Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The business case compared the cost of a commercial operator akin to the current service and a service supported by the Air Corps. In every choice available, the commercial costs were trimmed and the Air Corps costs were increased. For example, the commercial aircraft were made smaller and cheaper in the business case than the current S-92 helicopter, while the Air Corps helicopter was made bigger and more expensive. It was not allowed to use the current AW139 helicopters, despite the fact they are used in SAR all over the world.

The costs of the current service are €650 million over ten years. How is it that the business case initially assessed the commercial contract cost at €400 million, yet when the pre-qualification questionnaire, PQQ, was released the valuation of the contract had increased to €1 billion, including VAT? How can costs be so inconsistent in the three steps? Was the aim to exclude the Air Corps from providing any part of the SAR service?

The number of flying hours proposed for the fixed wing contract was not revealed outside the Department. It was, I believe, deliberately withheld. How could any organisation provide a proper estimate without this information? The Air Corps fixed wing proposal was prepared based on incomplete information, something which is only now coming to light. Why was it then subjected to an extra €40 million surcharge that was not applied to the commercial contractor?

The initial set-up costs for the next operator were costed. The Air Corps, as we know, continually trains its staff in all aspects of aviation. It has been established in the State for 100 years. It has been training with night vision technology for many years, unlike the current SAR contractor. It has a state-of-the-art winch training facility at its base. Why, then, did the business case price set-up costs for the Air Corps at an arbitrary €4 million for one base, while pricing the set-up costs for a foreign commercial operator at just €4.1 million for four bases? We need to remember that this is a notional commercial operator without any ties to or facilities in this country.

The optimal configuration for SAR in Ireland is four operational bases with five helicopters, including one in reserve. Given this requirement, why did the business case require the Air Corps to provide three helicopters to support its single base at Baldonnel? This would mean there would be seven helicopters where there are currently five.

Commercial providers are expected to provide the service on a 95% availability basis, but the Air Corps was expected to provide 100% availability. Why was that the case? I understand the business case for SAR involved bases in Dublin, Waterford, Shannon and Sligo. That is the optimal situation. When the PQQ was published, why was this changed to three bases? How does the fact that the Government has now revised that to four bases change the entire business case? It has had to extend the PQQ period because of that change.

Why must the next SAR operator have regulatory approvals, exemptions, alleviations, permits and licences necessary to provide the service in Ireland and the UK, a third country outside the EU?Suspiciously, there is no similar or specific requirement for Ireland and another EU country to be involved. Why is that the case? Why were the Air Corps spare parts scandalously costed in the business case at almost 60% more than the exact same parts to be used by the commercial operator? Where specifically will the fixed wing aircraft be on standby? Will it be located in Ireland or in the UK? If the latter is the case, an aircraft with sophisticated surveillance equipment would be located full-time in a non-EU country.

The obvious solution is, and always was, for the Government to task the Air Corps with the fixed-wing element of the upcoming contract once it gets its new C295 aircraft. This will ensure that any intelligence that is gathered will remain within the State or, at least, within the EU. Does the Minister of State accept that in the context of the basis on which the PQQ has been published, it seems clear no Irish consortium could ever tender for this operation given the caveats contained in the document? Why is that the case? What statutory authority is the Minister invoking to provide helicopter transport for armed officers of An Garda Síochána on a commercial airline? I would love to see the statutory element of that. The original business case did not require availability for daytime fire-fighting operations within four hours of tasking, yet when we went to the PQQ, fire-fighting was included. This used to be done by the Air Corps. How has this changed the business case that was presented to the Minister by Frazer-Nash, the wholly owned subsidiary of Babcock?

As a matter of urgency, the business case must be examined and its assumptions tested. The brief provided by the Minister's Department and the Coast Guard to those who drafted the business case must be released immediately. The companies or organisations involved in making submissions and-or assessing every part of this pre-tender process, including Aerossurance, KPMG, Frazer-Nash and the Air Corps, must all be brought before the relevant Oireachtas committee to allow for a transparent assessment.

To conclude in the words of Shakespeare, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. This is taxpayers' money the Minister is spending and those taxpayers deserve an open and transparent process. It is time for the Oireachtas and its committees to examine all that has led us to this point in the process. The Minister must do the right thing now and not follow a flawed plan into the dark night. It is no secret that I do not have the business case. I have been refused it by the Department, which is an outrage. I am a Member of the Oireachtas and my job is to hold the Government to account. To withhold the business case is unacceptable in any guise and to hide behind commercial sensitivity when the decisions have already been taken is an outrage. I will pass over to my colleague, Senator Keogan.