Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

(a) To delete references to “Department of Climate Action, Communication Networks and Transport” and “DCACNT” in each place where it occurs and substitute “Department of Transport” in each such place;

(b) To delete all words from and including “believes that:” and substitute the following:

“notes in relation to the future service that:

- a rigorous and robust process is underway under the direction of the Department of Transport, involving all key stakeholders, to bring a business case to Government shortly on the procurement of a new IRCG aviation service;

- the process is being managed in accordance with the requirements of the Public Spending Code to deliver VFM and in accordance with the requirements of public procurement law;

- the Department of Transport has appropriate expertise available to it, including independent experts and a Process Auditor to ensure compliance;

- the process to date has involved the following key steps: - in November 2019, the Department commenced a process to prepare for the next iteration of the Coast Guard aviation service in line with the Public Spending Code; this involved an extensive consultation process with all key State and other stakeholders in the SAR sector to consider the scope and demand for the service over the lifetime of a new contract;

- a Steering Group was established, led by the Director of the Coast Guard, comprising a range of State stakeholders and independent experts to bring a whole of Government approach to scope the requirements for the new service;

- an initial Strategic Assessment and Preliminary Appraisal report was prepared by the Department and brought to Government by the then Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in July 2020, following approval by the Steering Group;

- this report included a strategic assessment, setting out the context for the SAR aviation programme, an organisational overview, and a survey of existing policies and strategies relevant to the programme;

- it took on board key learnings from the existing service and contractual arrangements;

- it identified the spending objectives of the programme, including existing arrangements and relevant business needs;

- it also included an appraisal of various service delivery options, including the State assuming full responsibility for the service, either through the Air Corps or a dedicated IRCG Aviation Branch; both were ruled out for a variety of reasons including the level of risk which would be assumed by the State;

- the process is now at detailed business case stage which is focused on the remaining viable options; this business case is being prepared by KPMG with input from the Project Team and their own aviation expertise;

- while it is acknowledged that the Air Corps is not in a position to take full responsibility for this service on the basis of that initial assessment, the Department of Transport was asked by the Department of Defence to explore the viability of the Air Corps providing some element of the SAR aviation service;

- an Air Corps submission received in March is being reviewed as part of the preparation of a detailed business case on the entire IRCG aviation service; welcomes that:

- the Department of Transport has been keen to ensure that all interested parties in the eventual tender process are dealt with fairly and transparently; to that end, a dedicated webpage was created on which all relevant information and updates on the process are provided to all at the same time;

- in light of public commentary which could lead to confusion amongst interested parties, a recent detailed update provided clarity to potential bidders as to who precisely is involved in the process and where they should look to for reliable information on it;

- this was intended to allay concerns as regards any spurious speculation outside these official communication channels;

- a Process Auditor has been appointed from the outset to ensure compliance with procurement and Public Spending Code procedures; the Process Auditor is answerable and reports to the Secretary General of the Department of Transport in relation to any concerns he may have with the process and is independent of any other reporting arrangements related to the procurement;

clarifies that:

- as this is part of a deliberative process which will lead to a Government decision in due course, members of Government have not endorsed any particular approach in advance of the process having been completed and a recommendation made to Government;

notes in relation to the existing service that:

- the previous tender was also subject to rigorous analysis and evaluation, involving all relevant stakeholders, including the Department of Defence and the Air Corps, which validated the assumptions underpinning the tender specification;

- the Department of Defence noted at the time that the Air Corps no longer had the operational or management experience required to run the SAR service and that substantial investment in equipment and training over many years would be required before an Air Corps maritime SAR capacity could be made operational again;

- it would be imprudent for any emergency service to base its requirements on historical data alone; emergency services by their nature must provide for scenarios that may happen even where the likelihood is low; a core requirement of the current service is a mass rescue scenario – which thankfully has not occurred but would require significant surge capacity which no other aviation service in the State could provide;

- the level of capacity available to the State through this contract is significant and has been utilised to supplement a wide range of aviation needs beyond purely maritime SAR, including assisting the Health Service Executive/National Ambulance Service, the island communities, An Garda Síochána for land SAR incidents and Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage/Fire Services in context of major emergency needs;

- the existing contract was procured by way of an open competitive tender, following extensive consultation with all stakeholders; that process was subject to independent external audit and no issues of concern were identified;

- as regards the VFM aspects of the existing contract, these were addressed as part of the original evaluation by relevant experts, including the NTMA;

- the CHC service is kept under constant review in terms of contractual performance; it was subject to a mid-term assessment to identify, inter alia, any lessons for a new service; the contract continues to deliver against the key performance measures set for it;

highlights that:

- the IRCG has a distinguished record in delivering SAR services for many decades including the management of aviation services delivered by the Air Corps and civil operators;

- the IRCG retains the services of an aviation consultant to assist in various aspects of its work; the current consultant was procured by open competitive tender in 2017 and they have provided an excellent level of service across a wide range of technical issues, including the current procurement process; its technical expertise and experience embraces all relevant matters, including Coast Guard and SAR-related issues internationally;

- there is no doubt in relation to the capability and expertise of the Air Corps in aviation matters; it is precisely for that reason that they have been involved as a strategic stakeholder in the development of this project, up and until the point they were requested by the Department of Defence to prepare a proposal to provide an element of the SAR service; in order to avoid any suggestion of a conflict of interest, their participation on the Steering Group ceased; this is about protecting the integrity of the overall process;

underlines that:

- the provision of an effective maritime SAR service is critical to Ireland as an island nation with a strong maritime sector; for that reason, decisions on a significant component of that service require careful consideration; the Government will take the required time to ensure that it procures a service that is fit for purpose, meets our domestic and international obligations, and delivers value for the significant level of investment involved;

and supports the approach being taken to this process which will provide the required input for Government to make the right decision on this important matter.”

At the outset, I wish to recognise the devotion of members of the Irish Coast Guard who have done so much to protect all of us along the shoreline and at sea. I wish to put on record our thanks to people who have lost their lives working for the Irish Coast Guard. It is well recognised that the loss of Rescue 116 was an unspeakable tragedy. Captain Dara Fitzpatrick, Captain Mark Duffy, winch operator Paul Ormsby and winchman Ciarán Smith lost their lives in serving all of us and in attempting to protect lives at sea. Some 22 years ago, Rescue 111, operated by the Air Corps, was also unfortunately subject to loss of life in Waterford. Captain Dave O'Flaherty, Captain Mick Baker, Sergeant Paddy Mooney and Corporal Niall Byrne lost their lives in serving the State while putting their lives at risk to protect others. I have seen the same thing in Clare with the loss of Caitríona Lucas, who died some five years ago on a search and rescue mission on the seas as an experienced professional working out of the Coast Guard base at Doolin.

In the context of this discussion we must be mindful of the job that is being delivered and the heroic efforts being made. While we identify the people whose lives were lost serving the State, we should be mindful that so many lives have been saved as a result of the work that has been done by various people. I know many of the people involved in the Coast Guard because there is a base in County Clare. I have friends in the Air Corps who have served the State and private operators along the way. Their professionalism and the work they do is second to none. We owe a duty to them to be careful and cautious about what we say and how we portray the next iteration of a contract that is to be issued. We need to be mindful of all of that.

I believe that the Private Members' motion put forward makes several unjustified claims relating to Ministers having a favoured position in respect of the ongoing procurement process and with regard to the specifications of the existing service. I believe the amendment sets out the basis for steps being taken in respect of the process to ensure it is rigorous, evidence-based and compliant. The process is following all the required steps of the public spending code for current expenditure appropriate to a service such as this. It has involved all key State and non-statutory stakeholders, including the Department of Defence and the Air Corps, from the outset. As I understand it, the project team leading this has all the expertise available to it for this stage of the process, including aviation expertise, relevant helicopter search and rescue experience and regulatory experience. The team also involves KPMG with a strong record in similar business case development.

Stakeholder engagement, including market interest engagement, has been extensive and more than adequate for the purposes of this project. A process auditor has been involved from the outset to ensure the process is compliant. Therefore, claims relating to the adequacy of the expertise available to the Department are unjustified. It is important that we put this point on the record. I am not suggesting the claims have been made by the Senators who have spoken. However, others will take from it that somehow there is something untoward here. Senators have rightly identified concerns. They need to be addressed and I believe they will be.

The amendment sets out the process that is under way. It notes that lessons are being learned from the existing service and that future demand analysis will form a key element in that business case.

The previous tender specification was premised on an extensive consultation and scoping study that involved the Department of Defence and the Air Corps. It validated some of the requirements that the motion is seeking to dispute, for example, requirement relating to surge capacity. This relates to two or more helicopters in a mass rescue scenario and the larger more capable helicopter specification.

The existing contract was procured by way of an open competitive tender. We know that Canadian Helicopters was the preferred bidder following a thorough and compliant evaluation against the award criteria set at the time. The tender process was also independently audited and signed off as compliant at the time.The result of the tender process was brought to Government for approval. It was acknowledged at the time that the Air Corps no longer had the operational or management experience required to run the search and rescue service required and that substantial investment in equipment and training over many years would be required before the Air Corps maritime SAR capacity could be made operational again. It was also acknowledged that there were significant difficulties in retaining the necessary highly skilled and experienced helicopter pilots. Indeed, the Air Corps had withdrawn completely from maritime SAR in 2004 following operational difficulties in the provision of a consistent and satisfactory level of service. As such, re-entering this area of operations was not considered feasible.

As for the value for money aspects of the existing contract, these were addressed as part of the original evaluation by relevant experts. The contract is kept under constant review and was subject to a mid-term assessment. It continues to deliver against the key performance measurements set in the contract. Any lessons learned from the existing contract and its operation are being addressed in the development of the procurement strategy.

I wish to comment on governance arrangements for the new service. The new draft specification was published at the market webinar in September 2020. It clearly leaves open the question of helicopter type and basing options to enable greater flexibility in the options that may be offered to satisfy the requirements. It is important in the context of our discussions that we do not seek to demonise one side or the other. We must accept the limitations that certain operators have and the opportunities for the future. The debate should not be used as a way of undermining the capacity or capability of anyone in future. That will be left for an independent transparent process. We should be careful that we do not involve ourselves in that process.