Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael)

I wish to express my party's support for the objectives outlined by previous speakers, including regionalisation and balanced regional growth. It is ironic that I am speaking on this matter now because the first opportunity I had to address the House was to discuss the withdrawal of services at Shannon Airport. I now find myself talking about something that has all the hallmarks of the Shannon issue. On the one hand, we have the Government's stated objective of the need to deliver balanced regional development, which is laid out in the national development plan and all Government statements on this issue. On the other hand, however, we clearly see that the objective is not being delivered. If balanced regional development is important, surely it is most important for smaller communities that are dependent on public sector enterprise and employment. This is clearly so in the case of the two communities under discussion.

I have been struck by the number of knowledgeable people, including maritime safety experts and local representatives, who have provided information on the superb role these institutions have provided in protecting seafarers over the years. For that reason alone it is evident that both Coast Guard stations need to be kept open. The political point must be emphasised in this respect. Senators are correct in saying there is cross-party agreement on the matter but the responsibility for this decision sits squarely on the Government side of the House. We are all agreed on the points that have been made. I was struck by the forensic analysis offered by the three Government Senators and the clear passion that drove their arguments but the Opposition is not in a position to make a decision on the matter — that is the Government's responsibility. Those privileged to be elected or appointed to this House on the Government side, and who can take credit for many wonderful things that have been delivered in their constituencies, have a clear responsibility to reverse this decision. In other debates, I have often heard references to the mystical power of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, and I am sure the Green Party's parliamentary party meetings and those of the other party in Government are no less mystic or powerful. However, that power is clearly lacking when it is needed to reverse a decision upon which vulnerable communities depend.

I was struck by the poised and poetic contribution made by Senator Daly in which his passion was evident. He talked about the lies that were being produced by a semi-State body, which is very strong language to use. He said that organisation was lying in the evidence it was producing. If that is true, and the Senator appeared to produce evidence to back up his assertions, what makes it even more striking is that a Minister is willing to act on evidence that every Opposition speaker has comprehensively rebutted. What does that say about the quality of decision making in Cabinet on issues such as this? What does it say about the quality of decision making by the Minister, Deputy Dempsey?

Senator Coghlan provided a strong analysis and a rebuttal of all the Government side's points. That was compounded by the various points that have been made so far in this debate. If the privilege of serving in Government is confined to the other side of the House, the responsibility lies with that side also. I will be unflinching in pointing out that while cross-party opinion is valuable and welcome in dealing with local community issues, the responsibility for dealing with them lies with the Government side and particularly the Senators who have made those points. If they are going to claim credit for doing good work in their constituencies, they must also carry the can for things that are not going so well and about which those in the community feel strongly.

While I do not wish to repeat what others have said, I want to draw attention to two of the points that have been made so far. I have spent some time trying to understand this issue and have spoken to people about it in order that I could make a strong contribution. The first point concerns the Minister of State's remarks about the quality of service provided by Eircom. He offered that as a rationale for decisions made concerning the two Coast Guard stations but one cannot blame those institutions for Eircom's inability to supply broadband and the telecommunications infrastructure they need. It seems perverse to say that just because Eircom and other bodies cannot provide the services needed by these Coast Guard stations, we will blame those centres for it and shut them down.

The second point, which was strongly made by Senator O'Toole, concerns the value of experience in these matters. Senators have referred to data from the United Kingdom about the ability to save lives being dependent on the number of centres and their relationship to the areas covered. That point seems to be self-evident but why is it not clear to the Minister who is making this decision? Why should our heritage, local expertise, ability to understand local conditions and the provision of safe navigation be thrown to the wind by a decision to close these Coast Guard stations? Expert opinion on both sides of the House has strongly rebutted this decision, which begs the question as to why this is happening? How can one reverse the clear recommendations of a 2002 consultant's report which was supported by taxpayers' money? The reason is money. In recent months, the House has debated cutbacks in the HSE and other public services, but the common thread is money. The obvious reason this is happening is that the Department of Transport is examining budgetary matters and must find ways of recouping the money it has wasted in other areas. In doing so, however, it will neglect the value of local experience and heritage which other Senators have indicated so well. That is a political decision but if one is going to accept responsibility for how well the economy is doing and the fine work of local representatives in their constituencies, one must also take action to reverse a bad policy-making decision which will have a negative impact on coastal communities and others reliant on Coast Guard services for safety at sea.