With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together.
A preliminary inquiry under section 465 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 normally takes the form of an investigation by a qualified inspector appointed by me and formal evidence is not taken in public. The main object of such a preliminary investigation is to determine whether a formal investigation by a court under section 466 of the Act should be held in public.
The preliminary inquiry established that the casualty was due to the fact that the vessel had put to sea despite gale warnings and local advice. The inspector was satisfied, and I am satisfied, that a formal investigation into the casualty is not warranted.
In the course of his inquiry the inspector examined in particular whether the coast life saving unit at Waterville could have rendered assistance. He was satisfied that 2hey could not. In view of the various statements on this subject referred to in the Deputy's questions I had this aspect of the matter specially reexamined by the inspector of the coast life saving service who is a highly experienced master mariner and who has executive responsibility for the operation and training of the service. He has reported to me that the distance between the Waterville coast life saving station and the nearest point on land to the wreck at Ardgroom was 63 miles of which 2 miles was narrow coast road, ½ mile a boggy boreen and finally 400 yards on foot across bog and rock. Allowing for the necessary time to assemble the company and its gear, to locate the nearest suitable point to the wreck and to manhandle the gear to that point, he concludes that in the conditions prevailing the company would have done extremely well to be in a position to fire their first rocket within 4 hours of being alerted. I think the correctness of his conclusions will be as obvious to the Deputy as it is to me. It will be seen, therefore, that the statement attributed to the No. 1 man of the Waterville unit of the coast life saving station is inaccurate and irresponsible.
Moreover, as I have already indicated, the vessel foundered at a point out of rocket range from the shore and the unit could have rendered no service irrespective of the time of their arrival. The foregoing facts support the rightness of the decision of the duty officer of the Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre not to call out the Waterville unit of the coast life saving service.
The adequacy and efficiency of the rescue services are kept under constant review. They have again been specially reviewed jointly by all the agencies concerned who are satisfied that the services neglected no possible course of action which might have led to the rescue of the crew of the Sea-flower and that no radical changes in existing arrangements are called for. Among other findings of the review was that even if a helicopter had been standing by it could not have given effective service because of the conditions of high wind and darkness.
May I end by stressing that safety at sea depends primarily on the care and prudence of sea-farers themselves and that no preventive measures or rescue services can be effective without their full co-operation? I am jointly considering with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what further action we can take by educational measures and otherwise to bring home to all concerned in the fishing industry the importance of strict compliance with all safety regulations and procedures and the exercise of unremitting care.
