Sir, - I refer to your articles "Marine Minister disagrees with report on fishing deaths" (September 22nd) and "Pressure to withdraw report on collision" (September 24th). Both contain serious inaccuracies.
The assertion, on September 22nd and repeated on September 24th, that the Minister of State disagreed with the Minister on the findings of the report into the Orchidee tragedy is incorrect, given that the Minister made no comment whatsoever in relation to the conclusions of the report. The Minister of State did not disagree with the Minister nor with the conclusions of the report. The Minister of State's comments were that he was "disappointed" that the report did not satisfy the bereaved families and that, as a local representative who has been in regular contact with the families over many years, he felt acutely their sense of disappointment.
The Department's report was compiled under the Merchant Shipping Act by expert marine surveyors and presented to the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. As in the case of all such reports, a draft copy of the text was made available, in spring 1999, to the families of those who lost their lives in the tragedy and to the fisherman who survived.
In line with the principles of natural justice they were invited to submit comments for inclusion in the final report. Officials of the Department have been in regular contact with the families of the deceased and the survivor to update them on the progress of the report.
Dr Woods instructed that the final report be given to the next of kin of the deceased and to the survivor over the weekend before last, prior to its general release. The report was than published, in line with Dr Woods's commitment to put such reports into the public domain so that any lessons learned from this incident might avoid further tragedy. It is for this reason primarily that reports into maritime casualties are published and as the Orchidee report itself clearly states, its purpose is not to apportion blame or liability.
The assertion on September 24th 1999 that the Department is "coming under increasing pressure to withdraw its report" is also untrue. The report is the outcome of a statutory inquiry carried out under the Merchant Shipping Act and is, based on information received through the taking of statements and through the technical evaluation of physical data as far as such data can be established. There is no provision for the Minister, the Minister of State or the Department to have the report withdrawn. It should also be noted that the report does not seek nor does it intend to seek to apportion blame or liability, as it has no judicial function.
The Minister of State, in his capacity as a local representative, has requested officials of the Department to again meet with the bereaved families to assure them that the Department's report does not apportion blame, to describe and explain the investigation process, and to discuss other matters of concern. This meeting is currently being arranged.
In your article "Department Defends Report" (September 21st), there is an implication in your statement, "the Department's investigator who resigned before the report was complete", that the conduct of the investigation and the resignation of the investigator are somehow connected. The fact is that the particular official resigned to take up employment with another employer. - Yours, etc.,
Denis Maher, Press Officer, Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Leeson Lane, Dublin 2.
Lorna Siggins writes: The Minister of State for the Marine and Natural Resources, Mr Hugh Byrne, told The Irish Times on September 21st that he was "not at all happy" with the Orchidee/Agena collision report's conclusions "on the basis of all the evidence in my possession".
He also said that as a French court had found two of the French crew guilty he would have thought that "the weight of evidence" in the Department's report "would have come down heavily against the French vessel". The Minister of State expressed similar concerns on Southeast Radio.
Mr Gerard Doran, a member of an extensive Wexford fishing family with 40 years' experience at sea, told this newspaper that he was seeking withdrawal of the report on foot of a number of issues, principally the conclusion. He has also criticised the fact that only one investigator's name appears in the published report. The Department has confirmed that more than one investigator was involved.