Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | 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.

See this speech in context