Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 28 June 2017
25. Deputy Mattie McGrath asked the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he is satisfied that the Marine Casualty Investigation Board, MCIB, is fit for purpose; the details of the appeals mechanism open to families or persons dissatisfied with the findings of the MCIB; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30240/17]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy constituents, Mr. John O'Brien - Ms Anne Marie O'Brien's brother - and his good friend, Mr. Pat Esmonde, died tragically on 23 May 2010 while on a fishing trip at Helvick Head, County Waterford. The subsequent investigations by the MCIB and Dungarvan gardaí and the coroner's report have not only raised serious issues about the appropriateness of the judgment handed down, they have also given rise to concerns around current marine safety practice in Irish waters. I ask the Minister to make a statement on the matter.
The question tabled is somewhat different to the one the Deputy just asked. However, I will answer the first question first and, if it is all right with the Deputy, reply to the second in a supplementary. I will try to fit them both in because I am not avoiding them. It is just that the question the Deputy has asked is somewhat different from the one of which he gave notice, which is fair enough. He asked about the MCIB being fit for purpose and the details of the appeals mechanism open to families or persons dissatisfied with its findings. I will certainly deal with that first and go as far as I can with the Deputy on the second matter after that.
The MCIB was set up under the Merchant Shipping (Investigation of Marine Casualties) Act, 2000 to investigate marine casualties and publish reports of such investigations. Marine casualties relate primarily to death or serious injury, loss of a person overboard, significant loss, stranding, damage, collision with a vessel or property or significant damage to the environment which involves a vessel in Irish waters or an Irish-registered vessel in waters anywhere. The purpose of an investigation is to establish the cause or causes of a marine casualty with a view to making recommendations for the avoidance of similar casualties. Under the Act, it is specifically not the purpose of a report to attribute blame or fault. To date, the board has published 212 reports of investigations and made a valuable contribution to maritime safety both in investigating accidents and, sadly, fatalities in many cases and in highlighting actions to improve safety and increase safety awareness.
While there is no formal appeals mechanism provided for in the Act, the board is required to send a draft of its report before publication to certain people who have 28 days to submit observations. The board may also reopen a completed investigation if it is satisfied that there is new evidence available which could materially alter the findings of the investigation and if the purpose of the investigation could be served by re-opening it. It is, of course, open to any person to bring any such evidence to the attention of the board. The Minister has certain powers under the Act also. For example, the Minister may, after consulting the board, direct that an inquiry be held into a marine casualty or that a completed inquiry be reopened if he or she is satisfied there is new evidence likely to materially alter the outcome.
That is the broad outline of the powers of the MCIB. I will try to apply that to the Deputy's specific question in my supplementary reply.
I do not know if the Minister is happy with the MCIB but I am not. Its members do not seem to have any experience in what they are doing.
Please ask a question.
I am beginning the question. In the UK, the relevant board has one member with 30 years' seagoing experience while another has 40 years' maritime experience. The MCIB consists of an air accident investigator, a barrister and former executive with the British Potato Council, an accountant, a fire station manager and a solicitor. The board is clearly not fit for purpose. Who from the MCIB goes to the scene of an accident and when? Who from the MCIB oversees the investigation in circumstances where gardaí are not trained or equipped to go to sea? Are witnesses interviewed by the MCIB and, if so, when and where does that happen? Who in the MCIB can read GPS reports downloaded from vessels involved in fatal accidents? Who from the MCIB-----
Ceist amhain.
This is all relevant to the question, if the Acting Chairman would leave me alone. Who from the MCIB is a bow wave expert? It was spoken about at length in the coroner's report.
The Deputy can come back with a supplementary.
There are huge question marks over this investigation. An Garda Síochána failed to make a public appeal for witnesses on the day of the incident.
I very much understand the passion with which Deputy Mattie McGrath introduced this matter. He brought the people involved to meet me and my sympathy and that of the House extends to them in this terrible situation. The Deputy would not ask me to comment publicly on the investigation, which I cannot do, particularly as he is pushing to have it reopened. If he is asking me to do that, he would certainly not be asking me to comment on what the result might be. I refer the Deputy to section 38, which provides that the Minister may, where he considers it necessary after consulting the board, direct that an inquiry be held into a marine casualty. The section sets out the procedure to be followed. Under section 40, the Minister may, after consulting the board, direct that a completed inquiry be reopened if satisfied there is new evidence available which is likely to materially alter the outcome of an inquiry. It is something that is really up to the very unfortunate people involved to produce new evidence. If they produce new evidence which satisfies the Minister, that would put me in a position where I could look at it.
I hope they will be able to invoke section 40. The O'Brien and Esmonde families have suffered huge trauma for seven years. There was no Garda appeal for information, notwithstanding that the incident happened on a splendid summer's day when there were lots of vessels and people at sea. We need to get closure and explanations on this. I have told the Minister about the membership of the board. While it hires in expertise, there was no meaningful engagement. Do the members of the MCIB visit the scenes of accidents? Do they have seagoing experience? Could they carry out an investigation without considering the GPS report? It is issues like that. It was stated in the report that there was a large floating tyre which may have played a role in both men going overboard. The tyre was not recovered and the witness who said there was a tyre in the water later changed his statement. They do not go to inquests at the request of gardaí or the coroner.
There are too many unanswered questions here when two lives were lost. There are 138 lives lost annually in maritime and river incidents in Ireland. The Minister makes a huge play of road safety and bringing down the death toll there, which I support, but 138 deaths annually is a staggering figure yet there are no investigations. If, unfortunately, someone is killed on the roads, the scene is secured and sealed off, there is a huge public inquiry and requests for information are made. None of that happened in this case. Gardaí do not have the equipment to go out but they can look for public information and assistance. They refused to do that. I am very unhappy at the way this was handled by Dungarvan Garda station and the MCIB. I thank the Minister for meeting the family and I appeal to him to look at the matter under section 40.
On a general level, the Deputy has made a very good point that 138 water tragedies is extraordinary. Perhaps he is right that it does not receive the attention it deserves, including from me. That is very fair because one tragedy is one too many. It is something which is not highlighted, I suppose, because it is so common.
I take the Deputy's point about the family needing closure. If they have not received adequate explanations, it is even more difficult for them. I can only say to the Deputy that he is, of course, at liberty to say what he said just now. I do not doubt it for one second. I am not in a position to comment one way or the other, particularly if the Deputy is asking me to make a judgment on new evidence in the future. I hope the Deputy will do that. It would be something I could look at in the context of section 40. I am not giving the Deputy any guarantees or anything about it. However, if he can produce what is new evidence, I would be prepared to look at it.
Will the Minister look at the make-up of the board because it is ridiculous?
I remind the Deputy that there are plenty of other questions that need to be asked and we are eating into other Members' time.
