Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is a shame and scandal that the issue is on the agenda again. What happened in the past was that the permanent government, as we shall call it, tried this and failed. It went through every avenue it possibly could in the past to achieve what it wanted, namely, to centralise everything in Dublin and it failed. It is coming at it again in a different way. If the value for money review produced by Fisher Associates was called a value for saving lives review, Valentia Island would certainly come top of the class.

I do not think that matters to the witnesses at the end of the day. This should not have anything to do with saving money but rather it should be about saving lives. The system is working perfectly well now but there is an agenda, and that is blatantly obvious from every word of the witnesses in giving evidence. Every word seems to indicate that the preference is to centralise operations, and it does not matter what happens in Malin, Valentia or both as long as everything is anchored in Dublin.

The witnesses met a willing Minister in the commissioning of the report, and it has been indicated that the equipment is being stored in his own constituency. His view seems to be that having one station in Dublin with a substation in his own constituency will serve the entire country and approximately 7,500 km of coastline. The idea seems to be that it is okay to centralise this in Dublin but where is the common sense in what is being proposed? It was proposed before and the process failed. It seems there is an idea that by coming at this in a different way, like a dog with a bone, it will eventually succeed.

I want some clear answers on issues. Is this about saving money and is the idea that by closing one or two existing stations, even one cent will be saved? If the Fisher Associates report was so ill-advised, or should I say incompetent, so as to deserve all the criticism heaped upon it, why was the report not discarded after the first draft? Why was the Minister allowed to speak to the media about this report and its findings, even if the witnesses had no confidence in it?

The Taoiseach referred to the report in correspondence after representations were made to him. It is disgraceful to think that once again, senior politicians were misled with false information. Was it the case that the Fisher Associates report was a great job but restricted by the fact that Dublin would not be included in the rationalisation? Was it a pale shadow of the first draft, with the opinions of the interested parties toned down or not included at all in some instances and with the criticism of management and structure taken out? Is it correct that the Irish Coast Guard needed a so-called independent report to carry out the actions, using and abusing the Fisher Associates report to this end? Did it tailor the report until it got the message out that it wanted in the first instance? Was that the object of the exercise?

With regard to the timeframe, how long will the matter be fudged? Will it be until the timing is right and the political will exists to carry out the actions that the permanent government wants introduced? We should be clear about the permanent government. There are certain people in certain positions who have been in place for the past ten years. They have a clear agenda and it is certainly not in the best interests of the people of this nation. There are personal and insular reasons for centralising this process in Dublin.

Valentia handles two thirds of all the emergency calls in this country and one can consider the countless lives that have been saved by the people there. They have been involved in major rescue operations up and down the country and far out to sea. They have provided an excellent service. It is dreadful to think that people in the Department and in high-ranking positions will totally disregard the excellent work done in both Malin and Valentia. People have given their careers in building an excellent service.

I respect what Senator Moloney said about the importance of the station to Valentia Island. I will not restate that as I know the argument will fall on deaf ears. The witnesses have their minds made up. We were told a while ago about the finishing line but the problem is that it is being constantly moved. Despite arguments being put forward as to why Valentia should not close, the opponents only had to take their beating for a while before returning to try to close it again. I hope they fail again on this occasion but they will return to try again. The centralisation agenda is being pushed by certain individuals in high-ranking positions. They will remain when the current Government and Minister are gone. Change in itself is not always a good thing. Accidents will befall people on the oceans and seas and those people will not be best served by what is being attempted today.

There is a money issue. If it is true that this is a value-for-money review and not an attempt to centralise procedures, where is the saving? How much money will be saved if the intentions are achieved? I hope the witnesses take on board what they hear today and the Minister will not be carried along by the proposals. Anybody with knowledge of the issue can see that the weakest link is in Dublin but how many of the witnesses would agree with that? If they could say something bad about Malin or Valentia, they would prefer that. Unfortunately for them, that is not possible and we can stand over their track record and ability to save lives. We can stand over the expertise. It is a crying shame that the work and expertise is not valued by senior people in the Department. I will finish with that for the time being.