Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Transport and Communications díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 2023

General Scheme of the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Accidents) Bill 2022: Minister for Transport

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity, by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue such remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member participating via MS Teams to confirm, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex.

If attending in the committee room, members are asked to exercise personal responsibility to protect themselves and others from the risk of contracting Covid-19.

I now invite the Minister to make his opening statement on behalf of the Department of Transport.

On the order of business, it is my understanding that there may be a suspension for the debate in the Dáil on the anniversary of the war in Ukraine.

Yes, I understand that we have the Minister until 2 p.m. We will suspend the meeting and resume at 3 p.m.

That is great.

I thank the Chair for inviting me here today to discuss the general scheme of the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Accidents) Bill and for his ongoing interest and input in the critical matter of marine accident investigation.

Marine safety and the promotion and enhancement of safety are key objectives and priorities of my Department that underscore many of its policies, strategies and actions. The general scheme builds on previous work regarding the legislative and structural framework that applies to marine accident investigation in Ireland following the findings of a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU. It provides for a transition from the current structure where the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, MCIB, is the designated investigative body to the establishment of a full-time, permanent marine accident investigation unit, MAIU, within the Department of Transport analogous to the air accident investigation unit, AAIU, and the railway accident investigation unit, RAIU.

I am also taking the opportunity to update the references to two conventions – the International Maritime Organization’s, IMO, safety of life at sea, SOLAS, convention and the International Labour Organization’s, ILO, Maritime Labour Convention – in existing legislation to enable more recent amendments to these conventions to be addressed in national secondary legislation. Additionally, Part 6 provides for regulation-making powers relating to the newer types of vessels being used in the offshore renewable energy sector and the carriage of industrial personnel on such vessels. This legislation is about enhancing our maritime safety regime, particularly in respect of marine accident investigation, but also future-proofing for increased demands and complexities arising from the development of the offshore renewable energy sector in particular.

The legislative provision for marine accident investigation in Ireland dates back to the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. There was then the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act 2000. The 2000 Act implemented the recommendations of the Investigation of marine casualties policy review group, namely, the establishment of the MCIB as an independent State body to investigate marine casualties and publish reports of such investigations. The report of the group to the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources was published in 1998. Later, the EU legislated in the area, focusing on larger, commercial vessels via a 2009 directive, which required the designation of a marine accident investigation body. The directive was transposed in 2011 and the MCIB became the designated body in Ireland. On foot of a finding arising from an audit carried out by the European Maritime Safety Agency, a judgment from the CJEU in July 2020 found that, due to presence of two departmental officials on the MCIB board who were seen as persons whose interests could conflict with the task entrusted to the MCIB, Ireland did not comply with the independence requirement of the directive. To be clear, there were no court findings of wrongdoing on the part of any members of the board or in respect any of the investigations carried out by the MCIB. The judgment related to the MCIB board membership and the potential for conflicts of interests to arise. Immediate steps were taken to address the judgment, including the resignation of the two board members concerned and the amendment of secondary legislation transposing the directive. Most recently, the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) (Amendment) Act 2022 facilitated a revised Board composition and the appointment of new members, lessening risks associated with reduced board membership in the medium-term following actions taken to address the judgment.

My Department has updated the EU Commission regarding all of these developments, including this general scheme. I am pleased to inform the committee that the infringement proceedings were officially closed off by the EU Commission in January of this year. As I informed the committee during our engagement on the previous merchant shipping Bill, following the judgment, I also took the opportunity to commission a fundamental review of Ireland’s marine casualty investigation structures in the context of international, European and domestic obligations. The review was undertaken by Clinchmaritime Ltd., headed by Captain Steve Clinch, a former chief inspector of marine accidents for the UK’s marine accident investigation branch. The final report of the review was received in July 2021. While on the advice of the Office of the Attorney General, it is not proposed to publish the report, all its six recommendations and two observations, as the key output of the review, have been published. The second recommendation that “the Minister for Transport should establish a functionally independent MAIU within the Department of Transport” and that “the reporting structure and staffing model should be in line with that already in place for the AAIU and RAIU”, form the basis for the provisions in the general scheme.

In March 2022, the Government approved policy proposals for the development of a revised legislative framework for the marine accident investigation structures based on the establishment of a full-time, permanent marine accident investigation unit and a draft general scheme was approved by Government in December 2022. The main focus of the proposals in the general scheme is to allow for the transition from the current marine accident investigation structure, the MCIB, to the establishment of the full-time MAIU. It must be reiterated that, as with the current work of the MCIB, the investigations and reports of the MAIU will not seek to apportion blame or determine liability; rather, maritime safety investigations have the objective of determining the circumstances and causes of marine accidents with a view to making recommendations for the avoidance of similar accidents in the future.

Part 1 of the general scheme contains generic provisions covering commencement, citation, interpretation, repeals and revocations.

Part 2 provides for the establishment of the MAIU and the recruitment of full-time investigators to carry out its work, including provisions related to the independence of investigators, which will be reviewed closely with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel as the technical drafting of the Bill progresses. The MAIU will publish an annual report covering its activities.

Part 3 largely replicates current provisions in the reporting of marine accidents and their subsequent investigation. There are also provisions relating to the contents, drafting and publication of investigation reports.

Part 4 contains provisions relating to offences and prosecutions. These relate solely to circumstances such as non-reporting of accidents, non-co-operation with investigations or the leaking of draft MAIU reports before publication.

Part 5 provides for the transition from the MCIB, and its eventual dissolution, to the new MAIU structures and provides for continuation of investigations under way, final accounts for the MCIB, transfer of records, etc.

Part 6 relates to offshore service vessels. One of the challenges in developing the offshore renewable energy sector is ensuring that our legislative regime meets the industry’s needs in regulating the variety of vessels required to service that sector. From surveying to construction, operation and decommissioning, offshore service vessels are crucial in the building and repairing of offshore equipment and in getting supplies, materials and personnel to offshore installations. The offshore renewable energy sector is an innovative sector and new types of vessels are constantly being devised. We want to ensure that Ireland has an effective but flexible regime in place to regulate such vessels to ensure their sound construction and the secure carriage of cargo, but primarily the safety of the vessel and all of those on board. This requires suitable legislation that can be adapted to meet the specific needs of vessels, from larger cargo ships to high-speed craft and smaller crew transfer vessels aimed mainly at transporting industrial personnel. It is also vital that the legislative framework we put in place for regulating these vessels aligns with international practice, such as the recently adopted SOLAS chapter XV. This includes a code for the safety of vessels carrying industrial personnel. The general scheme aligns with the IMO’s approach and provides the appropriate powers needed to develop regulations which will cover the construction, operation, survey and certification of various classes of offshore service vessels on the Irish flag and provide much needed clarity to shipowners and project developers.

Finally, Part 7 updates the reference in existing maritime safety legislation to two conventions, the IMO’s SOLAS convention and the ILO’s Maritime Labour Convention. This will enable us to reflect some of the more recently amended provisions of these conventions in Irish regulations.

I would like to say a few words on another previous report that has often been perceived as a review of the MCIB, namely, the report prepared by the barrister Roisin Lacey in 2010. Again, for clarity, that report was not a report about the organisational structures of the MCIB or the conduct of marine accident investigations; it was a report on the possible establishment of a multi-modal investigation body in the Department of Transport combining the railway, air and marine accident investigation bodies.

It was undertaken in view of the drive of the Government of the time to rationalise agencies across the whole of government. There was a subsequent change of government in 2011 and the amalgamation of the accident investigation bodies did not proceed. There have been calls for this general scheme to revive the concept of a multi-modal investigation office but my priority is to get a permanent, full-time MAIU established and operational. The establishment of the MAIU will not preclude the implementation of a further step of a multi-modal investigation unit at a future date if Government policy so desires. I am happy to share this report with the committee if it would be helpful. However, its relevance is questionable at this juncture given the original imperative for generating the report no longer applies.

Before concluding, I take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the ongoing work of the MCIB, its board members and its investigators. The proposed legislative changes to the structure of marine accident investigation are by no means a criticism of the MCIB or its work. Rather, they are a move towards a full-time, permanent maritime investigation resource which will build on the important contribution the MCIB has made in this area. This change is timely and vital in terms of enhancing the capacity of the maritime investigative function of the State as part of our ongoing work to improve maritime safety in Ireland. I thank the Chair and the committee for taking the time to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the Bill and I look forward to hearing their views on these important matters.

I thank the Minister for attending the meeting on pre-legislative scrutiny today and for bringing things to this point. There is still some way for the legislation to go. The Minister made a personal commitment when we dealt with the last legislation to address the issue of the quorum of the MCIB and he was aware the committee had wider concerns that needed to be addressed. He committed to coming back with legislation. I welcome that we have reached this stage. I look forward to working on the detail and getting legislation and a well-resourced unit that is fit for purpose in place. I acknowledge the efforts of the Minister and his officials in getting us to this point.

I will focus on the recommendations of the 2021 Clinch review. I welcome the publication of the Lacey report, as I believe all committee members do. I will return to that later. The committee has repeatedly asked for the publication of the full Clinch report and I repeat that call here today. I suspect I know the Minister's answer, but it would be helpful to the overall process if we had the Clinch report. Six straightforward recommendations and two observations have been provided to the committee. One of the observations relates to the wider issue of the multi-modal accident investigation body. A number of the recommendations are relevant to this legislation and to the establishment of the MAIU and how it should work. Some should already be in place. I am not sure whether they are.

I will go through the recommendations. They include the immediate and urgent appointment of a chief investigator to work to establish a functionally independent MAIU. The words "functionally independent" are important. The recommendations refer to the development of a reporting structure and staffing model in line with the air accident investigation and rail accident investigation units; the recruitment of a chief inspector designate; the disbandment of the MCIB once the MAIU is in an operations-ready state; the provision of suitable accommodation separate to the Leeson Lane headquarters of the Department; and the publication by the Department of a protocol governing the relationship between the Department and the MAIU that clearly sets out how the independence of the accident investigation board will be safeguarded. That is a reference to the European level judgment on ensuring independence. On the observations, the report suggests that the Government consider co-location of the MAIU, the AAIU and the RAIU in a place separate from the Leeson Lane headquarters. In reference to the 2020 report and drawing on the Lacey report, consideration should be given to forming a multi-modal accident and investigation body. The Minister touched on that in his opening statement. On those points, which are a starting point or minimum bar for this legislation, is the Minister satisfied the legislation will address the recommendations from the Clinch report?

I am satisfied and I hope the committee will find something similar in its pre-legislative scrutiny. If there are any concerns, I look forward to discussing them when the committee sends its report, on Second Stage or at any stage in the legislative process. The principle recommendation was the establishment of an MAIU structure, similar to what we have in the rail and aviation sectors. We are doing that. It will be similar in its scale and in its relationship with the Department. We will use the Public Appointments Service process to appoint a chief inspector and the four or five other inspectors who are likely to be appointed. We do not know how long the legislative process will take but as soon as we get a clear timeline and know when the legislation might be enacted, we will start that process. There is no point starting before that.

It is a similar situation with finding suitable office locations to bring a certain amount of independence in line with the legislation. It should allow the MAIU to work closely with the Department, for example in settling the budget during the Estimates process. Locating it outside the Department's offices is a useful step in the direction of greater independence. It also may provide the option, which I am not opposed to, of a multi-modal investigation unit for air, rail and sea. It does not have to be done immediately. It would be better for us to establish the MAIU separately and then the possible co-location of units in shared offices might steer us in the direction of further developing that process.

As it is so similar to what we have in the rail and aviation sectors, the protocols around the relationship with the Department are already reasonably standardised. The finding of the investigation was not a criticism of any particular investigation or of any of the officials or board members involved. It pointed out that having two Department members on the board was a problem as it goes against the clear intention of the directive. We were happy to rectify that. The file has been closed. The transition period will be important to ensure one system leads into the other in a seamless way. I am confident we can do that. The timelines will depend on the timelines of the legislation.

How does the Minister see it proceeding? The committee is also on a timeline In the context of pre-legislative scrutiny, and the clerk has us well informed on it. We will get it done. When does the Minister think we will see a Bill? Will it be a priority for the Minister to bring it before the Houses? When might we expect to see the unit up and running? Has it been budgeted for at this stage?

The budget will not be a very big draw on a Department with a €2.5 billion or so capital budget and a significant current budget. It will probably cost less than €1 million if it is similar to other organisations. It will depend on the timelines involved. For the drafting process, we are depending on the Office of the Attorney General. Pre-legislative scrutiny and the legislative process itself must be done by the Dáil and the Seanad. The earlier legislation to rectify the problem identified by the European authorities took approximately six to eight months, if not a year, to prepare. I imagine it will be something similar. Establishment of the new office in approximately one year's time would be what we might expect.

There can be unforeseen hurdles. We know the way the wheels turn. I would like an assurance, and I believe I have it, from the Minister that when we get through the legislative process, we will not have to wait for another budgetary round. If we do, we will lose a year. This can move smoothly through the processes and come into being .

We in the Department have done the work and for us it will be a priority to get it through. There are benefits as I have said. One of the other elements involved will be to allow for the registration under an Irish flag of the vessels we will need in the offshore industry. For this reason, it makes sense for us to proceed as quickly as we can.

I thank the Minister.

Is the Minister under pressure to leave?

I would like to hear the contribution of the Taoiseach on the motion in the Dáil. I also have to speak myself on it. I do not have to go immediately.

What time does the debate start?

I thought it was 2 p.m., but it may be slightly delayed because of the vote. I ask that we can keep an eye on it. If I see the debate starting, I may leave.

We will keep an eye on it.

I thank the Minister and the officials for coming before us. In fairness, the committee has pushed this proposed legislation on foot of the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) (Amendment) Act 2022. When we were dealing with the latter, we argued that there was no need for it and that more a substantive instrument, such as that which we have before us today in the form of the general scheme, was what was needed. The committee argued this because a number of reports were commissioned by the Department with responsibility for transport but never published. I would also welcome the publication of the report by Róisín Lacey, as the Minister has committed to do today. I also request that the Clinch report be published. I know the Minister cites legal restrictions for not doing this. I understand, from a briefing that I attended a number of weeks ago, that it was the previous Attorney General who gave that particular advice. I asked whether approaches would be made to the new Attorney General for a view on this. It is in the public interest that the Clinch report be published in full. It is a substantive piece of work. The recommendations and observations are top-class. In fairness, the Department has followed through with the heads of this Bill, which is a welcome development. I appeal to the Minister to look again and try to get the Clinch report published in the best interests of the public.

I note the opening comments of the Minister on the Lacey report and why it came about. My understanding is that it came about because of an impending EU directive, of which Ireland was later found to be in breach. We had to introduce the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) (Amendment) Act 2022, which the Minister brought through successfully. We were in breach of it and we only came out of that in January. We cannot ignore this, which is why the Lacey report came forward. It examines the multimodal model, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that. It is a good start for having a fully independent and fully resourced chief investigator. How long will it take to put this together once the legislation is passed? What type of budget does the Minister envisage will be allocated to the new office?

What are the Minister and the officials planning to do with regard to the many reports that were put together but that were not implemented correctly? We are correcting the position now by means of this proposed legislation. People were on boards who should not have been on them. We were found to be offside by the European Court of Justice on this. What is the Minister going to do? What will he say to the families involved? For them, the files have not been closed. Is the Minister planning to contact the families involved where investigations happened but where they were probably not carried out correctly as a result of the regime we had in place?

I do not accept that the reports were not implemented correctly. The issue raised by the European authorities was about board governance structures, not investigations. Having rectified this issue in the legislation last year, the file is closed and there is no outstanding complaint or any question from the European Commission, or any other official source, that there is a difficulty or problem with regard to any investigation carried out. I do not think that would be appropriate.

I will answer the Acting Chair's other questions. Given the similarity to the rail and accident investigation unit and the air investigation unit, it would be likely that the new office will have a budget of less than €1 million per annum. The number of staff should be along the lines I suggested, with a chief investigator and four or five other investigators and a similar number of back-up staff. This is what we expect. The timing depends on the passing of the proposed legislation. The sooner the better that happens. In all likelihood, with the drafting, pre-legislative scrutiny, the legislative process and the enactment process, the timeline will probably be the end of this year or early next year.

With regard to the Lacey report, we are going back in time to 2010. I do not believe in any way that its commission related to any of the other issues to which the Acting Chair referred in the context of the structure of the board and so on. I remember well the Colm McCarthy report. The emphasis at that time was on getting rid of boards and agencies. What did they call it?

Those are the very words. This was bord snip territory. No criticism of the author is in any way implied but at the time that was the background that informed the desire to amalgamate agencies. We will share the report with the members of the committee, but I do not believe it should be centre stage. In any event, the need to act on the recommendations of the Clinch report, which we are doing here, means we should focus on the task in hand and not fight the battles of last year or the past decade, which were due to the financial crash.

On the bigger point with regard to previous reports that were compiled under the watch of the then Marine Casualty Investigation Board, which was wrongly constituted, we are rectifying the position by means of the proposed legislation. There are still question marks over some of the reports, and families have concerns. I am asking the Minister and the officials whether they intend to write to those families to say that there is now a better set-up and that we are not in contravention of European Court of Justice rulings.

Will he write to them to say we are doing this to improve our system, because it is flawed, and that we are following the best international practice now? There are questions marks over some of those files that were investigated because we did not have the proper structure in place. What does the Minister and his officials plan to do about the families and about files that were completed during that space of time when the MCIB was not properly constituted?

I do not agree with the Acting Chair's conclusion that the issue that had arisen regarding governance structures has such implications for the reports that have been done in recent years. Our first thoughts are with any family whose loved ones have been involved in an accident, but it will not serve them or the wider purposes of promoting maritime safety for us to believe there was this direct connection between the two issues. They are separate and that latter issue of the structure of the board has been addressed already in last year’s legislation. We carried out an investigation to come forward with recommendations on the future development of the investigation unit and we are implementing those in this legislation. I hope that gives some support or succour to all concerned.

On publishing the Clinch report-----

I am sorry, I forgot to answer that question.

What is the Minister’s position on that?

It would be a bad precedent. The circumstances have not changed, even if the Attorney General has changed. It would not be right to ask one Attorney General to second-guess another when the circumstances are clear. The advice was emphatic and clear and I will not be looking for a second opinion in that regard.

Does the Minister not think it would be in the best interests of the public for the Clinch report to be published? We are looking at legislation coming through the Houses of the Oireachtas based on an unpublished report.

The recommendations and observations are published and that is the key thing that is in the public interest. It is also in the public interest that we adhere to the legal advice from the Attorney General.

The Minister is welcome to the committee. To follow on from my colleague, the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, the issue of oversight is something that causes me great concern, particularly when we are talking about accidents in the maritime space. I recently engaged with the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, on the accident that cost Catriona Lucas her life. A file was prepared for the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, by the HSA and the DPP has declined to proceed with any charges. For me, it is serious that somebody spent a lot of time investigating and decided that something needed to go to the DPP. Having read the rationale of the DPP, I do not understand how the case was set aside.

Of greater concern to me is the second paragraph of the letter from the HSA, which deals specifically with the life jackets that were issued to members of the Irish Coast Guard. We have video and documentary evidence of complaints being raised with the Irish Coast Guard since 2015 with respect to the life jackets. To put it mildly, some people said they were dangerous to use. There is a strong belief among Irish Coast Guard volunteers that Catriona Lucas’s life jacket, which was not tested and nobody knows where it is, would have turned her on her face rather than on her back when she was in the water. This is a serious allegation that has been made by people who were on the ground and we have no way of knowing the truth of it. The HSA tells me it had the life jackets tested, through the British system, with the manufacturers and that they conformed to EU standards. Is the Minister concerned that nobody spoke to the volunteers who reported diligently, from 2015, the dangerous situation regarding the use of those life jackets? There is video evidence from Donegal and there is documentary evidence, including photographs, from Cork, Dingle, Cleggan in Galway, and Mayo, that on average, two out of every five life jackets resulted in inappropriate or wrong inflation which either caused injury to the wearer or caused the wearer to be turned onto their face. Would the Minister have a concern with the fact that these people were not engaged with?

I would be reluctant to comment without having a knowledge of the matter. To come back to the Senator’s initial comments, matters for the DPP are down to the DPP’s judgement, regardless of who has made an application. That is a matter for the DPP and it would not be appropriate for us or for me to start second-guessing the DPP’s decision in that regard.

Would it not suggest there was something seriously wrong if the HSA felt it within its gift to pass something to the DPP?

I know, but I cannot put myself in the position of the DPP and I should not do so.

I am not questioning that. The DPP made her decision on the basis that she has to bring a case to trial she thinks she can win. I know anecdotally from the area that, for example, the aircrew involved in the rescue of Ms Lucas were not interviewed by the accident investigation board. If there are others who were not interviewed, and I understand there are, then perhaps the DPP did not have sufficient evidence, which was available.

I have just been advised that we need to be cautious in-----

I fully appreciate that.

-----commenting on an ongoing legal-----

There is no ongoing legal process.

I have been advised of that by the clerk to the committee.

It is worrying. It is a situation where an investigation has taken place and where key witnesses were not interviewed. The Minister should be concerned about that.

I am more inclined to heed the advice of the clerk to the committee in this regard.

That is a bit of a cop-out.

No, it is not. It is the correct thing to do.

No. I am not asking the Minister to confirm whether or not something was wrong. I am just asking him, as an ordinary citizen, if he would be concerned.

I would be concerned about all accidents but our job is to create a new accident investigation unit that addresses future accidents that will, no doubt, unfortunately, happen. We must make sure we get the best possible system in place to learn the lessons from past incidents so that we do not see future accidents.

It is hard to get the best system in place when dealing with a certain section of the Department. I fully appreciate what was in the letter the Minister sent to me, that he cannot have hands and eyes on everything. However, there is a complete reluctance on the part of the Department to engage with and be answerable to this committee. What are we here for if we are not to hold oversight on the Minister’s behalf and on behalf of the citizens of this country?

I am available at all times to look at every issue and angle but I must follow proper due process.

I cannot have due process if people will not answer letters I send them or if they do not explain questions I ask them. I asked a simple question which comes under the Minister’s remit. How many trips are done by the search and rescue helicopters for patient transfers to hospitals? Are we paying for those outside of the contract? Nobody is prepared to answer that question. Everyone tells me it is commercially sensitive.

I know part of those concerns about due process were with regard to the contract arrangements for air and sea rescue and we are right in the middle of the contracting process. When I say we follow due process it is because, in the public interest, that is the right thing to do. It is in the public interest that we sometimes make decisions in the middle of contracts that we have to be careful about because it is not in the public interest for us to engage in contractual negotiations in public in some instances.

I know the Minister for a while and I know him to be a decent, honest and forthright man. That does not equate with the Eamon Ryan who has just spoken now. We have a situation where this is a contract that is already in place. Helicopters are flying patients from the Aran Islands into Galway.

I am being told by whistleblowers that the cost to the State is astronomical. If that is true, this committee has a right to know. I am being told that every training flight that takes place is being billed to the State. The Minister said we are in the middle of the next contract. Surely to God, if we made a total foul-up of the last one, we should get the next one right. Does the Minister agree?

I do not accept we made a total foul-up of the last one.

I am sorry; will the Minister repeat that?

I do not accept that the last one was a total foul-up, to use the Senator's words.

The contract was for €500 million over ten years, which is €4.2 million per month, and we are paying close to €6 million per month. I need to know where the extra money is going. The public have a right to know.

We have the Comptroller and Auditor General and loads of mechanisms to make sure there is proper spending and budget allocation. We are all subject to internal audit and investigation. I will go back to the key point, however. When we are in the middle of new contract negotiations, there is a certain sensitivity around commercial arrangements to avoid distorting, in whatever way, a potential public tender. That is good practice.

The first thing someone entering into a contract to buy a house in the morning would do is look at the previous contract and then decide whether mistakes were made along the way and if those mistakes should be debated and discussed in order to learn from them and move on. If we want to transfer patients from islands to hospitals, for example, and that was not in the previous contract, we should have it in the next contract. Would the Minister agree with that?

I visit those islands on a frequent basis. I am very glad there is an air ambulance service that serves those islands. I would absolutely insist there is proper provision there.

The Minister would want that service in the next contract as opposed to it being paid for outside the contract.

Having made that point, and I have a personal reason for saying it, I do not think we should have contract negotiations in the middle of a meeting of an Oireachtas committee.

I am not asking the Minister to have negotiations.

That is especially the case when we are discussing pre-legislative scrutiny of a marine accident investigation unit.

The Minister surely has an opinion on what his ideal service would look like. By the way, it is because of the marine accident investigation unit that we have a good search and rescue service.

Surely the Minister wants the contract to be right and to address all the issues. God knows, I have raised enough issues with him over the last two years. We want the issues addressed and a system of which we can all be proud and for which we are not paying through the nose.

Look at what the British have. They paid €1.6 billion for 18 helicopters over 12 bases, two fixed-wing aircraft and other technology. In our case, the contract has gone to tender at €1.3 billion and we are talking about five helicopters and perhaps one fixed-wing aircraft, although I am not sure about that. That is roughly €250 million more per station than what the Brits are paying.

Chairman, we have completely diverged from the subject we are meant to be discussing.

Chairman

In fairness, Senator, we are straying into a different area.

The Minister might forgive my frustration at this. There is a perception that all I want is the Irish Air Corps to fly search and rescue. Let me put on record that I know it cannot do that right now. I know the decision has been made and is done. I just want the next one to be right.

I will conclude with this point. I absolutely agree with the Senator on that. I would like to see the Air Corps having that sort of capability, as do all concerned in the Government. We have to work to deliver that capability. There are a whole range of capabilities we need in the Defence Forces. The report of the Commission on the Defence Forces was warmly welcomed in Government. It requires us to significantly increase investment in our Defence Forces, that is, the Air Corps, Naval Service and Army. That will put is in a better position for future tenders.

To go back to the report that has not been published, as an elected Member of the Oireachtas, I find it offensive that reports are withheld from Members. If elected members have a problem with respect to the confidentiality of a report, we should have sanctions in place to deal with people who leak reports. That is my view.

For oversight to take place, every rationale that is provided to influence this legislation, for example, and the reports that feed into that rationale should be made available to this committee. The committee should be bound by whatever oath is required to keep silent on it. At the end of the day, we cannot have oversight unless we see reports and have the opportunity to question what is in them. We should be able to do that in private session as well. I understand the sensitivity. I also understand that some people remark openly that this place leaks like a sieve. Even the Cabinet is being accused of leaking like a sieve. That is very dangerous for our democracy. Does the Minister agree with that? We really need to find a way to deal with our issues in private.

I agree. We need transparency as well. There are all sorts of conflicting issues. The Constitution sets out the mechanisms for that. It requires Cabinet confidentiality. One of the officers who acts as protector of the Constitution is the Attorney General. Governments are bound to heed his or her advice on what delivers the constitutional protections that protect us all in the end. We could be at the receiving end of a report if that was not the case. We have to heed the constitutional office of the Attorney General.

I will leave it at that for the time being. I thank the Minister for his time.

Chairman

The inquest into the death of Caitríona Lucas is coming up in April. That tragic event occurred in my home county of Clare. Does the Minister expect the Marine Casualty Investigation Board to turn up at the inquest to partake and help out in whatever way possible?

That is a matter for the MCIB. The Department does not get involved. Our job is to provide the policy context, resources and legal and legislative mechanisms.

Chairman

I thank the Minister and his officials. That concludes our deliberations. We will have another pre-legislative scrutiny session in a couple of weeks' time.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.27 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 March 2023.
Barr
Roinn