Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for raising this important issue. As they will be aware, an EPIRB is used to alert search and rescue services in the event of an emergency. It does this by transmitting a coded message via satellite and earth stations to the Coast Guard rescue co-ordination centres. All of a vessel's radio equipment, including EPIRBs, must comply with international standards, which are set out in EU Council Directive 96/98 EC, known as the marine equipment directive or MED. The testing and placing of EPIRBs is done in accordance with this directive. The MED provides for common standards for safety equipment across the EU and allows for internationally recognised independent competent bodies to assess the compliance of equipment with testing standards. The MED also operates within the wider context of EU product certification, which places an obligation on manufacturers to place only safe products on the market. Given this, the role of member states is limited.

Manufacturers generally provide a warranty to cover the operation of the equipment under which it will be repaired or replaced in the event of faulty operation, subject to the equipment not having been tampered with. Vessel operators return faulty equipment through the local distributor to the manufacturer as part of the normal market operation. National maritime administrations - my Department in Ireland's case - are not involved directly in this process.

As part of the vessel surveying and certification process, the Department or a surveyor or organisation appointed on its behalf checks to see that an EPIRB is in place and is operating where the vessel is required by law to be fitted an EPIRB. Aside from the survey, it remains an operator's responsibility to ensure that the EPIRB remains fully functional, including undertaking periodic self-checks, usually monthly, to ensure the equipment continues to function properly. The regular testing of the smoke alarm in a home would be a comparable example of the ongoing self-testing required with EPIRBS, except that where an EPIRB battery is dead, it should not be changed by the operator. It should only be changed by a designated technician.

As part of its routine vessel survey arrangements, a radio surveyor from my Department became aware of a defective EPIRB when carrying out a survey on a passenger ship in June 2013. Subsequently, officers in my Department became aware of two further defective EPIRB units. On foot of this, my Department opened contact with Sartech Limited in the UK, the distributor for Ireland and the UK of the relevant EPIRB. My Department advised Sartech of the defective units that had come to light and had them sent to GME, the manufacturer's head office in Australia, for testing. My Department subsequently followed up with GME Australia during October 2013. My Department became aware of another unit failure, which was also sent to Australia for testing.

GME Australia advised that its initial testing had shown defective microprocessors and it was going to commission an independent analysis of its circuit design. My Department considered that a safety alert should be issued by the manufacturer. GME subsequently agreed and issued its safety alert on 4 November 2013. My Department issued a marine notice on 11 November to draw attention to this alert. Ireland was the first country in the world to do so. My Department also requested the Paris Memorandum of Understanding, MoU, the international organisation governing port state control throughout Europe, to promulgate the safety alert to the other member states and also informed the European Commission. This represented a precautionary and expeditious approach by the Marine Survey Office, MSO, as we were the only country to initiate action regarding these particular EPIRBS.

EPIRBs must be certified as meeting the relevant EU standard by an approved independent competent body. In the case of the GME EPIRBs, Bureau Veritas is the relevant organisation. It issued the appropriate certification confirming compliance with the directive.

Following recent media reports, I asked my Department to examine concerns that it was aware in 2010 of similar defects in EPIRBs.

See this speech in context