asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has seen the report of the Court of Inquiry into the loss of the ss. "Lismore," which contains the following findings:—1. That the cargo was "not safe for rough weather" (answer 3 B); 2. That "the general cargo was not properly stowed, having regard to stability conditions" (answer 4 C.); 3. That the ship "could not be considered safe with such a low metacentric height of 6 inches" (answer 4 A.); 4. That the ship was seaworthy in the condition in which she left Cork on July 10th (answer 10), and whether findings 1, 2 and 3 appear to be contradictory to finding 4, and if he will refer the report back to the Court of Inquiry, and direct them to reconsider same.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - REPORT OF “LISMORE” INQUIRY.
I have seen the report of the Court, which held a formal investigation into the circumstances attending the loss of the ss. "Lismore." Every item of evidence which was available was placed before the Court and received the most careful consideration of the Judge, assisted by four expert assessors.
The statements in the question have been extracted from parts of the report without reference to their context. The report should be read as a whole, it being appreciated that the primary object of such an inquiry is to obtain all material bearing on the case of the loss of the vessel, with a view to preventing similar occurrences in future. The answers of the Court to the questions submitted to it on behalf of my Department were clearly given most careful consideration and amply elucidate the matters for which the inquiry was held.
Is the Minister aware that certain questions were put to this court and certain replies were made? Amongst those replies was one that the vessel was not safe for rough weather, and the answer to the final question was that the vessel was seaworthy. I ask seriously can the Minister, with the intelligence that I credit him for, reconcile these two statements?
I can only ask the Deputy to bring his intelligence to bear on the report as a whole and not on a separate question; to read it as a whole and not put forward here extracts taken out of their context, which will show that the questions were submitted on the authority of an official of my Department, who contended that they were good questions for the purpose of elucidating points put to the court, and that the answers fully covered the points raised by the questions.
Does the Minister still adhere to the statements made by the court that a vessel could be seaworthy and, at the same time, not safe for rough weather?
In view of the fact that it was very, very fine weather when the vessel was lost.
I can rely on the judge who passed answers to these two question, which seem, as the Deputy puts it, to be inconsistent, but which, if the report is read in full, will seem not to be inconsistent.
Can the Minister see his way to refer these specific questions that were put to this court, and which were specifically answered, back to the judge, and ask him if he can give consistent replies to them?
No; because that would seem to give in to the Deputy's statement that the replies are inconsistent. What I do say is, if I may go into details, that the only parties concerned at the inquiry and the evidence given before the court were officials of this Department, and various certificated shipping officials who may have been responsible to the Department, and the answers to the questions are not binding on any other parties. Any claim for damage by cargo owners, or any other people are not estopped in any way by any of the answers given at the Court of Inquiry.
Does the Minister mean to say by that reply, that the findings of this Court, that the vessel was seaworthy, will not bind any other court when the question of damages arises?
I am informed that the findings may have some weight in any other action, but that action may be taken in any other court, not a Court of Inquiry, by ordinary process of law, for damages, and although the evidence may come before the new court, the decision is not binding.
May I ask the Minister what is the use of having definite questions put to a court and having definite replies given which are of themselves contradictory?
None. Of course that does not imply that I consider, or agree, that the answers given are contradictory.
I can enumerate them.