For many years past, organisations and members of the public have sought to have established in this country a helicopter service for relief and rescue and other types of work. On numerous occasions in the House, Deputies have pleaded with the Government to establish such a service. Deputies from all sides have joined in and forgotten Party politics in the hope that their united efforts would be sufficient to force the Government in power to accede to a most reasonable request.
I do not think it is necessary to give many examples of the excellent work done by helicopters in other countries in rescue and relief and fishery protection. I have asked a number of questions here over the past two or three years, in the hope that by constantly urging the Ministers concerned, at some stage there would be a decision to purchase helicopters. To-day I repeated the question I have already asked on a number of occasions and, whatever about replies received in the past, to-day's reply will undobtedly shock and disappoint those who had hoped that by now we could afford a helicopter service, for use particularly along the west coast. The reply given by the Par. Sec. to-day was that the provision of helicopters is kept under review by his Department and other Departments concerned, but he could give no indication of an early decision to provide helicopters. That is the kernel of his reply.
The most important and significant thing about the reply, I think, is that he has sought, in the course of it, to suggest that it would take at least six helicopters to ensure that as far as possible a helicopter would be available within a reasonable time on the occasion of any disaster in the vicinity of our coastline. He has sought to suggest two points by that statement: one, that the sole use of the helicopter would be for rescue work along the coast; and two, that it would take—in order to achieve any success in that field—at least six helicopters. I say that the Par. Sec. and his advisers are deliberately trying to mislead the general public on this very important issue.
The facts are that a committee examined the question of using helicopters generally, and I use the word "generally" to include their use for rescue work on the coastline and as an ambulance service to help to bring urgent cases from the islands off the coast to hospital, to help, for instance, to bring maternity cases from outlying islands to hospital on the mainland rather than have expectant mothers undergoing that horrifying and, at times, terrifying journey by lifeboat as they have had to do for years back. That is a use to which helicopters could be put but in regard to which the Minister made no reply. He did not even acknowledge it in his reply to my question, but he sought to suggest that the sole purpose of helicopters, so far as the question was concerned, was to save peoples' lives in the case of disaster at sea.
I think the Par. Sec. showed contempt for the members of the House by giving such a reply. I made it quite clear in the wording of the question that the usefulness of helicopters could extend to fisheries, that a helicopter or two, or three, could be of inestimable value to our fishery protection craft in spotting foreign fleets and foreign vessels when, or if, they were likely to break the three mile limit. It is admitted that helicopters would be of tremendous advantage for such a purpose. It is admitted that they are a most useful means of carrying out hydrographic surveys and ordnance surveys and both are an essential type of work that could be undertaken here and should have been undertaken before this.
These are only some of the uses to which helicopters can be put and when those points were included in the question to-day, the Par. Sec. deliberately ignored them and concentrated on suggesting that I wanted a helicopter service established just for rescue work along the coast. Let us deal with that alone, if the Par. Sec. wants that. Other Deputies raised the question of a helicopter service for that specific purpose and early in 1957, strong pressure was brought to bear in this House to have a helicopter service established on the west coast. Some Deputies wanted it in Donegal to serve the entire west coast from Donegal to Kerry down to Cork. The Government refused to establish the helicopter service.
We all remember that in October of that year, 1957, the country was stunned to hear of the tragedy off the west coast, the terrible tragedy in Clew Bay where five people lost their lives. These people left Clare Island on Tuesday in a currach and set out for the Mayo mainland which they never reached. A search was undertaken for those people by the Kilronan lifeboat on Wednesday. On Thursday, two days after they left the island, Baldonnel sent down a plane to search along the coastline. That plane was not there 40 minutes searching along the coastline. It could not do anything because conditions were too bad for them to stay longer. It is the considered opinion of people who know the situation along the west coast that at least two of the unfortunate people who were lost would have been saved if a helicopter service had been based on the west coast. That is the general impression of people who know.
If it is suggested at this stage that we must depend for rescue work of that nature on the helicopter service based in Eglinton station in Derry, I believe it is wrong to take that view. We must thank the British authorities for their co-operation and assistance every time it has been sought for rescue and relief work on the west coast. Every time a call was made on the British helicopter station in Eglinton, they responded generously with help in rescue and relief work right down along the coast. It is beyond denial that by their early intervention and help they have saved numerous lives during the past five or six years.
It would appear, therefore, that, up to the moment, we have been depending on a helicopter service based on Derry to help us in rescue and relief work right down the coast as far as Cork. That is deplorable, especially in a country like this which claims to have sovereignty and claims to be one of the leading influences in the world, so far as independence is concerned.
That is one instance where it is quite possible lives could have been saved. Some of the Minister's experts may now say that that could not happen. That is only their view as against the views of people who are on the spot and living along the coast line. I challenge contradiction of that.
Let us take the question of the relief work. I quote now from a cutting from the Irish Press headed: “Lighthouse Keepers Stormbound off Mayo.”:—
"A bid to relieve the Eagle Rock Lighthouse, 14 miles off the Mayo Coast, failed yesterday when mountainous seas prevented the relief boat, St. Mary, in Scotchtown harbour from going to the aid of the three keepers who are overdue relief... Rough seas during the last three weeks have made relief impossible.”
I have another cutting from the Irish Press of 11th December, 1926, and I quote:—
"Tory Island (population 300) still had no mail yesterday. Because of heavy seas it is more than three weeks since the mail boat—which usually makes three sailings a week —has been able to reach the island."
There were 300 people on that island for three weeks in such conditions.
I could go on instancing such cases all round the coast, so far as rescue and relief work are concerned, and yet the Government say the cost is too high. The cost is the key to the whole question—the cost is too much. When the question of cost arises, we should examine our consciences because this country has always been anxious for what is known as prestige. For the purpose of prestige, we are prepared to spend, and have spent, over £1 million for three jet aircraft and the servicing of them. We were told that one of the reasons for the purchase of these jets was to ensure that Irish pilots would be trained in the flying of these planes and that the pilots might, at a later stage, be employed in civil aviation, perhaps in Aer Lingus.
I think we could buy three suitable helicopters for less than £100,000 and those three helicopters would be of inestimable value for the purposes I have mentioned. Remember, the helicopter is the first aircraft that has ever saved more lives than it has taken, and we should be privileged to have these helicopters rather than the jet planes in Baldonnel whose aim is the taking of life.
I should like the Par. Sec. to clarify the following matter which needs clarification. In answer to my question, he said that it would take six helicopters to do the work to which he referred in the earlier part of the answer. In reply to a supplementary question, he said that was the recommendation of a committee which had examined the matter. That committee, I presume, was composed of experts from the various Departments concerned. I should like him to explain how it is that when the Minister for Defence was asked about this very problem on 27th March, 1958, he stated in the House:—
The range of these craft is extremely limited and one helicopter would be absolutely no use. It would be purely a matter of coincidence if it happened to be in the right spot at the right time.
—This is the important part—
It is estimated that the very minimum that would be of any practical use would be three.
