Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Canney, and his officials. He is no stranger to this House and has been here before.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

I am pleased to introduce the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Accidents) Bill 2024 for the consideration of the House. The Bill establishes a marine accident investigation unit, MAIU, within the Department of Transport and provides for a transition from the current Marine Casualty Investigation Board, MCIB. The MAIU, led by a chief investigator and staffed by full-time permanent investigators, will serve as the designated investigative authority under the EU directive on marine accident investigation while also having the authority to investigate marine accidents beyond its scope. The purpose of these investigations is to identify the causes of accidents and make recommendations with the aim of improving maritime safety.

The Bill also provides for a regulatory regime to be put in place for the construction and operation of offshore service vessels and for the carriage of industrial personnel, which will support the offshore renewable energy sector. It also includes necessary updates to the International Maritime Organization's safety of life at sea convention and the International Labour Organization’s Maritime Labour Convention to enable more recent amendments to these conventions to be addressed in national secondary legislation.

Pre-legislative scrutiny on the general scheme of the Bill was carried out by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications in 2023. Where appropriate, the recommendations of the committee have been incorporated into this Bill and, in my view, have strengthened it.

Before I go into the detail of the Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge Ireland’s robust, internationally recognised maritime safety regime. It is important to highlight that the maritime safety functions of Ireland in my Department are subject to continuous and ongoing oversight and review by external third parties, including the International Maritime Organization, the European Commission, the European Maritime Safety Agency, and the National Standards Authority of Ireland, among others. We are among the best performers of IMO member states under the IMO member state audit scheme, which rigorously examines the maritime safety functions of the State, including accident investigation. Ireland is ranked in the top ten of global shipping registers in the white list of the Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control.

The safety of recreational craft users is a priority for my Department. Last September, following extensive stakeholder consultation, my Department published an updated edition of the code of practice for the safe operation of recreational craft. My Department regularly promotes the code and the safety messages contained within it through direct communication with stakeholders, marine notices and social media. To date, over 7,000 copies of the latest edition have been distributed.

I wish to express my appreciation for the ongoing work of the MCIB, its board members and its investigators. Their work has ensured that, where accidents have taken place, lessons have been learned and action has been taken to improve maritime safety. The move towards the MAIU will build on the important contribution that the MCIB has made.

There are substantive provisions within the Bill. Turning to the contents of the Bill, it consists of five Parts and 52 sections.

Part 1 of the Bill, entitled "Preliminary and General", is comprised of sections 1 to 5. These sections provide for standard legislative matters, including Short Title, interpretation, regulation-making powers, expenses, repeals and revocations.

Part 2, entitled "Marine Accident Investigation Unit", is comprised of sections 6 to 15.

Section 6 provides for the Minister to appoint a day for the establishment of the MAIU.

Section 7 establishes the MAIU within the Department and provides for the MAIU to be independent of any person or body whose interests could conflict with it. This section also designates the MAIU as the marine safety investigation authority for the purposes of the EU directive.

Section 8 provides for the functions of the MAIU which include carrying out marine safety investigations, making safety recommendations and publishing reports on each investigation.

Section 9 provides that the MAIU will be staffed with experienced, qualified and independent investigators, including a chief investigator, who will lead the unit.

Section 10 provides for the functions of the chief investigator. It also provides that the chief investigator shall not receive instruction from any official in my Department with a role in maritime policy or operations.

Section 11 provides for the Minister to develop a policy to manage conflicts of interest in respect of the MAIU. It also provides for the Minister to designate a civil servant within the Department who is not involved in the maritime area as a point of contact for any issues arising with conflicts of interest.

Section 12 provides for the removal of an investigator from an investigation due to a breach of the conflicts of interest policy.

Section 13 provides for the engagement of consultants and advisers by the chief investigator.

Section 14 provides for the MAIU to keep itself informed where a public authority may have a function that has a bearing on matters with which the MAIU is concerned.

Section 15 provides for the MAIU to publish an annual report identifying the marine accidents that occurred during that year.

Part 3 of the Bill, entitled "Marine Accidents and Reporting", comprises sections 16 to 34.

Section 16 provides for the MAIU to investigate marine accidents, including transposing the requirements of the EU directive in this regard.

Section 17 provides for the requirements of the master and-or owner of a ship, and certain maritime authorities, to notify the MAIU of maritime accidents. Failure of the master or owner to notify the MAIU of an accident is an offence.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 52 sets out consequential amendments required to other merchant shipping Acts on foot of the new requirements for offshore service vessels. These include a new definition for the SOLAS Convention in the Merchant Shipping (Safety Convention) Act 1952 to take account of the amendments made to the convention in respect of the new Chapter XV on the carriage of industrial personnel.

Amendments are also made to the Merchant Shipping Act 1992 to include definitions related to offshore service vessels and to allow for a new class of passenger boat to be assigned for the carriage of fewer than 12 industrial personnel.

The Merchant Shipping Act 2010 is amended to update Chapter X of the SOLAS Convention in respect of high-speed craft to allow for regulations to be made as regards safe manning levels and to update the definition of the Maritime Labour Convention to allow for recent amendments to be included in national legislation.

That concludes the outline of the Bill's provisions. I thank Senators for their consideration of this Bill and I look forward to the discussion. I commend the Bill to the House.

Niall Blaney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is welcome to the House with this, his first Bill. Fianna Fáil welcomes and supports the Bill. As the Minister of State outlined, the Bill provides for the establishment of the marine accident investigative unit within the Department of Transport and for a regulatory regime to be put in place for the construction and operation of offshore service vessels operating in Ireland to support the offshore renewable energy sector as well as for the carriage of industrial personnel.

This Bill is necessary to provide the most robust system for ensuring that offshore service vessels are safe to operate and provide protection to the crew and industrial personnel being carried. In this regard, the provisions of this new Bill are necessary to facilitate the further development of the offshore wind sector. As such, the Bill is at the centre of our future economic and sovereign prosperity. It is timely, given the significant potential we have that is yet to be realised, in many cases right along our coastline. The previous Minister was very much focused on the east coast. Given the part of the world the Minister of State comes from, I hope and expect changes in that regard this time around. Where the wind energy sector is concerned, all locations should get the opportunity to move at the one time. The potential for wind energy that we have on the west coast is massive. From my own perspective - Senator Boyle will back me on this - the location off the north-west coast is probably the second most advantageous site in the world. It has considerable potential for energy for this island - not just for the island itself, but for export to the EU as well. I have visited Rossaveal and seen the level of preparatory works that have taken place there. We have a great deal of work to do, but this Bill is an important piece in building the foundations in that regard.

The marine accident investigation unit will carry out marine safety investigations into accidents involving vessels in Irish waters and Irish-flagged vessels anywhere in the world. International alignment of our standards in investigations is important in that regard. I am glad this Bill will take care of that so that those investigations that do take place, wherever the vessels may be, will all be of a similar international standard. That is very important.

The establishment of the marine accident investigation unit will ensure that Ireland also complies with EU legislation on the designation of a marine accident and investigative body. The Bill provides for a transition from the current structure whereby the Marine Casualty Investigation Board is the designated investigative body until the establishment of the full-time permanent MAIU, similar to the Air Accident Investigation Unit and also the Railway Accident Investigation Unit.

The Bill also provides for a full regulatory regime to be put in place for the construction and operation of offshore service vessels and for the carriage of industrial personnel in the offshore sector.

It is very welcome that this is not just about investigating accidents; it is also about ensuring that accidents are prevented and that vessels are kept to the highest potential standards. This will provide the most robust assurance that vessels are safe to operate and that crews and the industrial personnel being transported will be protected. Such a regime will allow for the survey and certification of these vessels by the Marine Survey Office and for them to fly the Irish flag should they wish to do so. That will align Ireland with international practice, ensuring a level playing field in terms of inspection by port states. It will also fulfil Ireland's obligation as a party to the SOLAS Convention, as the Minister mentioned. I commend the Bill to the House.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As a fellow Galwegian, I am proud to welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am very happy with his elevation to the post. They could not have picked a better man. Having said those nice things, I will now launch into what I came to say.

I served as a member of the transport and communications committee. This paperwork I have in front of me comprises the submissions that were made to the committee. The committee completed several hours work. In the final analysis, when it should have been carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny, the election arose. In light of that, will the Minister of State refer this Bill back to the committee?

There are a number of disturbing facts about the Bill. The first of these relates to the reports of Róisín Lacey and Captain Clinch, both of whom are experts brought in to look at marine accident investigations. They engaged with stakeholders, and both of their reports contained strong recommendations. It is a matter of serious concern that, as Members of the Oireachtas, we were not able to see the Clinch report. I have no idea why the report was withheld. The legislation before us contains lots of good measures, but we are being asked to progress it with our hands tied behind our backs. We have no idea what Captain Clinch said in his report. The Minister of State is going to be progressing the Bill through the Oireachtas. It is vitally important that we be given access to the Clinch report. If that requires people taking an oath of secrecy, then let us do that. Ultimately, however, allow us to be sure of what we are doing as we progress this legislation.

There are many issues with respect to accidents in the maritime area. I would have liked it if the legislation had covered all forms of transport, namely air, sea and land, being covered by a single office responsible for all accidents. I have no idea why that is not the case. If the Bill goes back to the transport committee, many of the recommendations previously made to it by experts may find their way into the legislation. I am not saying all the recommendations were ignored, but some of the key ones were.

It is no secret that Michael Kingston was one of the drivers behind the professional and expert advice given to the committee. Mr. Kingston's father died in the Whiddy Island disaster. The man has a deep concern about everything to do with marine accidents. It is peculiar that the Minister of State, who has only been in office a few weeks, is suddenly being asked to bring this major Bill through the Oireachtas. Very few members of this House were on the transport committee. As a result, they would have very little knowledge of what took place at that committee. I am sure it is the same in the Lower House in the context of people having first-hand knowledge of the debates that took place.

There has been a problem with the Department of Transport with respect to marine accident investigations. I am not sure if the Minister of State has been advised about his Department losing a case before the European Court of Justice in respect of people who were appointed to various roles. That is a damning indictment of the Department's disregard for what it should be doing.

In the past couple of days, information has come to me with respect to the appointment of the Marine Casualty Investigation Board. I am not going to go into either names or the actual appointment made because it would be unfair on the person involved to do so. It is better that I do not say who it is or what position the person holds, but I will speak to the Minister of State privately about the matter. I want to put on record that there is serious concern on two fronts, however. One is the composition of the interview board. It is believed that at least two members of that interview board should have recused themselves and not been involved. It is further believed that person who was the subject of the senior appointment made in this area does not have the commensurate level of expertise. In that context, I can only recount what has been passed to me. I have no first-hand knowledge of this, but the Minister of State will be able to get the facts. I do not want to mention the names of the people who should have recused themselves; neither do I not want to mention the name of the person or the position they have been appointed to. We need to look into these matters, and we need to be certain.

Marine accidents have been a significant problem. One could look at the way in which matters were managed in the context of Rescue 116. There were serious problems and issues which should have been taken on board long before that vehicle crashed. There were issues with respect to the lighting in the cockpit and the GPS maps that were used. There were many issues involved. At the end of the day, nobody has been held to account for the things that went wrong. The Department of Transport, the Irish Coast Guard and CHC were all involved. The report is available for people to read. I will not go into that today.

Following the loss of Caitríona Lucas in Kilkee, there was an inquest into that misadventure. Many questions have been asked about the way in which we are looking at activity that leads to marine accidents. This incident was an accident. Ms Lucas was alive for 17 minutes after she went into the water. She was airlifted out of the water and died. That is a really sad situation.

I ask the Minister of State to give a commitment that he will send the Bill back to the committee. A new iteration of the committee is going to be put in place. The Minister of State can impose a timeline if he wants and can tell the committee that it must deliver by a certain date. Let us go back to look at the recommendations that were made and give the Department an opportunity to explain why it rejected certain recommendations. It is grossly unfair on the Minister of State to ask him to push through legislation with which he has not been involved. There are recommendations which have not been taken on board. For example, why are the recommendations with respect to the Cape Town Agreement not at the heart of this legislation?

I am not going to put the Minister of State on the spot. It is unfair to ask him to bring the legislation through. I ask him to send it back to the committee. When it goes back, we will have an opportunity to revisit the recommendations, speak to the Department and find out why it is rejecting those recommendations. This legislation will last for a long time after the Minister of State and I have gone from these Houses. It is important that when it is passed, the Minister of State is happy with it. People on the Opposition side or speaking from this floor may not be happy with all of it, but since the Minister of State's name will be on this on the end of the day, the most important thing is that he is happy that the legislation meets the requirements relating to this vital area.

We are an island nation and it is vitally important that we have the best marine accident investigation system in the world. I think the Minister of State is the man to drive it. I ask him, therefore, to send the legislation back to the committee, let us have another look at it and see if we can get answers as to why recommendations are being refused, and let us move forward and get this legislation passed. It is important for the safety of mariners and anybody else who uses our seas, rivers and lands.

I will leave it at that. I thank the Minister of State once again. I am sorry it was not as nice as he might have expected, but there you go.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is welcome. I congratulate him on his appointment.

I remember all those who lost their lives in maritime accidents across the country - those whose bodies have been recovered and those whose remains, unfortunately, have not been recovered. I imagine it is a very personal and tragic issue for all families of those who have lost their lives.

Maritime safety, like safety in any industry or profession, is important. The Minister of State acknowledged in his contribution that he wanted "to take this opportunity to acknowledge Ireland’s robust, internationally recognised maritime safety regime." He also stated: "We are among the best performers of IMO member states under the IMO member state audit scheme, which rigorously examines the maritime safety functions of the State, including accident investigation." Based on that, one could ask why we were changing things at all and why doing so was necessary if our performance was so good. There was a European Commission judgment or case against Ireland regarding the independence of the marine casualty investigation board. I wish to make it clear that I have not had any engagement or contact with the marine investigation board or its members or had the benefit of sitting on the transport committee Senator Craughwell sat on in respect of this Bill. Was there an issue with or concern regarding the board's independence? I find it a strange matter, given both the European Commission's decision and the Minister of State's own statement that the new body would "be independent of any person or body whose interests could conflict with it." It begs the question of whether a previous conflict was uncovered and raised concerns, leading to this Bill. Clearly, the European Commission deemed it so.

Senator Craughwell said the Clinch report was not published, but the Bills Digest we received on this Bill refers to the Clinch report's recommendations. I presume the recommendations are public knowledge if the Bills Digest had them or it did not just get them.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of them.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I strongly oppose the merchant shipping Bill in its current form. While the intention behind this Bill to strengthen maritime safety and ensure proper maritime accident investigations is one we would all support, this investigation falls far short of what is needed. Time and again, the Government has ignored expert recommendations, failed to implement best practices and disregarded the voices of those who have lost loved ones at sea. This Bill is a missed opportunity and is incomplete, insufficient and fundamentally flawed. We have a record of failure in marine safety. Ireland has a poor track record when it comes to maritime accident investigation and safety standards. We have been reprimanded by the European Court of Justice for failing to maintain independent investigative procedures. According to the Health and Safety Authority, between 2014 and 2022 there were 29 fatal marine accidents, resulting in 39 deaths in the fishing sector alone. Of these, 87% were due to drowning and 38% were linked to vessels capsizing. The Marine Casualty Investigation Board, MCIB, which this Bill seeks to replace, has been criticised for lacking independence and failing to conduct thorough investigations. The Cape Town Agreement, an international treaty designed to improve the safety of fishing vessels, has still not been ratified by Ireland. The Government's refusal to fully commit to international safety standards puts Irish lives at risk. The Bill does not go far enough to address these failures. It does not ensure that lessons are learned from past tragedies and does not guarantee that future accidents will be properly investigated. As a result, Sinn Féin will table a number of amendments on Committee Stage.

There are a few key problems with this Bill. It does not provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that the marine accident investigation unit, MAIU, will operate independently. There is no provision to prevent former Department of Transport officials being appointed as investigators, creating a conflict of interest. The Government has failed to guarantee the MAIU will be properly resourced. Sinn Féin proposes an amendment to mandate funding for three full-time investigators, assistants and technical support staff. This should not be left to ministerial discretion. The MAIU must have its own premises, staff and technical equipment independent of any Government Department. The Bill does not require that accident investigators have the necessary expertise in marine engineering, naval architecture or sea-going experience. Sinn Féin's amendment's mandate that investigators should be suitably qualified and that all investigators undergo continuous professional development in line with international best practices.

The Clinch report on marine safety has not yet been published despite repeated calls from the Oireachtas committee. The Lacey report recommended a full independent national accident investigation office covering air, rail and marine accidents but this has been ignored. The Government's failure to publish key reports and recommendations undermines trust in this Bill. The Bill does not guarantee that all maritime deaths will be fully investigated. Sinn Féin's amendments require the MAIU to work with coroners, An Garda Síochána and other authorities to ensure a proper investigation process. Investigators must be required to appear before the coroner's court when requested, ensuring full accountability in cases of maritime deaths.

Under this Bill there is no mechanism to reopen an investigation if new evidence emerges. Our amendments would allow investigations to be reviewed and reopened if significant errors were made or if new evidence came to light. This Bill does not bring Ireland in line with best practices in maritime accident investigation. The UK and other EU countries have dedicated and fully independent investigation bodies. This Bill fails to meet that independent standard.

No clear protocols have been outlined for co-operation with international investigative bodies which is crucial for incidents involving foreign vessels. There is no requirement for the marine accident investigation unit, MAIU, to be represented on European or international maritime safety agencies, meaning Ireland risks being left behind in improving marine safety.

We cannot support the Bill as it stands. This Bill in its current form does not go far enough to protect Irish seafarers, rescue workers and maritime communities. It does not ensure independence, transparency or accountability. It does not provide adequate resources to the new investigation unit. It ignores expert recommendations and fails to address the lessons of past tragedies. We cannot afford another missed opportunity to fix our broken marine safety system. If the Government accepts the Sinn Féin amendments, we will reconsider our position. However, as it stands, we cannot support a Bill that fails to protect Irish lives at sea.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Bogfaidh muid anois go dtí an Seanadóir Boyle.

Manus Boyle (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and offer him my congratulations. This Bill will hopefully provide a higher standard of care for the people working within the marine industry. Unfortunately tragedies do happen despite everybody's best efforts. The MAIU will report and I hope people will become familiar with the investigation and the safety recommendations. This is where we were falling down before. The families affected were getting no feedback from the other board. Families deserve to know what is going on with investigations. Hopefully, this new MAIU will establish relationships with the families.

As my counterpart, Senator Blaney, said, wind energy is going to be massive off the Irish coast. We need to be mapping the plan for that now. It is too late when everything starts to kick in. We need to know what is happening and what vessels can be used and their size. The whole matter has to be laid out in a plan.

If there is an investigation, there has to be one standard across the board. As the Leader said, one of the issues is in regard to who is responsible. Is it ship A or ship B? Since Saturday I have been talking about this Bill with a couple of people who are very worried about this. Who is going to make this recommendation? Who is going to say who is at fault? We need clarity on that. At the end of the day, somebody is going to get the blame if there is an accident. It needs to be clarified whether it is ship A or ship B.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As no other Senators are indicating, I call on the Minister of State to respond.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their contributions, all of which I listened to intently. I will try to answer some of the questions raised. In regard to pre-legislative scrutiny, this was carried out by the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications. Its report was published on 2 May 2023. Where appropriate, the recommendations of the committee were incorporated in the Bill - for example, a broad definition of "ship" was used in the Bill along with the MAIU to investigate marine accidents involving a wide range of vessels. The Bill also includes detailed provisions requiring the independence of investigators and processes for dealing with conflicts of interest, including an obligation on the Minister to publish a conflicts of interest policy in relation to the MAIU.

Some Senators, including Senator Kyne, mentioned the issue of attributing blame.

MAIU investigations do not attribute blame or fault. This is required under the EU directive. These are not prosecutorial investigations. Parallel investigations involving the Garda and whomever will be taking place. That is where that comes in. There is no problem with a coroner taking a report and using it as part of his investigations.

Some people mentioned the Lacey report. In 2009, the Government published the Lacey report. That report proposed a rationalisation involving a reduction in the overall number of 41 bodies and the streamlining of other functions. This decision included the amalgamation of the Air Accident Investigation Unit, the Railway Accident Investigation Unit, the Rail Safety Commission and the Marine Casualty Investigation Board. The Lacey report was initiated to examine the possible establishment of a national accident investigation office and a multimodal investigation body for rail, air and marine. The report was not acted upon due to a change of government at the time. This Bill does not preclude us from reactivating the proposal to bring in a single agency to look after this area if that is what we want to do.

The recommendations and observations of the Clinch report were published in December 2022. As they are the key output of the review, all recommendations directed towards the Department of Transport have been actioned. To provide one example, the report recommended that the Minister for Transport should establish a functionally independent MAIU within the Department of Transport. The reporting structure and staffing models should be in line with what was already in place for the AAIU and the RAIU. This is the primary purpose of the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Accidents) Bill.

The recommendations in the report were published. I will not comment on what the relevant Senator said about people being appointed because I do not know what is involved. The MAIU will be led by a chief investigator and staffed by a team of investigators who will be recruited through an open competition run by the Public Appointments Service, PAS, which is the centralised provider in the context of recruitment, assessment and selection services across the Civil Service and the public service. PAS provides for open and transparent recruitment processes to identify candidates for public sector roles and has a strong reputation for independent and merit-based selection.

Senator Collins indicated that she wants three investigators. Investigation of an accident might required more than that. If we enshrine in law three investigators to work with the chief investigator, the latter's hands would be tied. We need to have more flexibility. It would be wrong to specify three investigators in legislation.

The Bill was also carefully drafted in order to meet the independent requirements of the EU directive. When the Bill was being drafted, the Department liaised with the European Commission. The legislation provides that the chief investigator of the MAIU shall not receive instruction - this was referred to by a few Senators - from any official within the Department with a role in the maritime policy operational area. The legislation requires the Minister to put in place a robust conflict-of-interest policy within six months of the establishment of the unit. The maritime division within the Department of Transport will have no involvement in the work of the MAIU and the chief investigator will be responsible for directing the work of the unit. Each investigation will have a designated investigator in charge who will be responsible for running that specific investigation.

As already stated, nothing in the Bill precludes a coroner from referring to a report of the MAIU during an inquest. Questions of liability, whether criminal or civil, are not part of the coronial process.

Senator Kyne spoke about the sharing of evidence between agencies and other bodies. As stated, it is a strict requirement of the EU directive that investigations of the MAIU must be independent of any other parallel investigation. That is why it cannot be evidence based. If evidence is to be used in litigation, some witnesses or prospective witnesses may not want to say what happened if there is a threat of litigation coming down the track.

I hope I have answered all, or the majority, of the issues raised.

I again thank Senators for their time and for coming in here this evening. To reiterate, this Bill is about enhancing our maritime safety regime, particularly in terms of marine accident investigation. The Bill will establish a new maritime accident investigation unit and provide it with the necessary powers to investigate marine accidents with the purpose of establishing the cause of an accident in order to make recommendations to improve safety going forward.

This Bill is also about future-proofing for the increased demands and complexities arising from the development of offshore wind energy in particular, which Senator Blaney mentioned. Ireland is committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. To reach that target, the country must significantly increase the proportion of its energy needs that are fulfilled by renewable sources, including offshore renewable energy. Coming from the west of Ireland, as Senators Kyne and Blaney and others do, we know the potential there. If we are going to harness that potential, we need to make sure we do it in a way that is safe and where there are rules and regulations in terms of safety like there would be on a construction site or wherever else. It is important that we do that. This Bill will help us to achieve that by providing for the necessary regulation-making power to cater for the newer types of vessels being used in the offshore service sector and the carriage of industrial personnel on these vessels. That is very important as well.

Updates to the International Maritime Organization's, IMO's, safety of life at sea convention and the International Labour Organization’s, ILO's, Maritime Labour Convention will enable more recent amendments to these conventions to be addressed in national secondary legislation.

I thank everyone for their attendance and their positive and constructive engagement. I look forward to progressing this Bill further.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome to the Distinguished Visitors Gallery Stephanie Berault and her husband Greg who have come all the way from Louisiana. Stephanie is a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives, and is a friend of Senator Beth Mizell, who is in charge of the Irish caucus in Louisiana and to whom we send our great regards. She is travelling in Ireland with recent graduates of the United States Merchant Marine Academy, so it is most appropriate that she is here for this particular debate.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.