessel where the vessel is not in compliance with the relevant rules. A person has the power to appeal a notice to detention also to the Circuit Court.

Section 51 sets out the offences and penalties for non-compliance with various sections under this Part of the Bill.

Section 52 sets out consequential amendments required to other merchant shipping Acts on foot of the new requirements for offshore service vessels. A new definition is inserted for the SOLAS Convention in the merchant shipping Act 1952 to take account of the amendments made to the convention regarding the new Chapter XV on the carriage of industrial personnel. The Merchant Shipping Act 1992 is amended to include the relevant definitions relating to offshore service vessels and remove the default position of such vessels being classed as passenger boats or passenger ships. Section 18 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1992 is also amended to allow for a new class of passenger boat to be assigned for the carriage of fewer than 12 industrial personnel. The Merchant Shipping Act 2010 is amended to update chapter X of the SOLAS Convention, in respect of high-speed craft, and to allow rules for high-speed craft that fall outside the scope of the SOLAS Convention to be made. An amendment is also made to sections 57 and 58 of the 2010 Act to allow for regulations to be made by the Minister for any type of vessel in respect of safe manning levels. A further amendment made to section 87 of the Merchant Shipping Act 2010 updates the definition of the Maritime Labour Convention to allow for updates to regulations to be made under that section to give effect to recent amendments to the Maritime Labour Convention.

I express my appreciation for the ongoing work of the MCIB, its board members and its investigators. The move now towards a full-time, permanent maritime investigation resource will build on the important contribution the MCIB has set down in this area. I commend the Bill to the House.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious the Minister of State is new to this brief, and while he will be aware there is a long history to this whole area, he may not be an expert on it, which is forgivable. Nevertheless, I want to go back over the history that got us here today. It is quite embarrassing, with episode after episode of the failure to implement expert recommendations.

The Oireachtas transport and communications committee dealt with this about a year and a half ago. It published its report and made its recommendations as part of pre-legislative scrutiny. We can see in the digest produced by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service that only a minority of the recommendations were accepted by the Department and included in the published Bill we are debating on Second Stage. It is profoundly disrespectful to have made families who have lost loved ones and those who have campaigned for many years lose yet another year and a half.

We are now debating the Bill on Second Stage, but if we are being honest, we know that legislation coming before the House next week will be guillotined, rushed through and moved on. I do not think this Bill will see the light of day or conclude before the end of this term. Only the Taoiseach can truly know the date of the election, but it is deeply disappointing to be only dealing with the Bill today. Those who have been waiting for these changes to happen, and who had lost faith in what was there, will look on with great cynicism, which is deeply regrettable. We have had the Lacey report of 2010 and the Clinch report. On the latter, as the Minister of State will know, the recommendations were made available to the committee as part of its pre-legislative scrutiny, but they have never been fully published. The Oireachtas committee asked for the full publication of that report to assist us legislators in this process but, unfortunately, that has not happened. That is deeply regrettable and it leaves a vacuum.

The Minister of State referred to the European judgment against us, which, again, just shows the dither and repeated delays. I have to say that this is wrong. During the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny, we had two expert witnesses, Mr. Michael Kingston and Mr. Ciaran McCarthy, and it is clear the committee was very taken by their evidence and acted on many of their recommendations. Again, we rely on them, and I am grateful to them for their ongoing expert advice on these matters.

The Donegal coroner, Dr. McCauley, making recommendations in May 2022, asked the Minister responsible to finally take on board previous recommendations seeking the mandatory training of all persons taking vessels to sea, to educate all seafarers that a mobile phone is not an adequate radio communication device on its own, that VHF radios are deemed mandatory in all vessels taken to the sea and that education programmes should continuously highlight not only the possession but the wearing of lifejackets, and to review the code of practice to remove any inconsistencies in the document and have it presented in a more user-friendly, readable format.

Those recommendations were made after an inquest. The coroner was very exercised about it. There is no evidence that those basic recommendations, which the ordinary citizen would expect to apply, have been implemented. There is a continual failure to learn from mistakes. We all accept that tragedies can happen despite everybody's best efforts. The point is that we should learn from them. Recommendations from coroners and experts have been ignored and overlooked again and again.

The inquest I mentioned took place in my home county. More recently, there was the Caitríona Lucas inquest. In the case of both inquests, there was a failure to co-operate by the MCIB and the Department of Transport. My goodness, it is shocking. We are talking about inquests to establish the facts of what happened in the case of a death. The attitude was, "We have done our report, we are beyond question and reproach and that is it." There was a failure to engage further. That will have to change. It is an incredible omission in the Bill that there is no provision to instruct the MCIB, or the replacement body that is proposed to come into being, to participate in inquests.

I will now address some of our issues and concerns with the Bill. To be clear, if the legislation manages to make it to Committee and Report Stages, we will be proposing amendments. Section 4 deals with the expenses of the Minister. We agree with the guidance that what is proposed in this provision is not sufficient. It does not take into account the reasoning of the Oireachtas committee that there must be robust provision in the legislation to ensure funding is fit for purpose. We will be introducing amendments to this section. There is much within the Róisín Lacey report from 2010 that should be reviewed. I ask the Minister of State to go back over the report to see how it fits with the legislation that has been presented.

Section 9 deals with the appointment of investigators. This provision is not sufficient. It does not take into account the comprehensive reasoning by the Oireachtas committee that there must be robust provision in the legislation ensuring each investigation is carried out by a suitably qualified investigator. We will submit amendments to strengthen the section.

Section 14 sets out requirements that the proposed new body must keep itself informed on certain matters. The section refers to the European Commission, the European Maritime Safety Agency, EMSA, the International Maritime Organization, IMO, the International Labour Organization, ILO, and any other relevant authority. There is no requirement that the new body should seek to be represented on those authorities. There needs to be full sharing and learning, not doing what was done in the past, which was expert guidance reports just being ignored. There must be an openness to evolve and arrive at a shared understanding. We will seek to introduce changes to this section.

Section 15 deals with the annual report to be provided by the new body. The report should identify the safety recommendations and actions that were issued by complementary or relevant organisations that are relevant to the work of the proposed body. We will come back to the Minister of State on this provision.

The provisions in section 27 regarding the preservation of evidence are not strong enough. This is an area that came into sharp focus in the context of the Caitríona Lucas inquest. We want to see provision for the new body to develop memorandums of understanding with the Health and Safety Authority, An Garda Síochána, the Civil Defence, the Irish Coast Guard and other bodies on the protection of evidence. Procedures should be outlined in the legislation indicating which organisations have priority at re-enactments. This provision needs to be strengthened considerably. If we look across the water to Britain, what I have outlined is in operation there.

Section 31 deals with the reopening of safety investigations. The inquest I referred to was into the deaths of Ger Doherty and Thomas Weir, who died off the coast of Malin Head in 2018. It was at their inquest that the coroner, Dr. McCauley, made the recommendations to which I referred. I note again that he strongly criticised the MCIB for not co-operating with his inquest. We need much strengthened provisions in this regard. There is an omission in the section. We need the Minister to have the ability to order and instruct examinations. There is not enough within the legislation on that. We will come back to the Minister of State in this regard on the next Stage.

There is another omission in the Bill. We have talked about reviewing outcomes and having the legislative power to go back over an outcome when there is clear evidence it is flawed. I really appeal to the Minister of State on this point. Provision must be included for investigators to appear before coroners' courts. It is not acceptable that there is no such requirement. They must be able to stand over their reports and allow the coroner to probe matters. Investigators have an independent job to do and their findings may be hurtful to the families of the deceased. Sometimes, the outcome they arrive at could be wrong. They certainly should be subject to questioning on their findings in a coroner's court. I ask the Minister of State to address this point.

There is no provision in the legislation regarding Department employees working for the new body. This is relevant to the question of independence. The Lacey report called for a multimodal body, covering air, rail and marine. Everything would be under the one roof and the body would be fully resourced and completely independent. There is a lack of clarity in the Bill. The concern in the European finding was that Department employees should not be moving from one role to another in a short space of time. We need to look at that with a view to amendment. There is a mistake in the approach to independence. The legislation attempts to give all sorts of assurances that the new body will be independent from the Department of Transport. However, there is an ongoing concern that it will not, in fact, be fully independent, properly resourced and use properly qualified investigators. We need to revisit the whole area of independence to provide assurance on these points. We will look to introduce amendments in this regard.

In its pre-legislative scrutiny report, the Oireachtas committee recommended that "the Minister should include provisions in the General Scheme for the ratification of the Cape Town Agreement for the Safety of Fishing Vessels in order to assist the international effort". The reason this was not done, the Department has said, is that the Government is in the process of engaging on all of that.

There are concerns about who is engaging on behalf of the State, whether there are conflicts of interest and why this has not been implemented. One of the excuses is that our oversight is stronger. I think we want to be part of an international statement on marine safety and independence and want lessons to be learnt. That is what we keep hearing again and again from the loved ones of those who have lost their lives.

I now move on to the offshore area. We have submissions from Wind Energy Ireland. Reading through the points it makes, I think they are reasonable. I will take the Minister of State through them in the time I have remaining.

As regards section 8, Wind Energy Ireland asks on behalf of its members if clarity could be given as to the division of responsibility between the new proposed unit and the Health and Safety Authority. Is a different approach taken if an accident on a vessel occurs when it is tied up? I imagine that this submission has been sent to the Department. It has been sent to Oireachtas Members. If it has not been sent to the Department, perhaps the Minister of State would contact me afterwards. I am happy to forward the entire submission. That is a reasonable point. There are a few others.

As regards guard vessels, I am the Sinn Féin spokesperson on fisheries and the marine, and this is a matter in which I have a particular interest. In its submission, Wind Energy Ireland states that Ireland has the disappointment of both the offshore renewable energy industry and the fishing community choosing not to permit fishing vessels to perform guard vessel duties. That is really regrettable. As the Minister of State will know, people in the fishing community are struggling. It is a matter of that ability to diversify. There is also the offshore renewable energy and seafood task force, which is trying to address the concerns of fishermen. When offshore renewable energy is being developed, they should be first in the queue to financially benefit from this, considering that they are struggling. That is an area we need to look at. The lack of reference to guard vessels in the Bill raises the question as to what, if any, the legal definition of a guard vessel is in Irish law. Section 44 clearly defines, for example, a fishing vessel and an offshore service vessel, but neither of those is a guard vessel, though they could arguably carry out that function. That needs to be looked at.

Could the Government confirm whether the intent of the definition of offshore industrial activities, also under section 44, is not to include pre-construction activity? If that is the case, does this have any implications for the definition of an offshore service vessel? Again, that is a reasonable question. Wind Energy Ireland also states it would be helpful for the Government to clarify the regulatory framework for small vessels carrying up to 12 personnel, including safety equipment standards, operational guidelines and certifications. What is this about? The Bill specifies vessels carrying 12 or more industrial personnel, which is in turn defined elsewhere in section 44. What does one do when there are fewer than 12? Wind Energy Ireland is looking for clarification on that.

As regards section 46, Wind Energy Ireland says the Government could set out a timeline for the development of these rules and commit to early and detailed engagement with the industry prior to commencement of drafting. This is where there is reference to setting the rules governing the requirements for offshore service vessels, which are referred to as offshore service vessel and industrial personnel rules. Again, Wind Energy Ireland just wants clarity around consultation in that regard. It is not clear from section 46 how the offshore service vessel and industrial personnel rules will evolve to deal with new vessel types. Will the rules be subject to periodic review and, if so, how often and by whom? How can such reviews be initiated or requested? Wind Energy Ireland has a number of questions about how subsection (6) of section 48 would work in practice. This is about foreign-flagged vessels. The Minister of State will have this submission. I will not read verbatim what it states here. They are very reasonable and legitimate questions. I appreciate that this whole area of offshore renewables is an evolving one, but we need to deal with it and address it, and I do not think it is dealt with properly. I invite the Minister of State to read the submission and address the reasonable concerns.

On the first reading of section 48(13), it sounds reasonable in its reference to "changes to the structure, equipment or fittings of the vessel to which the certificate applies, without the prior approval of the Minister". They could have an impact on safety without the awareness of the Minister. Again, how does that work in practice? How is that dealt with? That is a genuine concern.

The final issue I will raise relates to training and certification. While the Bill refers to safety certificates for industrial personnel, it does not provide specific training requirements. Wind Energy Ireland offers up the Global Wind Organisation but there is a range of organisations that could be referred to specifically. It is too vague. Is the Marine Survey Office being recognised?

There is a lot of work to do on this, and I ask you to bear with the Opposition. We will put in constructive amendments.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Lawless, for bringing forward this very important legislation, the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Accidents) Bill, and compliment him on really hitting the ground running since his appointment as Minister of State at the Department of Transport and bringing forward some really important legislation and reform and doing Kildare North very proud. I come from a marine county, County Wexford, where we have a very proud history and heritage in the seafaring world. We have many commemorations, such as the Rosslare Burrow Lifeboat Memorial, which I attend every year. It is a very poignant ceremony to mark the heroic rescue by the Coast Guard, from the Keeragh rocks, in February 1914, of the crew of the Norwegian schooner Mexico as well as the survivors of the Fethard lifeboat, the Helen Blake. It is just one example of the many memorials right across our country, including County Wexford, to those who lost their lives, those who took huge risks to rescue and save people. It is an extraordinary thing to do.

This Government is very proud of the work it has done in the marine area during its lifetime. In addition, for example, we established the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority to regulate licences and consents off the shores of Ireland. That too is based in County Wexford. There is also almost €250 million in investment going into Rosslare Europort, which will act as an economic driver, and the development of offshore renewable energy. All this is very important to ensure, as regards those who use our seas, our maritime area, our marine area, that there is a proper and effective marine investigative unit and having the marine accident investigation unit.

I compliment my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Lawless, on his work to date and acknowledge generally the good work that has been done right across the Government for our maritime area, recognising the importance of that, including in the environmental area. Some 90% of all heat capture is in our seas, and we have to remember that. As an expert in the area once said to me, you cannot divide a sea up the way you can fields or to say you can do this in this area and that in that area. It is all so intertwined and affects greatly everything we do.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ambition of this Bill is to replace the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, a body which was flawed from its inception. The fundamental weakness of the board was the presence on the board of the chief surveyor of the Marine Survey Office and the Secretary General of the Department of Transport, people who by their positions were objectively biased. It is not about the individuals, but they were objectively biased. The function of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board was to investigate maritime accidents, which could potentially have been caused by the actions of persons within the Department of Transport whose duties are, for example, to certify shipping.

The body also suffered from an acute lack of resourcing and top-tier professionalism when compared with the air and rail investigative equivalents and a failure to stipulate that the board members be appropriately qualified or experienced. In essence, a board was established which was empowered to investigate itself and has resulted in the production of substandard reports, with a resultant failure to properly document or learn from incidents, some of which had tragic outcomes.

For example, I remember debating the report that followed the awful tragedy of the Rescue 116 helicopter crash. It was very detailed and we discussed it at length. We were told it was not about apportioning blame but rather about making sure the same thing did not happen again. It is hard to believe Ireland is a maritime country. We have a bigger coastline than most European countries but our governance of it has been so remiss.

The State was able to get away with this model until 2009, when the EU introduced a directive obliging member states to establish bodies to investigate marine accidents and to ensure their impartiality and independence. The European Commission began infringement proceedings in 2015, which the State chose to challenge and which ultimately ended with a wholly predictable adverse finding by the Court of Justice of the European Union in July 2020. To add insult to injury, it is reported that at the time, the State was left liable for costs over the decision to challenge the European Commission’s issue with the make-up of the board. Who gave the advice to initiate that challenge when the outcome was so predictable? Anyone taking a cursory glance at the failure in this regard would have said that we could not win the case. Why, therefore, was the case taken forward? I do not understand the thinking behind that decision.

We were told the practice in these cases is that neither the European Commission nor the member states - Ireland in this instance - ever actually seek their costs, and, therefore, it is a notional concept. I want to know about costs. In my opinion, a notional concept means that it just does not arise. Of course, you cannot take a case without cost. While we are not paying on both sides, it has a cost on our side to take that case, even if it is done in-house. There are opportunity costs by virtue of the fact that staff have to be deployed to do that work. I do not accept that it is a notional cost. There is an actual cost in taking those cases. We should not have taken that case in the first place. We should have accepted there was an issue that urgently needed to be addressed and should have addressed it.

The decision addressed the narrow issue of whether the presence of the chief surveyor and the Secretary General on the board compromised its independence. It found that it did. The decision did not consider any of the other failings of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board. The chief surveyor and the Secretary General resigned from the board and the Minister introduced a short statutory instrument, as a stop-gap measure, obviously. I understand there was an attempt to fast-track amending legislation through the Dáil and to bypass pre-legislative scrutiny on the basis that the legislation was urgent. It must be remembered that this case was taken in 2015. We were notified in 2009. This is gun-to-the-head stuff rather than going through the process which produces the optimal outcome. Pre-legislative scrutiny can be enormously helpful. The contributions made by some of the witnesses, including that of my colleague, Ciarán McCarthy, before the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications regarding this Bill were incredibly important in improving this piece of legislation.

This new Bill is an effort to remedy the earlier botched legislation that was brought in after the EU ruling. The Bill, while primarily focused on marine accident investigation, also encompasses specialised offshore service vessels. Legislation is needed in this area as the Government has increased our offshore wind targets needed to be achieved by 2030. Obviously, that is needed.

Tackling climate change is an existential crisis of our generation. Establishing a sustainable source of renewable offshore energy will be key to this. I noted in the budget the amount provided for the Port of Cork. We do not actually have a port that is sufficient to deal with the construction of offshore platforms. This measure will remedy that. It is a good location with a natural harbour. It is important that this decision was made. It is long overdue. It is quite extraordinary we had that huge resource of offshore energy but we are only now getting around to designating a port. I acknowledge it has been done and that resources have been made available.

I welcome that the Minister has chosen to disband the existing Marine Casualty Investigation Board and replace it with another body. We urgently require legislation specific to the types of ships we will need to build and maintain our offshore infrastructure. Ireland has been in breach of its obligations under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, SOLAS, for decades. It is a relief this is being addressed. It is disheartening, however, to contemplate yet another proposal to amend the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and to shoehorn into the same Bill a number of disparate proposals. While the Victorians were ingenious, it is a fallacy to suppose that people who lived 130 years ago had the foresight to regulate offshore renewable energy in 2023 or 2024. The individual issues of marine accident investigation, offshore renewable production, safety of life at sea and the working conditions of seafarers are each by themselves deserving of specific legislation.

The majority of this Bill is concerned with a body to be known as the marine accident investigation unit. The Bill will transpose EU Directive No. 2009/18 establishing principles governing the investigation of accidents, which was introduced as part of the EU-wide Erika suite of maritime safety measures following the Prestigeand Erikatanker incidents. The recitals of the directive speak to the need to hold unbiased investigations by qualified investigators within an independent body to help prevent the recurrence of casualties. Article 8.1 provides that suitably qualified investigators, competent in matters relating to marine casualties and incidents belonging to an investigative body which is independent in its organisation, legal structure and decision-making of any party whose interests could conflict with the task entrusted to it. Article 8.2 of the directive provides that individual investigators,“have a working knowledge of, and practical experience in” the matters they are to investigate.

Ireland previously sought to transpose the directive through the European Communities (Merchant Shipping) (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations 2011, that is, SI 276 of 2011. In the course of a ruling, however, delivered on 9 July 2020 in case C-257/19 the Court of Justice of the European Union, it was found that the presence of the chief surveyor of the Marine Survey Office and the Secretary General of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, or his or her nominee further to section 9(1) of the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act 2000, on the MCIB meant the objective independence of the body could not be guaranteed. This Bill is an attempt to rectify these issues and establish a body that is in conformity with EU law.

The Bill makes provision for the establishment of the new marine accident investigation unit within the Department of Transport. Although the text mirrors that of the directive with respect to independence of organisation, legal structure and decision-making, the objective independence of the proposed new organisation is undermined by its being a part of the Department of Transport, given that it is not inconceivable that it would be called upon to investigate instances involving divisions of the Irish maritime directorate of the Department of Transport, such as the Marine Survey Office or the Coast Guard.

Ideally, this body should be under the remit of a different Department, perhaps the Department of Justice. There is potential for continuing conflict in this area.

Also provided for will be the persons with qualifications to be appointed as investigators and chief investigator. The Bill does not state what qualifications such people should hold. The marine accident investigation unit is to be provided with extensive powers, including the power to initiate investigations and the rights to use reasonable force to gain entry and require medical examinations of persons. These are extensive powers and responsibilities, yet the Bill is silent on the qualifications or backgrounds of the investigators who will use them and in stipulating that the investigators be competent in matters relating to marine casualties and incidents and have a working knowledge of, and practical experience in, the matters they are to investigate, as required by the directive. I would be concerned if people were asked for their qualifications in court and could not state what they were. There could be a challenge in such circumstances. I would have believed a basic requirement would be to specify the range of qualifications. There can be a range. There seems to be a quite significant gap in this regard.

Part of the Bill concerns offshore service vessels and their personnel onboard. Although legislation currently exists to regulate oil and gas extraction, Ireland does not have laws regulating specialist vessels engaged in the construction and maintenance of structures used to exploit offshore renewable energy. We do not recognise categorisations of such ships under special purpose ship codes or work boat codes, nor do we accept crew certification for the operation of such vessels with limitations in terms of purpose, power or areas of operation, as is the case in the UK. There are examples in other jurisdictions and it is not as if we have to reinvent the wheel. We should be examining what has been done elsewhere and what we need to do now. Otherwise, we will be back legislating in this area again. What should be future-proofed in this legislation does not appear to be future-proofed.

The methodology employed by the Marine Survey Office is to insist that vessels in the category in question, both Irish registered and foreign flagged and which regularly dock at the country’s ports, must acquire Irish passenger ship or Irish passenger boat certification and Irish load line certificates.

Provision is also made for a new category of passengers, to be known as "industrial personnel", who are persons transported or accommodated for the purpose of offshore industrial activities performed on board other ships or offshore facilities. A ship carrying such persons will not be required to be certified as a passenger vessel but will instead be categorised as an "offshore service vessel", which will be obliged to comply with the rules contained in Part 6. The Minister may make rules for offshore service vessels and industrial personnel with respect to design, construction and equipping vessels, and also the carriage of industrial personnel, including in respect of their training and medical fitness; however, the Bill does not make any reference to the licensing and training of persons who will be required to operate these ships. There are things to go back on here and we need to get ahead of them.

This area should be subject to stand-alone legislation given its importance to the offshore renewable commitments for the next decade. Given that we have designated the Port of Cork and provided funding, we can anticipate the needs. We must not wait until there is an accident, a directive from the EU or criticism from the Commission; rather, we need to put the matter in the work plan and do the work in a timely way. What happens offshore changes all the time and it is certainly not equivalent to what happened in Victorian times.

Marine accident reports are incredibly important to those who have lost family members or loved ones at sea. It is important that an organisation be capable of delivering the detail and that the investigation be conducted by people who are professional and can give families the answers. This relates even to giving a date of death for those missing for a period of time. This is really important to families. It might seem fairly obvious but sometimes there is a question mark over even this.

There is quite a bit of work to be done in this area, and we have to get ahead of it because offshore energy generation, particularly wind energy generation, will play a huge part in what will happen in the future. It has to happen. We have a unique opportunity that others would bite our hand off for but we have to put all the building blocks in place to make sure the work is done safely and properly legislated for.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, am delighted to be able to speak about this Bill. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le iar-Theachta agus iar-Chathaoirleach coiste Joe Carey. In fairness to him, during his time as committee Chair, he did a lot of work on this legislation. I wish him well with his health and thank him. I also thank Michael Kingston, barrister, who assisted me and members of the transport committee greatly. He worked closely with Joe Carey.

This legislation is so badly needed. I wish well Deputy Lawless, the new Aire Stáit in the area. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, in his contribution, was fulsome in his praise of the heroic rescuers, including lifeboat crews, and rightly so. We accept that fully. We could not say enough about rescuers’ efforts and the danger they put themselves in to protect and save others. However, we have been laggards with this legislation. There is an appalling vista, going back to the terrible Whiddy Island tragedy, which occurred when I was a young buachaill. We have a list of such tragedies.

I want to refer to John O’Brien and Pat Esmonde, who lost their lives off Helvick Head. I compliment John’s sister, Anne-Marie – or Annie, as she is known by her family, including her mother and father – on her heroic battle to get justice and answers regarding what happened on a beautiful but fatal afternoon on 23 May 2010. I am referring to the battle she has fought and the blockades that were put up. Those concerned appeared before the committee and their evidence was heard.

The State has utterly failed in this area since its inception. This Bill is timely but the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, should not be clapping himself on the back at all, talking about the money he is giving and everything else. We need robust, proper, meaningful, copper-fastened legislation that can cover all this. We have had the Wild West for decades.

Not one of the members of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board had seagoing experience. This would only happen in Ireland. The Bill is weak regarding the make-up of the board and, more importantly, the qualifications of its members, as Deputy Murphy and others referred to. We must move away from circumstances in which members are appointed at the whim of political parties and Ministers. Names are put forward just to give people nice jobs, retirement supports or whatever. It is shocking. We have to have completely experienced, dedicated, qualified members whose knowledge and authority are not in question. We must not have the families of the 50 people who have lost their lives seeking answers. In addition to John O’Brien and Pat Esmonde, there are numerous others. I do not have their names with me today. Families such as the O’Brien family and the Esmonde family in Tipperary town are yearning for answers and closure but cannot get them. John and Pat, two young men, were out fishing. There was a farcical cover-up – "farcical" is probably too light a word for it – and there was no investigation. We had many meetings with superintendents, chief superintendents and assistant commissioners to get answers, but we got nothing.

We were stonewalled, were told that someone would come back to us and send us another letter or report. Nothing came.

Justice is what it is all about. There must be justice, punishments and retribution for wrongdoing. To do that, we have to have meaningful systems and set-ups that are robust and independent enough to hold these people accountable. In that case, the two men were out fishing for mackerel when a big boat came along and caused a bow wave, which turned them upside-down and left them in the water screaming for help. The people on the boat turned around, came back and saw them screaming for help. Two of them died. The MCIB had no seagoing experience. The gardaí in Dungarvan refused to have any meaningful investigation. The boat was taken into the custody of Dungarvan Garda station, where the motor mysteriously disappeared. A less valuable and less powerful engine was swapped onto it. Have you ever heard the like of it? That happened inside the compound of a Garda station that is fully operational 24-7. The men's families had to beg and beg. Anne Marie O'Brien had to go down to Dungarvan a year after the incident and put up A4-sized posters on poles looking for witnesses. Witnesses came forward who were on the sea that day and were nearly turned upside down. It took 14 months for gardaí to interview those witnesses. One of them had passed away. It is a shocking tale of carelessness, downright wrongdoing and lack of investigation. I am glad that the legislation before us makes some efforts to tackle this but we must insist that investigators are held accountable and brought before the coroner's court to get answers. The Waterford Coroner's Court left us with many more questions than answers regarding this case. The legislation has to be robust enough. Michael Kingston gave evidence at committee hearings stating that we need legislation. We had the Lacey report, many other reports and international experience was drawn on. Why must we be the laggards here, unable to have proper, fit-for-purpose legislation that is robust?

As I said, there must be a situation where the investigators, whom we hope and expect would be competent, would have no problem coming before the coroner's court or being questioned by anybody, including the Garda or participating in an independent report because they would be qualified. They were not qualified in this case. We saw that when findings were issued against Ireland. Incompetent people were on the board and had to resign. We have been hobbling along ever since from one crisis to the next, trying to make amends.

Section 15 provides for the production of an annual report. This section must be very robust as well. I hope, alongside Sinn Féin, to table some amendments to the Bill. I hope they get a good ear from the Minister of State, whether that is now or after the dust has settled and this Dáil has gone. I do not expect to see it enacted by this Government, but it has to be.

I thank Shane Ross. I worked with him, and despite many an argument, he came down to Tipperary and visited the O'Brien family and listened to their case. He provided a listening ear. Our job, as legislators, is to listen to the people, act for them and protect them above all else. I raise the whole situation regarding the protection of evidence and securing the scene. In the O'Brien and Esmonde case, nobody was there to see what went on. The boat that caused the wave was not impounded or searched and no forensic evidence was taken to identify who was driving it. A whale watcher was sitting 600 m away. Apparently he heard the two young men screaming for help. I know we cannot use the word "lies" here, but the fibs that were told to the coroner's court about what happened is shocking. This would be okay if we were talking about some incident where people were out clay pigeon shooting or hunting for a day and something happened, but these were human lives. They had children, mothers, fathers and siblings. I salute Anne Marie O'Brien from the bottom of my heart. She should get a medal for her effort and tenacity in searching for justice, not only for her family but for future families that may be in this situation. Many other families have been in this situation.

I know of another case that happened off the coast of Ring and An Seanphobal. There were also cases in Clare. Many cases were discussed by the committee. It was an appalling list. The Whiddy Island disaster should never have happened. They were warned about that. As I said, we must have legislation now. It behoves us as public representatives and Teachtaí Dála, if we are worth our salt, to insist that the legislation is right and to look at other international examples of best practice.

The legislation makes all kinds of promises. It is nice to read and is flowery, but it needs teeth. It has to be tied down, be factual and leave no room for evasion or stepping out or going underneath the wire. It must be clearly stated. That is why I hope the Minister of State will be willing to accept some very logical and reasonable amendments from the Opposition because we are all trying to create a safer maritime seagoing experience for all of us and for families to come. We have to learn lessons and ensure that it is robust. I know there is plenty of international experience.

I want to discuss the background of the current marine accident investigation framework. Currently, marine accidents in Ireland are investigated by the Marine Casualty Investigation Board. It is not fit for purpose. We need to improve the maritime framework. That is what the Government is stating in the Bill. We all want that. The Bill aims to align Ireland’s marine accident investigation framework with EU Directive 2009/18/EC. This directive establishes the fundamental principles governing the investigation of marine accidents and incidents within the EU. It emphasises the need for independent investigations to improve maritime safety and prevent future accidents. If it were not for the EU, we would not be here doing this at all. I mean that. I am often very critical of the EU but many citizens now have to go to the European courts to get justice because they cannot get it in this country. It is a sad indictment of our democracy, our public service and our criminal justice system.

In comparison with other sectors, the establishment of the MAIU mirrors the approach taken in other transport sectors in Ireland. For example, the AAIU and RAIU are in place to investigate accidents in aviation and rail transport, respectively. These units operate independently to ensure unbiased investigations and enhance safety standards. We hope that is what they do. I believe that is what they would do. We have to have the exact same for the MAIU. We cannot allow the situation to continue. It has been like the Wild West for decades.

The Bill also addresses the regulation of offshore service vessels and the carriage of industrial personnel, which I welcome. Ireland is a party to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. Surely, the safety of life must be the most important aspect of life to any of us here in our duties. We are privileged to represent our constituents. The Bill aims to fulfil Ireland’s obligations under this convention by establishing a robust regulatory regime for offshore service vehicles. It is lovely aspirational language, but is the Bill robust enough? Have we sought advice from people in the know, who understand this and have done this to make sure it works properly? One of the key aspects of the Bill is the emphasis on the independence of the MAIU. Independent investigations are crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring that safety recommendations are based on objective findings. The Bill includes provisions to safeguard this independence and manage conflicts of interest effectively.

My God, that paragraph alone covers wholeheartedly the situation at Helvick Head. There was nothing, there was no investigation and the families deserve better than that. This is here as part of it but we must ensure it is robust enough, it is effective and, above all, it is independent. It cannot be got at and there cannot be a wink and a nod from anybody else. We cannot have a situation where a boat was taken into custody after two lives were lost on it and the engine taken off it and sold, swapped or disposed of. It was a disgrace that this could happen. This must be really tight. All the organisations from An Garda SIochána, MCIB and any other agents of the State such as the fire and rescue services, the ambulance service and the coroner's court must have full access to what happened. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, recognised and saluted the rescuers in the lifeboats and, of course, we must do that but we must also ensure where a tragedy happens, and, unfortunately, accidents do happen, they will be fully, independently, robustly and honestly investigated.

There are potential challenges. While the Bill aims to enhance marine safety, its success will depend on several factors. Effective implementation of the new regulatory framework and the transition from the MCIB to the MAIU will be critical. We have to have co-operation there. We often find that when people have powerful positions on these boards, they do not want to relinquish them. I know two of them are gone. I salute people who go on boards. Many of them do good work and give of their time and expertise but this area has been wildly neglected and too many lives have been lost with no accountability and families yearning for answers. Ensuring compliance with the new regulations and maintaining rigorous inspection standards will be essential for achieving the Bill’s objectives.

The main objectives of this Bill are to establish a marine accident investigation unit within a timely period. I would not say it is the autumn; it is nigh on the winter of this Administration so the winds are blowing and the sands are shifting. I think the Taoiseach went to Áras an Uachtaráin this morning for some other business. People thought he was going to the country so it will not be long. Tá sé ag teacht. I hope this Bill will do what it says on the tin. I hope the Minister of State will accept any amendments and we will have meaningful discussion, a practical outcome and above all, assurances to the families of those who lost their lives. As I said, I could name up to 100 people. It is so sad. I hope their families will not be left scratching; asking questions; going from Billy to Jack to Meg to Tom to Mary and Alice; going to meet the data commissioner; and getting no answers. This is not acceptable in a so-called democracy.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Members for their interest in the Bill and for giving their time today and at committee previously. Before I start into the substance of that, I wish to be associated with the good wishes afforded to Deputy Joe Carey by Deputy Mattie McGrath. Deputy Carey chaired the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications for the past number of years. I am sure all of us in this House wish him well in his retirement and his time beyond politics. I know he has had his health struggles so I wish him well and thank him for his commitment to this legislation when it came before that committee.

A question was raised by a couple of Deputies about the timing of the Bill and whether it might conclude in the lifetime of this Dáil. I certainly hope it does and to provide the best opportunity for this, I intend to take it through Committee Stage later this month. I think a date has been set with the committee towards the end of October. If it has not been confirmed, it should be confirmed shortly and I expect to take it through before this month is out so this shows the Government's priorities when it comes to this legislation. We do want to get it through the lifetime of this Dáil and as Minister of State, I certainly want to do that.

It is worth reiterating that this is a very important but relatively straightforward legislation. It take the reform of the MCIB as per the ECJ decision and as per best practice and reformulates the investigation body into the new MAIU. This is something we are obliged to do but it makes sense to do this and is in line with all recommendations and decisions. In parallel with that, we have added provisions to support the offshore service vessels to support what we hope will be both an emergent and burgeoning offshore renewable industry in years to come.

I thank the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications. Unfortunately, its members are not present but perhaps they will follow the transcript later or for the wider world watching. Pre-legislative scrutiny is always useful and helpful. A number of recommendations were taken on board. The recommendation that the investigation would be fully independent from the maritime sector within the Department of Transport is now in place. A conflicts of interest framework is provided for within the legislation that also addresses that recommendation. That came from the ECJ decision and was reaffirmed by the committee pre-legislative scrutiny report. In the report, it was recommended that the definition be broadly done and this has been achieved in this legislation and these definitions - deliberately so to cast as wide a net as possible and make sure more accidents not fewer are subject to investigation. A recommendation that a chief investigator be appointed was one pre-legislative scrutiny recommendation and is now in this Bill so we have listened to the committee feedback and taken it on board and will continue to do so.

A question was raised about the Lacey report and whether consideration was given to a multimodal structure that perhaps would put the aviation investigation, the railway investigation and the maritime investigation under one roof. It is important to consider the Lacey report as a product of its time. It was produced in 2009 or 2010 at a time the public mind and perhaps the Government's mind was focused on rationalisation and removing structures rather than creating them. It was a time of financial crisis. Thankfully, we are in a very different position now as we heard the Minister for Finance outline on Tuesday so it is important to have regard to that when we are thinking about the Lacey report. It was a product of its time. Notwithstanding that, there may be scope to fold in certain functions and examine synergies as times goes on but it will not be the purpose of this Bill. This is a specific legislation with a particular focus.

Offshore service vessels are included for a number of years. One is to give effect to chapter 15 of the SOLAS convention. This has to be done in primary legislation. One or two Deputies queried why it is being done in this Bill. It is a good opportunity to do it. It makes sense. It is related to the legislation. It does have to give effect to primary legislation.

Deputies Mac Lochlainn and Mattie McGrath raised an interesting point about whether an investigator should participate in a coroner's inquest or similar afterwards. Deputy Mac Lochlainn asked me to take this question away and I will. I will think about it and talk to my officials about it but my instinctive reaction is that we have to tread very carefully because there are rules of evidence that are centuries old and established for good reasons and evidence and material gathered for the purpose of one investigation cannot be neatly replayed before another form. You cannot just have an inquiry, conversation or interview in the course of one investigation and then just make that available to another forum because people divulge information for a particular reason under certain protections and privileges and that cannot just be transferred somewhere else without significant due process being involved. It is not simple but I will certainly look at it and see what might be possible.

Deputy Catherine Murphy spoke about the Victorian age and the question of Victorian-era laws - I presume she means the original merchant shipping Acts, some of which go back to 1894 - are appropriate for offshore renewable energy. To that I would say, do not underestimate the Victorians. The Submarine Telegraph Act 1885 is still in use today and actually covers our subsea cables that carry our ones and zeros across the north Atlantic to power our data centres and our online channels. A lot of Victorian legislation is still on our Statute Book and is still used today to power new technologies so there is value in old things in many cases. This legislation will be one of those.

Deputy Mac Lochlainn rasied a question about guard vessels and said it was a pity fishing vessels were excluded. I want to set the record straight on that; that is not the case. Fishing vessels can be guard vessels but they will have to deregister and re-register. A fishing vessel serving as a fishing vessel cannot be a guard vessel. According to international law and obligations, a guard vessel must be a merchant vessel and that comes with certain requirements, including that it have a load line certificate and its crew would have certain qualifications - not fishing qualifications but different qualifications.

There are a number of procedures in place. Ultimately a fishing vessel can very much become a guard vessel but it must deregister as a fishing vessel, re-register as a commercial vessel and then meet the obligations and requirements of such a vessel. It is possible. Someone may not wish to do so for that reason but it is open for them to do so if they wish.

There was a question about the Cape Town treaty and whether it would be considered in the context of this Bill. That will be ratified in a future merchant shipping Bill but Ireland already maintains very high standards for fishing vessel safety through our EU legislation. The Cape Town treaty is probably the next level again but thanks to the EU directives we are well covered in that area. There is an intention to ratify that but in a future Bill not this one.

A question was raised about qualifications. I think Deputies Catherine Murphy and Mattie McGrath both raised it. The investigators recruited to serve the MIAU will be recruited, as is the usual procedure, through the Public Appointment Service. A prerequisite would be that a candidate would have suitable appropriate qualifications. It would not be correct, normal procedure or appropriate for myself as Minister of State to specify in primary legislation the exact qualifications that an investigator should have. Qualifications change and time evolves. There could be very good people who bring life experience to the table without necessarily having particular qualifications. There is a breadth of inputs to be taken into account when someone is being considered for a position. It is far more appropriate that it be done through the Public Appointments Service with knowledge of the skills and qualifications required rather than being prescriptive in primary legislation about one particular qualification over another. That is the normal practice in drafting. There is no question but that they would be entirely and fully qualified as they should be.

The purpose of MAIU investigations is not to apportion blame or liability but to establish the facts of what happened. It is a non-prosecutorial forum. That is required by the EU directive. That is to address a few of the points that came up in the debate. I will engage with colleagues on Committee Stage, which I hope to bring forward in the next fortnight. I will not sit on it any longer than necessary. As to concerns that this would sit in the ether, certainly I do not intend that it should.

The purpose of the Bill is to streamline and redefine and recreate the MIAU out of the MCIB, or perhaps out of its ashes, notwithstanding our thanks to the MCIB for its work. Ultimately, that goal, which is a requirement of our obligations and various court decisions, is being met and, in parallel, we are incorporating the offshore renewable energy piece. That is extremely important because, as Deputy Murphy said, we had originally supported Port of Cork, which received €99 million funding in the budget on Tuesday. I visited it on Friday and met its offshore service personnel. I travelled to the harbour to see the huge ambition it has and shares. Just as passionate are Shannon Foynes, Rosslare and other harbours around the country which hope to aspire to the same. I agree with Deputies who remarked that it is at the future of our future economic and sovereign prosperity. We are enabling that in this Bill. It is such an important part of this legislation that we do lean into that and we support that vision through regulation and legislation that will enable those boats to be a part of that supporting infrastructure. That is what we are doing today.

I thank Deputies who made contributions to the debate. I thank the committee for its work on the Bill prior this. I look forward to further interaction on this very important legislation on Committee Stage, hopefully in coming weeks.