Mr. Michael Kingston:

I thank the Deputy for those pertinent questions. I will go through a few issues with the general scheme. It is a comprehensive piece of work. I complimented the individual drafters who have worked on it, but there are some areas that need enhancing. I have some comments, as does Mr. McCarthy.

Under head 2, the definitions of "marine accidents" and "marine casualty" need to be double-checked to ensure that all types of vessels and boating activity are covered. These definitions should be referenced against the definition in the 2000 Act and the Lacey legislation. We are concerned about the use of the word “ship” as opposed to the word “vessel”. The definition of "ship" should be checked. This is not a criticism of the drafters, but it needs to be double-checked to ensure that we do not miss any type of incident in our jurisdiction, such as incidents involving kayaks or canoes. There have been a number of rowing accidents, sadly. We need to make sure we cover everything.

We need to be careful about the expenses of the Minister in the context of head 4. We need assurances of sufficient funding, which was discussed last week with the Minister, and an understanding that this is flexible and may need to increase, for example, if there is a major incident. This is dealt with comprehensively in the Róisín Lacey report and in the draft heads attached to it. It is not fully dealt with in the general scheme.

Head 7 relates to investigators of marine accidents. The investigator, as per Captain Clinch’s recommendation 3, needs to be appointed well in advance for transition purposes. We need to include wording regarding the requirement for at least two further full-time investigators with requisite experience, as per the EU directive on marine engineering, naval architecture and seagoing experience. We do not want to end up in another panel situation, as we explained previously. It would be better if this was legislated for and not left to the discretion of the chief inspector or Minister.

Head 7(12) states that a person cannot be involved with this body if he or she worked for the Department in the previous five years. I do not think that is the case with the aviation body, and it is not necessary because we have a wealth of experience in our Marine Survey Office, for example. There are individuals there that would be well qualified. After maybe a year out of working in this division, they know how to operate ethically in the context of working independently.

Head 9 states that the marine accident investigation unit must keep itself informed of certain matters. We would include here attendance at international forums such as the marine accident investigation forum, as envisaged by the 1998 report, which has never happened. That is important for education and in the context of the building up of corporate knowledge within the marine accident investigation unit.

Head 10, on annual reports and other publications, requests information on safety recommendations. This needs to be extended to include a detailed log or database that monitors the recommendations of the marine accident investigation unit and their implementation, including establishing a protocol with the Department, which must have a similar log. Róisín Lacey's report goes into great detail on this. It is incredibly important to keep on top of our recommendations. That has been a distinct failure of the current system.

Head 16 refers to ro-ro ferries and high-speed passenger craft and contains special provisions in respect of dealing with those. The head should be extended to cover large merchant ships.

Head 20, power of investigators, head 21, provisions of records, and head 22, preservation of evidence, are extremely important. Consideration must be given to the extensive reasoning by Róisín Lacey from memoranda of understanding with the HSA, the Garda, Civil Defence, the Irish Coast Guard and other bodies for the protection of evidence and a procedure as to who has priority at scenes of accidents. There should be provision to ensure that the marine accident investigation unit develops these protocols. This was envisaged by the 1998 report but has never happened. This has caused problems in respect of incidents up and down the country. I think in particular of John O’Brien and Pat Esmonde, who sadly drowned off Helvick Head in 2010. There have been problems with the preservation of evidence. That is just one example. That would not have happened if there were proper memoranda of understanding between the investigative body and the other agencies.

Head 26-----