§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork)I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any official inquiry has been held into the circumstances connected with the recent loss of the Daunt's Bock lightship Puffin with all hands; whether, when some repairs to this vessel were executed some time ago at Passage, a report was made that the expenditure of a large additional sum would be necessary to render her seaworthy; whether, afterwards, when returning to Daunt's Bock after being repaired at Kingstown, the Puffin was found to be leaking badly, and had to put back; who was responsible for the last repairs executed to the Puffin, and when they were executed; and whether any conclusion has been come to as regards the cause of the disaster?
§ MR. RITCHIENo official inquiry has been held into the circumstances connected with the loss of the lightship in question. I have communicated with the Commissioners of Irish Lights with regard to the remainder of the hon. Member's question, and am informed that (a) no report was made that the expenditure of a large additional sum would be necessary to render the vessel seaworthy; (b) the lightship, a few hours after leaving Kingstown Harbour in tow of the Princess Alexandra, was brought back in consequence of a leak in the hawse pipe above the water-line; a report of the occurrence was made to the Commissioners, a survey held, and the leak repaired; (c) the officers of the Commissioners of Irish Lights were responsible for the last repairs to the vessel, which were executed by the Queenstown and Passage Docks Company at Rushbrooke, Co. Cork, in the winter 1895–6; (d) no conclusion as to the cause of the disaster has been yet arrived at. The question of raising the wreck, which would be an expensive operation, is at present under consideration.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYasked whether it was not the fact that if this ship had belonged to the ordinary mercantile marine an inquiry would have been held as a matter of course 274 into the cause of the wreck, and why, because the Puffin belonged to the Dublin Docks Board an inquiry was to be dispensed with?
§ MR. TIMOTHY HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)inquired whether the repairs of the leakage just referred to were executed while the ship was riding at anchor in the harbour, her bow being simply lifted out of the water.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid he had no information as to the repairs, but if the learned Member would put another question on the paper he would be glad to make further inquiry. With regard to the Supplementary question of the learned Member for Cork, the rule in the mercantile marine was that there was no inquiry held when a vessel and the whole of the crew were lost. The reason was obvious; there was not sufficient data for the holding of an inquiry, so the answer he had given would have been equally applicable if the ship had belonged to the mercantile marine.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYasked whether it was in the discretion of the department to hold an inquiry or not?
§ MR. RITCHIEYes.
§ MR. MAURICE HEALYinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of holding an inquiry.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid he had said nothing to lead the hon Gentleman to suppose no inquiry would be held. The first question to be determined was whether the wreck should be raised or not. If it was raised there might be some evidence to show how it was it was wrecked. The raising of the ship would cost several thousands of pounds. However, he was by no means saying that if the wreck was not raised there would be no further inquiry.