Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is a shame we are having this discussion again four years after a decision was taken. It is outrageous that at a time of economic difficulties in the country, money is being spent on reports to make decisions that people would appear to want.

I have a number of questions, some of which follow on from Senator Daly's questions. Regarding the reports undertaken by the Department and given the approval of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, why were two reports commissioned? Why would one not suffice? If there was a need for a value for money review and if the reports were genuine in seeking more value for money, why was there a need for two separate reports, one on the Irish Cost Guard service and one on the Marine Survey Office, given that both are under the auspices of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport?

Senator Daly referred to the draft report which, it appears, was complete and ready for publication last November. It is like the book that was the subject of a recent High Court challenge and which was taken off the shelves just before it went on sale because it did not suit someone. It appears that what was contained in the report was ready last November. If the Department had confidence in the consultants and in their findings and if they were given the freedom of expression and the independence to carry out their report, why was it not published last November? Why was there a need to respond to certain aspects of the report, as outlined by Senator Daly?

The draft report highlighted serious shortcomings in respect of the relationship between the Irish Coast Guard and the Marine Survey Office. Changes were made in the final report. Perhaps that requires an investigation. Page 21 of the report clearly outlines that it is the expressed opinion that there seems to be only sporadic co-operation between the Irish Coast Guard and the Marine Survey Office. Why is that the case? Is there an issue at senior management level between both organisations? Is there a lack of co-operation between staff on the ground? Are there union issues? We deserve to know for the following reason. The final Fisher Associates report outlined that in the event of a major shipping casualty within Irish waters, without the co-operation of the Marine Survey Office it would be difficult to deal with such an emergency. What appears to be happening is that the Irish Coast Guard is employing the services of two UK-based companies for assistance, one of which, Oil Spill Response Limited, is being paid an annual retainer - I would like to know at what cost - and the second, London Offshore Consultants Limited, which is deployed on an agreed call-out rate. The report also highlights that this arrangement was activated during a recent incident where the resources of London Offshore Consultants Limited were required but it did not respond for at least 24 hours after the event. Is that an appropriate relationship? Is it an acceptable level of cover?

The final Fisher Associates report outlines that similar resources are available locally from the Marine Survey Office. Why are those services not being used? Why is the taxpayer being burdened for additional cost while there appears to be a lack of co-operation between two State agencies within the same Department? That is an issue on which we may argue but it is one that is clear to me from reading the report.

In regard to the report, who was consulted? I assume the mountain rescue teams, the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, the Federation of Irish Fishermen, and fishermen at sea were consulted, and if not, why? A number of suggestions were made by the ordinary staff working in the Irish Coast Guard which were taken into consideration in the first Fisher Associates report but excluded from the Fisher Associates second report. Why? One of the suggestions was on staffing arrangements, as mentioned by Senator Marie Moloney, in respect of the moratorium on recruitment. The staffing submission made in respect of the first Fisher Associates report actually provided a solution. The second Fisher Associates report indicated that for a two centre operation to be viable the number of operational staff required would be 41 but the Deloitte & Touche report indicated 42 staff. The agreed level for operational staff at the three centres is 46. This has been reduced further to 44 staff with the reduction of the 12 hour shift at Malin and Valentia. The level could be reduced further to 42, according to the staff employed within Irish Coast Guard, if the Dublin operation on Leeson Lane was to introduce a 12 hour shift system. International comparisons were given. As I understand it, the international norm for coast guard services within all European Union states is a 12 hour shift system. Why is Dublin not operating on a 12 hour shift system? If it was to operate a 12 hour shift system the moratorium could not be used as an excuse for closing one of the centres.

The British House of Commons Select Committee on Transport recently undertook an evaluation of coast guard stations. Mr. Chris Reynolds outlined that our model is similar to the UK model. If that is the case, its select committee highlighted the fact that closing down coast guard stations in the UK led to an increase in the loss of life at sea. Are we going to increase the loss of life at sea simply because we are trying to save a few euro by closing one of the stations? Has that issue been considered?

I was taken aback by the figures presented in respect of activity levels at Valentia, Malin Head and Dublin. One cannot really make comparisons. In regard to the 1,615 call-outs in Dublin which were quoted, how many were single point of contact call-outs? In other words, the UK coast guard would have been placing through a call and those calls would be recorded as mayday calls or whatever into Dublin but would have been referred on to Valentia or Malin Head and not necessarily referred to on their log book but referred on for the purposes of work activity. I am not an expert on transportation, navigation or maritime affairs but would not "persons saved", which is dealt with in page 16 of the final report, be the best comparative argument to use rather than figures recording the number of calls? In 2010 in Valentia, 51 lives were saved as a result of the work of the Valentia Coast Guard and 39 bodies recovered; 29 lives were saved as a result of the work of the Malin Head Coast Guard while the number of lives saved in Dublin was 25. It is clear from the activity at Valentia and Malin that while the number of calls may not be high in terms of the overall number of calls to the station, there may be a reason for that in terms of the single point of contact. However, the calls coming to Valentia and Malin appear to be more serious as there is more fishing at sea activity and more severe distress in those areas whereas there are more leisure activity calls into the eastern seaboard Dublin base. As a result, 80 lives were saved in 2010 by Valentia and Malin stations. One cannot put a cost on that and one of those stations cannot be closed if it is saving lives, as outlined by the British House of Commons select committee report.

The final issue to which I wish to refer is the removal of the cliff climbing gear which has been recommended by management, the Irish Coast Guard and the report. What savings are to be made? What is the alternative to removing the cliff climbing gear? It would appear the alternative may be to bring in helicopters at €3,500 per hour.

In my constituency in Killybegs, if the Irish Coast Guard is serious about saving money and cutting down in capital investment, why is it building a new €1.7 million structure on the new pier in Killybegs where there is no launching pad adjacent to the new facility while the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine facilities in the centre of the old pier in Killybegs remain empty? I understand that the facilities owned by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine could be altered to accommodate the Irish Coast Guard in Killybegs without having to spend €1.7 million. They could be reconstructed or upgraded to meet that demand. If we are discussing value for money, we should examine everything on the table.

My colleague, Deputy McConalogue, asked a question earlier about whether, if we closed a station at Valentia or Malin Head, the alternative was to build a new structure somewhere in Dublin, in Blanchardstown or somewhere else. A high capital investment would be associated with that. Has any cost-benefit analysis been carried out by the Department or Irish Coast Guard in respect of current facilities and any future facilities, were the Department to take the decision to close the centre at either Valentia or Malin Head?