Dan Boyle (Green Party)

It is rare to hear the House speak in one voice on such an issue, especially one that could be used for narrow party political purposes. While some attempt has been made to remind the Government of its responsibilities in this area, it is fair to say all contributions have supported the retention of both Coast Guard stations. That is how it should be because logic does not seem to have had a significant part in this decision. We had the 2002 report and we had an agenda that was fostered elsewhere.

Senator Ó Dómhnaill referred to the last page of the Minister of State's contribution. I too note the references to the Department of Finance and the efficiency review that all Departments are now required to undertake. I suspect this is a more likely rationale for what is being proposed and what certain people in the Department would like to happen. The decision to have one station where two existed previously represents not merely a reverse decentralisation proposal but a rationalisation. It is proposed that people operating in Malin Head and Valentia Island be reallocated to a new location where property prices are higher than in either counties Donegal or Kerry and where the quality of life in terms of access to schools and trying to get from A to B is commensurately worse than in those areas. This makes no sense in the context of a commitment to Government policies that seek to improve the quality of life of all citizens on this island.

I caution against an accountant's approach in looking at the assets of a Department and how they should be deployed. I have other reasons for asking that the Coast Guard stations at Valentia Island and Malin Head be maintained. I represent an area that is coastal in its own right even though it is an urban area. As a Munster man, I have an affinity with the Kerry operation. Furthermore, my father is a Donegal man, a merchant sailor and an islander. I like to think I have some affinity for the maritime history that brought about the construction of lighthouses and Coast Guard stations throughout the State. Their locations were chosen precisely according to where they needed to be located. These were the locations where maritime traffic took place and where those with an expertise in maritime life lived and continue to live. The proposal that this history, expertise and valuable maritime heritage can somehow be uprooted and relocated in a place like Drogheda is beyond any consideration of what we are as an island nation.

I appeal to the Minister of State and the departmental officials to commit to an active reconsideration of this decision. It represents not merely a reversal of the 2002 Deloitte & Touche report but a reversal of the active programme of investment in the Irish Coast Guard that took place from the start of the decade onwards. When I had the privilege of representing the constituency of Cork South-Central, Oysterhaven was part of that constituency. It has since moved to Cork South-West and a new, modern station has been constructed, although it does not perform exactly the same function as the stations at Malin Head and Valentia Island. Since then, however, other Coast Guard stations such as Crosshaven, which remains in Cork South-Central, have been kicked from pillar to post in their efforts to secure badly needed resources in terms of upgraded facilities and a new location. I would prefer if ministerial and departmental efforts went into maintaining a programme of work which was proving successful. As well as maintaining the Coast Guard stations in places such as Malin Head and Valentia Island, we must also upgrade the Irish Coast Guard service itself. Dozens of Coast Guard stations require upgrading and to provide for that would represent an economic saving in the long term.

We must acknowledge our maritime heritage and the economic value of being an island nation and the associated dependence on the sea. I spoke recently to the harbour master in Cork Harbour who explained to me a concept that he and other harbour masters are trying to promote, that of the highways of the seas. He told me that fish are being landed by Spanish ships in Bantry, taken by container truck from Bantry to Rosslare, put on a ferry to Pembroke and put on the road to Southampton before finally being put on a ferry to France and driven to Spain. One can only imagine the carbon footprint. This is illustrative of the illogical nature of our transport and maritime policies. It is indicative of a small mindedness and a failure to look to the future in attempting to solve the problems of the present. Until we stop thinking and acting like this, I fear for future maritime policy.

All this is before we come to the issues of rural development that have been the focus of debate today. It is unquestionably important that facilities such as those at Malin Head and Valentia Island are maintained because there is a need for critical mass in the communities in which they are located. They serve as focal points and places of employment and provide the expertise in terms of justifying all the other elements of social infrastructure in Malin Head and Valentia Island. Our policies should encourage their maintenance and ensure the people who work there can remain in the communities. The primary argument for their retention is economic. In this instance, however, there is no evidence of a genuine maritime policy or if there is such a policy, it operates in an entirely illogical way.

I return to the subject of rural development policy because it is an issue in which I am greatly interested as a consequence of my own family history. Although I am from Cork, I am more familiar with Malin Head than with Valentia Island. I know the landscape and the communities who live there. In economic terms, as other speakers observed, a decision of this type has an immeasurably greater impact for the relevant communities than, for example, large-scale factory closures in urban areas. As political representatives, and as a Government, we cannot and should not allow such decisions to be made.

The only hope I have is that by the end of this debate, the single mindedness with which all the contributions have been articulated in this Chamber will be heeded and the necessary reversal of the decision taken. If not, I fear it will be the start of a process where similarly stupid mistakes will be made. If this House is to have any impact and relevance, I hope the voices that have been raised today will achieve that change.