Seán Kyne (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Okay. Some of them were there. The report made recommendations on the Department of Transport establishing its own investigation unit. It seems counterintuitive to talk about a body having more independence by putting it back under the Department rather than having it on the outside. Ordinarily, we would say we wanted a body to have more independence by removing it from the control of the Minister and the Department and having it outside. As I said, I find that rather counterintuitive, but that is the recommendation of the Clinch report and is best practice, as it were, under the European Commission. I refer to this in the context of the case the Commission has taken. However, is that the only reason? It is based on the Commission case and the Clinch recommendations, but was there any particular issue or fault on the part of the marine investigation casualty board? Was there any failure on its behalf that resulted in it suddenly being taken out of the equation, having been there since around 2000 or 2001?

Regarding independence, the previous regime had a board and now it will be under the Department of Transport, with a chief investigator and several other investigators. Therefore, I presume oversight will be with the Secretary General of the Department rather than a board. I just wonder how this improves independence, which is the issue at stake.

Amendments were made on Committee and Report Stages as well. One was to ensure that the accident investigation reports of the marine accident investigation unit were prohibited from being used in criminal and civil proceedings. I do not know the back-and-forth discussion on that. It is likely that it was to ensure that people co-operated with it without fear of the information being used in litigation, but surely the purpose of investigation is to get all the information and have it in a report. For example, I am thinking of a family of someone whose life was lost because of a collision. If the MAIU believed there was negligence and issued a report to say there was negligence, the family of somebody who may have died would not then be able to use that report in terms of litigation. Would they have to initiate their own report? What avenue do they go down to get justice?

Section 16 of the Bill refers to marine safety investigations. It reads:

The MAIU is not obliged to conduct a marine safety investigation in the case of a very serious marine casualty involving only— (a) ships operated by the State ...

Why is that the case and will a different body carry out that investigation? The section continues: "unless they are crewed and carrying more than 12 passengers". Who will carry out investigations if there fewer than 12 passengers and why is this distinction being made? The section also refers to "inland waterway vessels operating in inland waterways".

On the issue of notifications, there is a requirement on different bodies to notify the MAIU where an accident takes place, such as the harbour authority, the Coast Guard and the Marine Survey Office. I certainly welcome all that.

Section 19 provides: "It shall not be the purpose of a marine safety investigation to attribute blame or fault." The investigation would determine what happened but could not say whose fault it was. I do not follow how that works. Using the simple example of two ships colliding, with a loss of life, how does one issue a report detailing that accident without saying that ship A or ship B is to blame? I do not see how that works or makes sense. Section 19 continues: " ... the MAIU shall report fully on the causes of a marine accident regardless of whether fault or liability may be inferred from the findings." The board would talk about ship A and ship B, how one was straying off course or whatever. It would be laying out the facts but would still not able to say that ship A or ship B was at fault.

Section 21 deals with mutual assistance in respect of member states, which makes sense. Section 21(1)(c) provides that the MAIU can "delegate, on a case-by-case basis by mutual agreement, to another Member State the task of leading a marine safety investigation". Would that be reciprocated? Is it a case of an Irish ship, for example, having an accident in Spanish waters and the Spanish authorities being able to delegate to the MAIU and vice versa? That would work. Collaboration in that case would be important.

The Bill sets out provisions regarding powers, search warrants and investigations. The MAIU has full authority to search and enter a private dwelling, subject to a warrant from a District Court judge. It has full, nearly Garda-type powers of investigation. I believe that is right if the board is to follow up on matters.

I find it strange that the report still cannot be used to provide justice to a member of one family because it cannot be used in litigation or to attribute blame. Where does that family go to get justice in that case? I do not have the benefit of having been a member of the transport committee where all of this may have been teased out. There is a lot in it. These things are not done lightly. I know there was a European Commission case and a report initiated way back and these are the recommendations but I have issues and concerns about what we have before us today. That is not the fault of the Minister of State because this predates his position but there are issues that could be looked at and questions that could be answered.