We will now deal with Private Notice Questions addressed to the Minister for the Marine. There are six questions relating to the mv Havelet. I will call Deputies in the order in which they submitted their questions to my office. I am calling first, Deputy Bernard Durkan.
Private Notice Questions. - mv Havelet Incident.
asked the Minister for the Marine if he has satisfied himself that all national and international requirements and safety standards are being met on all passenger and/or cargo ferries operating out of this country; if he has sought or received a report on safety standards as applied recently on the mv Havelet, whether a full report was made available to him or his Department before the ferry departed for Roscoff; if he contemplates any action to ensure the safety of persons using this facility or similar facilities in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for the Marine if his Department have been able to ascertain the reasons the mv Havelet encountered difficulties on its weekend sailing from Cork; the steps he has taken to ensure the absolute safety of passengers on such ferry services; if he will initiate a full inquiry into the matter; if he will clarify whether the ship left Cork in a totally safe condition; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
andMr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Marine if he will outline, (a) the information available to him on the incident involving the mv Havelet en route from Cork to Roscoff at the weekend, (b) the circumstances in which the vessel left Cork yesterday morning, (c) whether his Department's surveyor had completed his inspection prior to the departure, (d) if the Department gave permission for the vessel to leave and (e) if he has been in contact with the French authorities with a view to having any further inspection carried out; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for the Marine if he will make a statement on all the circumstances surrounding the serious incident involving the mv Havelet, and in particular the circumstances in which the ship sailed again prior to the completion of an investigation.
asked the Minister for the Marine if he will outline the circumstances surrounding the horrifying experiences of those travelling on the Brittany Ferries ship the mv Havelet which was forced to return to Cork on Sunday morning last; if he will give details of the findings of the report of his Department's inspector; his views on whether further investigations will be necessary; and if he will ensure that passenger and vehicle owners are adequately compensated for the trauma, damage and loss suffered by them.
asked the Minister for the Marine if, in view of the grave concern being felt both because of the incident involving the Brittany Ferries ship the mv Havelet, and the circumstances surrounding her departure from Cork Harbour on Monday 23 March 1992, he will outline (1) the conclusions reached by the inspector of his Department, (2) the rights of the passengers to claim compensation and (3) the claim made by Brittany Ferries that his Department have made charges against that company which are without foundation.
I propose to take the six Private Notice Questions together.
I can confirm to the House that the mv Havelet has arrived in Roscoff and the French authorities have commenced their inspection process. In addition the Bahamian authorities have confirmed that they will investigate the incident which occurred at sea. I have also directed that Captain C. Davies of the Marine Survey Office of my Department travel to meet the vessel and crew after the Port State Control inspection is completed and continue our investigations. Following receipt of these various inspection reports I will consider whether an investigation under the Merchant Shipping Acts is warranted in this case.
The background to the case is as follows. On Sunday last at around 05.00 hours the mv Havelet bound from Cork to Roscoff got into difficulties and had to return to Cork, after 08.00 hours. The vessel had 175 passengers and 55 crew members on board for the voyage as well as 15 trucks and 21 cars on the car deck. Injuries to some passengers have been reported in the media and extensive damage was caused to cars and freight units on board.
On my instruction, a surveyor of the Marine Survey Office of the Department of the Marine visited the vessel on Sunday to carry out an inspection. The surveyor, having spent two hours on board and some time alongside, left the vessel on Sunday night with the intention of resuming his inspection on Monday morning. He was satisfied about the soundness of the vessel, but he assumed that in all the circumstances of the incident that had taken place at sea the vessel would have remained in port, facilitating the completion of his inspection.
Before this could take place, however, the vessel sailed for Roscoff on Monday morning. It is my view that the departure of the vessel was regrettable in all the circumstances of the case.
On Monday morning the Secretary of my Department at my request contacted the French maritime authorities who confirmed that they would have the vessel inspected under Port State Control on its arrival in France. Port State Control is carried out by European countries under a Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control inaugurated in Paris in 1982. Port State Control involves, inter alia; inspection of vessels Safety Convention Certificates relating to ship construction, loadline, safety equipment, oil pollution, manning; and the inspection includes a detailed inspection of the vessel, its bridge, charts, nautical publication, life saving appliances, fire fighting appliances, ships accommodation, store rooms, galley, engine room and ancillary spaces. The vessel decks, cargo equipment, mooring arrangements etc. are also checked in detail.
On the question of compensation for loss or damage suffered by passengers this, of course, is a civil matter between the passengers and the ferry company and not something in which I, as Minister for the Marine, have a direct function. My Department have discussed the concerns of passengers with the company, and the company have promised to set out the recourse available to aggrieved passengers. I expect details shortly.
As Minister with responsibility for safety at sea, I am naturally concerned about safety standards on board ferries operating in and out of Ireland. All such ferries adhere to the international safety standards, including evacuation systems, as laid down by the International Maritime Organisation. Irish registered ferries are required to undergo an annual inspection by my Department's Marine Survey Office for the renewal of their Passenger and Safety Certificates. Foreign-registered vessels using Irish ports may be inspected under the terms of the IMO's Safety of Life at Sea Convention and also the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control to which Ireland is a contracting party.
As this case has dramatically unfolded, one cannot but be affected by the obvious distress and upset which passengers experienced. Our first responsibility in any incident is to reassure passengers about their security and safety. I feel that there is room for the development of a code of practice which places passengers concerns at a high priority. This is an issue which I propose to pursue with all the ferry companies when the facts of this incident are fully known.
In view of the fact that only two weeks ago we discussed in this House the question of insurance in regard to incidents at sea, will the Minister accept that he has a very obvious duty to people who go on holiday from this country and to those who come here on holiday, using the ferry services, to ensure that the highest possible safety standards are complied with? Will the Minister confirm whether his Department's inspector found during his inspection of the hold of the ship that the required stabilisation procedures were in place? Can he give an assurance that in future all persons using the ferry services to or from this country will be able to travel in safety?
The incident at sea is under investigation, as well as the actions which were taken in relation to the incident. Full information will be available when the investigation is completed.
Can the Minister confirm that the mv Havelet which was chartered by Brittany Ferries normally does a one-and-a-half hour sailing from the Channel Islands to Cherbourg and was totally unsuited to this 22-hour journey? Will the Minister also confirm that there was no disruption of the continental sailings operated by Irish Ferries over that weekend and that it is outrageous that Brittany Ferries should claim this as an act of God? Will the Minister ensure in immediate and direct discussions with Brittany Ferries that the passengers and hauliers will be fully compensated? Will he review flawed procedures in relation to marine safety?
The suitability of the vessel for the particular voyage is part of the investigation, in view of the weather conditions then prevailing. I would also like some answers about a number of other matters relating to the nature of the emergency which was declared. All these matters will be part of the full investigation. I accept the point that no other Ferry companies experienced problems on that day.
Would the Minister agree that there appeared to be a very serious lack of communication between the Cork harbour master and the representative of his Department? The harbour master stated that he was perfectly satisfied. What was the representative of the Minister for the Marine doing if he had no communication with the Cork harbour master? In view of the fact that a weather expert from University College Cork who was travelling on the ferry stated that the listing had taken place much sooner than reported, will the Minister institute his own investigation into this matter?
I instigated an investigation immediately and I am continuing with a further investigation. The first investigation relates to the soundness and seaworthiness of the vessel. The longer investigation deals with all the details relating to the incident and the report. Even today we are receiving full co-operation from Brittany Ferries. My Department received today copies of reports of the incidents on board, statements which are relevant to the incident as it occurred from the master, the chief officer, and the duty engineer. We are getting this co-operation and we will be examining the matter very thoroughly.
In view of the serious contradictions between the statements made by passengers and those issued by the company, did the Minister make any attempt to detain the vessel while it was still in Irish territorial waters, taking into consideration that as it passed the naval base at Haulbowline everyone knew it was sailing out of Irish waters? Did the Minister have power or did he make any attempt to detain the vessel?
The inspector, in his first investigation, found that the vessel was essentially sound and seaworthy and therefore he had no grounds on which to officially detain it.
That was negligent.
Did he request that the ship be detained?
The inspector would have understood that the vessel would have remained in port until the investigation was completed.
Did he request its detention?
I would put it to the Minister that in a banana republic a ship which had caused such trauma and loss would not have been allowed leave in such a fashion. Why did the Minister not issue a direction on Sunday night to make sure that the vessel stayed in port? Second, is the Minister not aware that according to some of my constituents who were on board the vessel and went through the horrifying experience, no warning drill took place when the passengers boarded the vessel and that, furthermore, for a number of hours after the vessel came into port the Cork fire brigade had to continue to spray water on the vessel because of the danger from petrol that spilled from damaged cars?
I am bound by the laws of the sea and I acted fully in accordance with those laws. The option which was open to us was to carry out a full port State controlled investigation and that was done, on my directions in the late afternoon of Sunday.
You are all slowly drowning over there.
We have to agree that the Minister is copping out of his responsibilities. The company concerned are a responsible company and if the Minister had asked them on Sunday night not to sail until the investigation was concluded they would not have done so. The Minister is gravely negligent in this matter. Is he aware that the ship was ten hours late in sailing and that there are reports of words between lorry drivers and the crew of the ship as to how the lorries would be tied up? Has the Minister or his Department spoken to the lorry drivers and the passengers on board? He had not done so up to 1 p.m. today. Does he know that there are reports that the ship listed badly when passing Roches Point and continued to list? Nobody except the captain of the ship speaks of an act of God? Has the Minister spoken to all the passengers on board and all the crew, or how does he propose to do this as the ship is now in France? Has he sent an inspector from his Department to France to speak to the crew members there?
This matter must come to finality.
These are matters which should not have to be raised in this House. The Minister should have reported to the House what he is doing in this regard.
If the Deputy would take the time to read the report I gave earlier he will realise that an inspector has been sent to speak with the crew and with the other people involved.
Why did the Minister not detain the ship here?
I have outlined the position in law. The inspector had no authority to detain the vessel once it was found to be seaworthy, and he had completed that part of his investigation. As a matter of interest, there is some conflict about the discussions which took place with the inspector after he had been on board in relation to the berthing of the vessel at another point in the harbour. He understood that the vessel would be there for continued examination later in the morning.
There are many Deputies offering but I think the Chair has dealt adequately with these questions.
The Minister has failed the first test. He has dealt with the matter very inadequately.
I beg your indulgence, a Cheann Comhairle, this is an extremely important matter.
I will hear three brief questions from the Deputies who have risen in their places.
Is the Minister for the Marine telling this House that he had no power to detain the ship until the investigation was completed? If so, would he withdraw that statement? Second, would the Minister tell us under what EC or French law the French authorities are detaining the ship in the French port?
Under the port State control law.
But the Minister could not detain the vessel here.
Perhaps the Deputy would get a little less excited and listen. The inspector inspected the ship and found it to be sound and seaworthy. Therefore, he had no clear grounds under which he could issue a detention of the ship.
(Limerick East): He had no clear instructions.
Was his inspection completed?
Please Deputies, let us hear the Minister's reply.
He wished, subsequently, to have discussions with the members of the crew and with others. He spoke to the chief officer but the ship left before he could speak to anybody else.
He received no instructions.
May I ask the Minister if the inspector intimated to the master of the vessel that he wished the vessel to remain in port. Has the Minister taken submissions from the passengers who were on board the ship? In conclusion, has he taken up the matter of the flippant and racist manner in which the spokesperson for the shipping company responded to a very serious matter?
The word "racist" should not be used.
That is what was implied on this occasion.
It should not be used.
The manner in which the passengers were dealt with has been taken up with the company. There has been considerable correspondence already in relation to that matter.
Deputy Taylor, a final question.
What about the other points?
Sorry, I have called Deputy Taylor.
Did the inspector intimate his wish that the ship remain in port?
Deputy Mervyn Taylor.
Is the Minister not going to answer my question?
Will the Minister assure the House that all the results of the investigations and inquiries will be made public as soon as they reach his hands?
Yes, I can give that assurance. The findings of the report will be made public.
That disposes of questions for today.