Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

This is very important legislation, which we support. If amendments or other issues must be addressed, we will deal with them on Committee Stage in order to improve the legislation. The sole aim of everybody here is to ensure the safety of people at sea. We will do anything we can as a Legislature to insist that the most effective safety measures are put in place in the construction, maintenance and operation of crafts at sea or on other bodies of water.

Before we commence Committee Stage of the Bill we should invite many outside interest groups, such as the shipping owners, seamen and fishermen, for discussions on the issues to be dealt with. In particular, the transport committee should speak with representatives from the Marine Casualty Investigation Board so that we could perfect this legislation. I thank the research section of the Oireachtas Library, which has been extremely helpful, and I also thank the Minister's staff, who today went out of their way to assist me in replacing documents I did not have with me which were supplied to me earlier.

The Bill is very important, as it provides for amendments to the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 2005. Those Acts deal with safety of life at sea in matters such as the construction, equipment and operation of ships, and seafarer training and competencies. The Acts also encompass matters such as navigation, lighthouses, salvage and the investigation of marine casualties. I will return to that issue shortly.

The amendments now being proposed are required to improve safety of life at sea by ensuring that enabling provisions in the making of rules and regulations for the safety of cargo and passenger vessels under existing legislation are up to date. The intention is that they would then cover all relevant categories of vessels and would be sufficient to enable the further implementation of the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, SOLAS.

The matters being regulated include those rules for construction of passenger vessels, cargo ship construction and survey, radio, navigation and tracking, cargo ship bulk carriers, fire protection, life-saving appliances and arrangements and approval of service stations for inflatable life-saving appliances.

The Bill also includes enabling provisions for access to passenger vessels for persons with reduced mobility, and new provisions to enable the raising of sunken vessels for the purposes of a marine casualty investigation. In addition, the Bill contains provisions to give force of law to the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 and includes provisions to update the fines for contravention of the rules, regulations and statutory provisions, as well as to strengthen provisions for the enforcement of compliance and safety through surveys, inspection, court compliance orders and prosecutions.

We regularly get information from the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, which was set up in 2002 to examine reasons behind accidents at sea or on water. I have received an analysis from that board in response to a parliamentary question and it makes some interesting but sad reading. I will not refer to specific boats.

Nobody would want people to die at sea and if there are safety issues that have not been dealt with, we should address the principles and effect a change so that lives will not be lost in the way they have been in the past. Since 2005, there have been 41 fatalities reported on by the Marine Casualty Investigation Board. In that period, it published 46 separate reports, involving 52 craft. Along with the 41 fatalities there were seven injuries.

The craft involved in these incidents included 13 fishing vessels, ten open boats, seven jet-skis, five motor pleasure boats, four yachts, three cargo vessels, three canoes, two ferries and one tanker. The causes of these incidents should be learned from. We should consider why they occurred and why certain issues recur in the data.

The causes of accidents include 13 cases of people overboard, seven cases of sinking, six cases of collision, five cases each of grounding and capsizing, three cases of engine failure and two cases each of fire, mooring line incidents and pilot ladder failure. The reason for the accident on one vessel which saw a loss of life was a deteriorating condition of rope support and lack of maintenance. Another vessel did not observe collision regulations or have a proper look-out. On another there was no monitoring of the vessel's course when it was steered by automatic pilot.

There have been a large number of accidents involving jet skis. The key point in these cases is the inexperience of their users. Many simply do not have a clue how to operate or manoeuvre them. It is a serious issue as lives have been lost in accidents involving them. I accept every beach cannot be policed. However, those who rent them out must have a check-list of conditions of use. A statutory obligation should be put in place to ensure a person renting one knows how to use operate a jet ski and that it is in a proper and fit condition. There is also an issue with personal owners of jet skis and the same benchmark should be applied. Television is the best way to get across the water safety message just like with road safety. Moneys need to be ring-fenced for these campaigns which will ultimately save lives, particularly in the run up to summer when the use of jet skis becomes popular.

In many marine accidents the lack of maintenance of equipment is a key factor. This is a fundamental issue about the requirement on each individual owner to ensure a craft is safe, secure and fit for purpose. In one fatal accident, the Marine Casualty Investigation Board found no recommended safety equipment, such as distress flares, was on board the vessel while the personal flotation device, PFD, did not have cork straps attached and there was poor voyage planning. The investigators have also found very often life jackets not being worn is the cause of a marine accident. This basic and simple precaution ought to be driven home in a water safety publicity campaign equating it with people walking on the road wearing reflective gear.

In the board's analysis of fishing vessel incidents from 2005 to 2008, factors involved in accidents included not wearing a life jacket, failure to comply with safety regulations, abandonment of ship not carried out in an orderly fashion and a vessel not manned in accordance with regulations. Fatigue is a common thread in many of the investigations where it contributed to lack of safe watch-keeping.

In one case, the reduced stability of a vessel was a contributory factor. Similar to this, another vessel's bilge and basalt pumps capacity was insufficient to deal with the inflow of water while another was overloaded and had a poor stability profile. Changes made to fishing vessels may not be necessarily done with proper naval architecture advice. Fishing vessel owners are required to notify the authorities if they change the design of their vessel yet fatalities have occurred because that process has not been completed. On Committee Stage, we should examine the role of the State agencies involved in ensuring such reporting of modifications takes place. There are other instances where a safety survey was not carried out, despite the recommendations from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. In another, tests were not carried out on the vessel's VHF equipment.

I tabled a series of parliamentary questions on 4 November 2008 on how all these reports on marine accidents and safety were dealt with by the Department. The replies were very typical. One stated:

The Marine Casualty Investigation Board, MCIB, was established on 5 June 2002. Since its establishment, the MCIB has published over 100 reports containing in excess of 400 recommendations. The majority of these recommendations have been implemented. Where measures have yet to be implemented they provide a valuable input into the ongoing development of the maritime safety agenda and are considered by my Department in the overall context of delivering maritime safety.

Does a designated officer in the Department go through each of these reports?

A second reply stated:

When the Marine Casualty Board, MCIB, publishes a report into an incident it forwards a copy of it to my Department. As soon as possible after receiving it, my Department undertakes an initial assessment of the recommendations of the report relevant to the Department. The report is then submitted to me with the preliminary views of my Department on the relevant recommendations. Some recommendations lend themselves to early implementation, for example the issue of a Marine Notice bringing particular information or advice to the attention of a specific sector or sectors. Frequently, however, recommendations are more complex and require detailed assessment, consultation with interested parties and in some instances the introduction of new or amending legislation. In such instances, the recommendations will be fully considered and proposals developed as appropriate as part of my Department's ongoing work programme, in the overall context of delivering improved maritime safety.

It may be the case that following consideration of a particular recommendation that it is concluded that the course of action recommended may not be feasible or the most appropriate and that an alternative approach may be preferable. Such a conclusion usually would be arrived at following detailed examination by my Department's marine safety experts and consultation with relevant interests. Effectively, that reply to a parliamentary question from the then Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, is stating that if the Department does not like the recommendations, it does not necessarily put them in place. I do not have further knowledge, other than this paragraph, but it seems clear there are times when recommendations are ignored or changed or that further and other advice is procured that differs from the reports of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board.

If possible, I seek an analysis in this regard, for which I have asked through parliamentary questions. I acknowledge the Department's staff have been helpful to me and I wish to make clear that I am not being personally critical of anyone. Nevertheless, I wish to ascertain what recommendations were overruled by the Minister and his officials, subsequent to them being made. Why were they overruled, who was consulted and what changes, if any, were made? This is an important point, which I intend to pursue fully on Committee Stage and even before then. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has suggested the Joint Committee on Transport may be in a position to invite the Marine Casualty Investigation Board to appear before it to get to the bottom of such issues. While I do not attribute motives to anyone in this regard, I would have thought the recommendations contained in a Marine Casualty Investigation Board report would be implemented. This is the key point as it is clear this is not always the case.

Members received such a report into a tragedy last week and I ask that by the time the Bill reaches Committee Stage, the Department of Transport will have completed a full analysis of what has not happened on foot of such reports. Members are familiar with those measures which have been implemented, which are incorporated in legislation, statutory instruments or whatever. However, I am concerned that needless accidents are taking place. I would be satisfied were this legislation to pertain to a key point in the most recent report, which states: "It is recommended that legislation for the construction, stability and safety of Fishing Vessels between 15-24 metres be implemented as soon as possible". The Minister should confirm that he can make regulations for vessels of differing capacities. However, this recommendation is followed by a strange sentence, "The MCIB notes that the Merchant Shipping (Safety of Fishing Vessels)... Regulations 2007 ... was signed by [the] Minister of Transport on 17th September 2007". The point apparently being made is that the Minister did make regulations and signed them into law.

I wonder why this recommendation was included because that sentence is a statement of fact and not a recommendation. I seek clarity in this regard and either the Minister's officials or the Marine Casualty Investigation Board might be able to explain its import. While this is mere surmise, is this because the regulations were made but are not being enforced? What is the issue and why was that statement included?

The next recommendation states:

It is recommended that a Marine Notice be issued to Owners and Skippers of fishing vessels pointing out the dangers of making structural alterations or modifications to fishing methods or equipment without a qualified Naval Architect carrying out an assessment of the effects upon the vessels stability

This issue has arisen in more than one report and I revert to the core issue, namely, what is happening on that front and how is this being policed? An bhfuil morán ama fágtha agam?

See this speech in context