Donal Carey
Ceist:51 Mr. Carey asked the Minister for the Marine if he has satisfied himself that existing legislation can deal with the various issues raised in the m.v. Havelet report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Report on m. v. Havelet Incident.
Richard Bruton
Ceist:55 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for the Marine if he has satisfied himself that existing legislation can deal with the various issues raised in the m.v. Havelet report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Jim Higgins
Ceist:58 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for the Marine if he has satisfied himself that existing legislation can deal with the various issues raised in the m.v. Havelet report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:60 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for the Marine his response to the report of the investigation into a marine incident involving the m.v. Havelet; the steps, if any, which are being taken to implement the recommendations made by the Inspector; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Seán Barrett
Ceist:66 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for the Marine if he has satisfied himself that existing legislation can deal with the various issues raised in the m. v. Havelet report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Phil Hogan
Ceist:68 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for the Marine if he has satisfied himself that existing legislation can deal with the various issues raised in the m.v. Havelet report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Enda Kenny
Ceist:81 Mr. E. Kenny asked the Minister for the Marine if he has satisfied himself that existing legislation can deal with the various issues raised in the m. v. Havelet report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Bernard Allen
Ceist:97 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for the Marine if he will have arrangements made to carry out an investigation into the leaking of a report on the m. v. Havelet incident; and if he will publish the report in full.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 51, 55, 58, 60, 66, 68, 81 and 97 together.
The investigation into the m.v. Havelet incident was carried out under section 728 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The statutory remit of the investigation was to report on the nature and cause of the incident; the damage sustained or caused; and whether relevant regulations were complied with.
The report, which has been published in full, finds that the m.v. Havelet took a very heavy toll to port in gale force conditions. The consequent damage sustained by cargo lashings and attachments culminated in all vehicles shifting to the port side.
The report also finds that the loading and operation of the m.v. Havelet and subsequent emergency procedures were conducted in accordance with relevant legislation and codes of practice. There was, however, an apparent failure in some instances to instruct passengers in the correct method of donning life-jackets.
In addition to the statutory findings contained in the report, the inspector who carried out the investigation recommended separately on a number of ferry practices and procedures which should be reassessed and improved. These additional recommendations, which are of general applicability, address the following issues: carriage and securing of vehicles and cargo units; navigation in dangerous seas; safety announcements; ballasting operations; distress signals; crew familiarity with emergency procedures; identification of crew; baggage stowage; title of radio stations; weather forecasts.
Full details of these recommendations and the action being taken were announced on publication of the report. I have arranged however for these details to be circulated to Deputies. The recommendations are being acted upon without delay. I have instructed the National Ferry Safety Committee to assess current practices in relation to all of the areas listed and to report back to me as soon as possible on the scope for improvement.
The Department, in the interim, has already reminded the industry by way of marine notices of the need to adhere to international guidelines on cargo securement and the hazards of dangerous sea conditions. In addition the Irish Marine Emergency Service is to formulate guidelines to shipmasters on the circumstances in which distress signals should be deployed. The titles of radio stations will be reviewed by the relevant authorities with a view to eliminating the risk of confusion in marine emergencies. Ship masters will also be advised to avail of local forecasts, where possible, in addition to all other weather information at their disposal.
I am satisfied we can deal with the various issues and introduce improvements in practices within the existing legislative framework, which is based on current international guidelines. But if our assessment points to the need for a strengthening of the international legal framework which governs such matters, the International Maritime Organisation will be urged to expedite the necessary changes.
I accord the highest priority to ferry safety, which is kept under ongoing review by the Department and the National Ferry Safety Committee. These recommendations have been made in order to directly assist and inform that process. I expect the National Ferry Safety Committee, which is chaired by the Department's chief surveyor and represents all the ferry companies operating into Irish ports, to report back within a short space of time. I have also asked the Ferry Users' Forum to comment on those areas which are of relevance to that particular body.
The press coverage of the contents of the report some days before its actual publication does not, in my view, warrant the carrying out of an investigation. I have no doubt that Deputies will agree that our primary concern now must be to get on with the job of acting on the report's findings, and the additional recommendations made, in the interest of ferry safety. The action now being taken is designed to ensure that ferries operate to the highest standards possible and that these standards are reinforced and improved on a regular basis.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Would he agree that the investigation is a whitewash job? The present legislation led to the appointment of the inspector. The report states that it is not his function to apportion blame or liability, but that is not satisfactory in guaranteeing the safety to Irish citizens travelling on Irish or other ferries. The question of negligence and blame must be investigated by the Government. Does the Minister agree that the legislation should be updated, blame apportioned and regulations imposed which would prevent from travelling ferries not adhering to basic safety standards? There are a number of questions to be answered. The ship was registered in the Bahamas and the report from the authorities there is different from the Irish report. It does not mention a diesel spillage at the time the ship listed. What was the reason for that omission and what dangers are involved in the spillage of diesel? Why could lorries suddenly fall over in relatively calm seas? Why does the report not mention that loading the ship was a rushed job because they were late arriving and people were still in the parking area when the ship sailed? A number of serious questions should be answered and it does not benefit us or the Government to whitewash anything. We should ensure that this sort of thing never happens again, blame should be apportioned properly.
This report is not a whitewash, it was produced within the terms of the Act. The chief surveyor of the Department of the Marine has given an explicit report and considered all the points raised by Deputy Barrett including the problem with diesel. He stands over his report.
Will the Minister admit that the Department was intimidated by the lawyers representing the company? The accident was in March 1992, the report was completed in November 1992 and we had to wait almost 12 months to have it published, indeed it was leaked before it was officially published. Can the Minister say who had the report before it was officially published because that might tell us who leaked it to The Irish Times?
Does the Minister agree that emergency procedures which came into play immediately after the accident were seriously defective? The passengers to whom I spoke had a number of major reservations about the performance of the company. For example, the emergency announcements immediately after the accident were in French and any English speaking crew aboard were unavailable to the passengers; lights in the passages were switched off because of the risk of an explosion due to the leakage of diesel and the term "muster stations", when the people eventually understood what was being said, was never explained, people did not know where to congregate. Will the Minister explain the difference between this report and the report from the authorities in the Bahamas?
I am not responsible for the report from the Bahamas. I am responsible for the report on the m.v. Havelet in this jurisdiction. I am not worried about the report from the Bahamas.
You should be.
The recommendations in the report spell out what should be done. The m.v. Havelet crew carried out their functions as laid down by international law. I have the greatest confidence in the staff in the Department. Certain aspects of this report, as Deputies no doubt are aware, were given to Brittany Ferries some months ago and it called a press conference to discuss them. The report was public knowledge long in advance of its publication. The report of the chief surveyor is the final report and he can stand over it having carried out a thorough check on the vessel and examined all the complaints made.
Will the Minister tell us about a survey on freak waves which he ordered as his first reaction to the occurrence on the m. v. Havelet and introduce a report, interim or otherwise on his research? Was the reaction of the Minister of State in the same category as his order to recapture the salmon which escaped from the fish farm in Beara earlier this year?
There is a clown in every circus — I will say no more than that.
Withdraw that remark.
This matter is much too serious to be a joke. The passengers said that there was a freak wave. I do not know whether Deputy O'Keeffe read the report but if he did he will be satisfied that the examination was thoroughly carried out. I am sorry that Deputy O'Keeffe introduced frivolity into this very serious matter.
I did not introduce it, the Minister did.
The Minister of State said there were a number of recommendations in the report. However, it uses phraseology such as "the inspector would urge", "would consider", "would assess" and "would review". That does not constitute firm recommendations about what course of action to take. Will the Minister admit that this sort of language does not steer him in relation to what should happen in the future to maintain the safety of individuals? The inspector did not apportion blame or responsibility for the accident. Did the inspector examine the submissions made through legal sources in the context of drawing up his final conclusions?
It was not the inspector's responsibility to apportion blame. The Attorney General has examined all aspects of this report.
Did the inspector?
The inspector carried out a thorough investigation of all the complaints and his report was sent to the Office of the Attorney General before it was published. Under his terms of reference the chief surveyor could only make recommendations to the safety committee whose next meeting will be on 24 November when they will look at the chief surveyor's report and make recommendations to the international maritime organisation if we feel it is necessary to amend the laws.
Does the Minister propose to introduce new legislation to deal with modern problems associated with the car ferry business, in view of the fact that we have ongoing legislation relating to road traffic and other forms of transport?
We constantly consider legislation and, if further legislation in the interests of the safety of passengers is necessary, I will certainly introduce it.