Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT debate -
Wednesday, 2 Jul 2008

Marine Rescue Centres: Discussion.

I welcome the delegation. I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The next item on the agenda is a discussion on the Valentia and Malin marine rescue centres. I welcome Mr. Chris Reynolds of the Irish Coast Guard and Mr. John Fearon of the maritime safety directorate. I invite Mr. Fearon to make a short presentation.

Mr. John Fearon

I thank members for the invitation to attend this meeting to discuss proposals for Malin and Valentia Island marine rescue centres. The maritime safety sector has been developing in recent years and the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, has been acutely conscious of the need to enhance the sector and has paid it particular attention. Progress is being made in terms of legislative reform, service provision and capacity development. A sustained programme of development in the coming years is needed to ensure Ireland can provide a world-class maritime safety service. This will require investment. It is, therefore, essential that best use be made of every resource made available to us.

In that context, a priority is the provision of radio services. The main radio switch and control equipment of the Irish Coast Guard are located at three manned sites, namely, Dublin, Malin and Valentia. They operate and control 21 remote radio sites around the coast and on the Shannon and co-ordinate the on-scene rescue response provided by others.

Dublin's centre, the Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre, MRCC, is responsible for co-ordinating responses to major marine emergency incidents anywhere in the Irish search and rescue region or the Irish pollution responsibility zone. The centres at Valentia and Malin are marine rescue sub-centres with delegated authority from the MRCC to co-ordinate a response to marine emergencies in their areas of responsibility.

Key elements of our VHP radio communications are old and not readily serviceable and they are running at full capacity. There is no doubt but that further investment is required, as has been recognised for some years. A Deloitte & Touche report on the Irish Coast Guard in 2002 recommended that two centres, rather than the current three, be capable of supporting the entire national network. The consultants identified one centre, with a back-up centre nearby, which could be quickly activated if the main centre were out of commission and which would also double as a training facility, as the most economical and efficient option. However, the need for strengthened resilience in the event of a severe localised incident, which could make the one centre and its close-by reserve centre inoperable, has led to the focus on a two-centre operation. The consultants did not identify where the two centres should be located.

Several options have been considered. Initially it was felt that the MRCC in Dublin should close, leaving the centres at Malin and Valentia as the two manned marine emergency response centres. It was later confirmed that there should be two centres, one of which should be on the east coast and the other of which should be on the west coast, at either Malin or Valentia. That was the position when I took responsibility for the area. The Minister confirmed that we should go to tender for two sets of equipment. I also put forward the case for considering an alternative to the sites at Malin or Valentia as the best possible site for a west coast centre. I obtained approval to explore that option.

That position was reinforced when, on foot of the budget day announcement of 5 December 2007, the Minister for Finance asked each Department to undertake an efficiency review of expenditure. The review was to consider specifically the need for better sharing of services and efficiencies in management, travel and consumables in general.

Neither marine rescue sub-centre in its current state can properly accommodate the requirements of a modern, integrated national search and rescue function and prepare for the future without considerable building modifications. New equipment and buildings are needed. It is, therefore, timely to consider what location could most efficiently provide a better service in the longer term. A change in location would not impact negatively on the direct rescue services provided by Irish Coast Guard helicopters, local Irish Coast Guard volunteers, local RNLI volunteers, the Naval Service and other groups and agencies.

From a national maritime safety perspective, the ideal west coast site would provide the following: the best infrastructure; the least potential for disruption; the most efficient use of staff resources; the best access for additional personnel in a major emergency; the quickest access to and from the east coast site; the greatest potential for shared and integrated services; and the greatest potential for future development. These criteria must be considered in the context of providing a national emergency service. They do not reflect on the suitability of locations for other development. The aspiration is that the location would provide the best possible service to those at risk at sea well into the future.

However, any move from either of the present sites would have an adverse impact on the local community and would have to take account of the safety needs of local communities, ongoing improvement of the service to the public and the concerns of individual staff members.

That said, recent developments have increased the pressure to finalise an east coast site. These include rationalisation of office space as part of the overall decentralisation programme, which has resulted in the sale of the nurses' home building in Leeson Lane. Continued use of this existing location is not possible even in the short term. The MRCC must transfer out by mid-2009. The focus is on ensuring this transfer is accomplished without loss of service and that a centre, collocated with the overall maritime safety function including Irish Coast Guard headquarters and capable of meeting the full national need, is maintained. The pressure and urgency to finalise this east coast site means any change in the west will not be possible in the short term.

In light of what I have said, the Minister for Transport has prioritised the relocation of the east coast MRCC. The Department will now immediately progress the tender for two integrated communications systems. One will be housed in the new headquarters of the Coast Guard and the other in a temporary location. The Malin and Valentia desks will be remotely connected to the ICS and the existing staff retained at both sites.

I point out to the committee and visitors in the Visitors Gallery that I must leave early for Report Stage of the Dublin Transport Authority Bill in the Dáil, as I am Fine Gael spokesperson on transport.

Mr. Fearon's report on the matter was posted on the Department's website, a good example of transparency. Members from counties Kerry and Donegal will explain local opinions on the matter. Fine Gael believes both locations must be maintained. Closing both sites, as Mr. Fearon pointed out, will have an adverse impact on the safety needs of local communities. There is a historic connection between the stations and the communities.

I am delighted Mick O'Connell is in the Visitors Gallery. When I was a young fellow he was one of our footballing heroes.

I think he would still field the high one.

He could well be playing for Louth. We could do with him.

In the report, there was an option regarding the east coast MRCC to transfer 190 jobs to Drogheda. What is the status of that option?

Mr. John Fearon

I thank the Deputy for his comments about the publication of the report on the website. The documentation was made available from the start since it was a consultative process.

A Government decision has been made on the transfer of 37 posts to Drogheda. That was the original number of posts that was envisaged and it remains the case. The composition of that 37 is made up of a combination of some maritime personnel but also railway and aviation personnel.

My proposal was that wherever the MRCC is located, the headquarters staff should be with it. To my mind, it was not the best solution to move the operational staff to one location and all the headquarter staff elsewhere. I argued that wherever the MRCC is placed, the headquarter staff should be retained with it. If some of the headquarter staff were to be moved to Drogheda, I argued all should be transferred or kept in Dublin. The Government decided on the 37 personnel, as I outlined, going to Drogheda. The MRCC and the headquarter staff will remain in Dublin. Tomorrow, we begin searching for the Dublin location.

Is it correct the Government decided not to decentralise 190 jobs to Drogheda?

Mr. John Fearon

I would not put it quite in those terms. The proposal went to the Government on how to meet the objective of 37 transfers, pointing out what had been proposed in the meantime. There were substantial additional costs involved in what I proposed. In the light of an efficiency review, it made more sense to change that position.

It is a disgraceful decision not to decentralise those jobs. I know it is not a decision by Mr. Fearon but a political one. It is unacceptable to the people of County Louth.

I am under the same constraint as my Fine Gael colleague because of Report Stage of the Dublin Transport Authority Bill. I welcome the departmental officials and those in the Visitors' Gallery who came from counties Donegal and Kerry.

This saga has been going on for the past seven years. It has been unsettling for the service. Since the Deloitte & Touche report, the Labour Party's position is that all three stations are needed. At one stage, the Department played off the Dublin station against Valentia and Malin and then it was Malin against the others and so on. I want the Department to say it will keep the three stations.

The Dublin east coast station is necessary, particularly with up to 80,000 people travelling on the Irish sea every year. It is also critical to have a station in the south west, based in Valentia, to serve Dingle and Castletownbere. Likewise, Killybegs is a busy port with ships working for the Corrib exploration and fisheries. It is a "no-brainer" that the three stations should be kept and upgraded.

Members have received much information from the distinguished Donegal citizen Seamus Bovaird on the status of modern radio communications. Why is it necessary to raise questions about the radio communications infrastructure when it and the ESB backup are sufficient to maintain both the north-west and south-west stations?

The Deloitte & Touche report is seven years old. Is it not time for an independent examination of this area rather than making policy on the hoof?

I accept the points my colleague makes about Louth as well, but given that we are trying to decentralise, it seems there is a major saving issue to be addressed. We have relied consistently on the British. For example, I have been asking for five or six years for emergency towing vessels. We have not provided them and are relying on the English and the Scots for their four vessels. Is it not time we did our own key business? Does this mean that the vast sea area we have is ours to protect and invigilate and do we not need those two stations and the whole radio complement upgraded?

Mr. John Fearon

As regards the three stations, the issue in general is about investment. I accept the point that there is need for very sustained investment in maritime safety over several years. That is without question. The uncertainty about where the stations will be put has been unsettling for the staff in the Irish Coast Guard. I became acutely aware of this on visiting the different areas, or in speaking to the staff in Dublin. The push was on, therefore, to try and get clarity and decide what we were to do with the stations, and I believe we have got there. It would be unfortunate if the investment needed or the progress we believe is now possible was postponed again while another examination was undertaken. Other studies have been done since Deloitte & Touche into other aspects of the Coast Guard and all point to development that can take place there and in other areas of maritime safety.

The issue of an ETV has been considered as well and we have gone to tender to get consultants to advise, so we expect a report on that by the end of the year. On the telecommunications and electricity background, some locations are better than others. I was seeking to establish the best possible locations while accepting that there are ways and means of getting over shortcomings. Given the level of investment needed, however, and the development required in maritime safety generally, there will be enormous pressure on us as regards resources. Despite what people might believe, it is not easy to get additional resources within the public sector, and a very strong case has to be made for them. I have to be able to show that I am using the resources I have as efficiently and effectively as possible. All the advice we have is to the effect that we could efficiently and effectively provide the range of cover we need for the entire country from two stations. It is therefore very difficult to argue that we should have a third. That is the perspective on it.

Everybody wants to speak and there is great interest in this. I have every intention of giving everybody adequate time, but I ask speakers to be fairly brief so that everyone has an equal opportunity. We shall do things somewhat differently. I shall call on people in name sequence. Normally, members of the committee have first option, but on this occasion, if it is all right, I shall first of all call on Senator Mark Daly.

In his report Mr. Fearon said that critical to the operation of any control centre is the provision of a stable and consistent supply of electrical power. Despite improvements by the ESB, both Malin and Valentia, because of their remote location, suffered from a greater number of black-outs and supply voltage drops - brown-outs - than normally experienced in urban areas. Is that correct?

Mr. John Fearon

Yes, that is correct.

I refer to an ESB letter, dated 22 February, and a subsequent UPS report on 6 March which says: "During the time in which we had a voltage recorder installed in your premises, your voltage was within standards." Does Mr. Fearon accept that the ESB in Valentia is up to standard? That is "Yes" or "No".

Mr. John Fearon

With respect to the Senator, it is not quite that straightforward.

It is either up to standard, or it is not.

Mr. John Fearon

Our consistent finding in relation to--

No, the ESB has given Mr. Fearon a report. The board is the supplier of electricity and he asked it to put a UPS report in the station. It said it is up to standard. Does Mr. Fearon accept the ESB's statement that Valentia is up to standard?

Mr. John Fearon

The ESB statement found that in a week in which it had a device in place, no difficulty was encountered. Having--

Am I correct in saying that----

Senator Daly should allow Mr. Fearon to answer the question and I shall let him back in.

Mr. John Fearon

--similar, if not identical equipment in place over a sustained period of time, we have consistently found that there have been outages at our UPS systems. They are consistently higher at both Malin and Valentia than in Dublin. These are identical UPS pieces of equipment in each location and that is simply the fact as regards what we find.

May I please clarify something?

The Senator may.

Mr. Fearon asked the ESB to give a report as regards the UPS and it said that it was up to standard. Before he had put this to paper and said the electricity supply was not up to standard, did he get the ESB to monitor the system?

Mr. John Fearon

We did our own monitoring.

Mr Fearon did not get the ESB to do it.

Mr. John Fearon

We did not. We monitored the system. In a week in which the ESB monitored the system it did not find anything, but there are weeks in which we do not have difficulties either. The ESB did not have a difficulty that week, but we have had difficulties. Even since the report was written that position continues.

Can Mr Fearon supply within two days the UPS reports he had to hand when he wrote this report?

Mr. John Fearon

I can, yes.

Will he please give that to the Chairman? To continue, Mr. Fearon said that these were significantly less than quoted. The ESB has literally said that what he put in the report was not correct - and it is the supplier to his station.

Mr. John Fearon

It is.

Mr. Fearon does not accept the ESB's findings.

Mr. John Fearon

I have findings which are different.

From the ESB.

Mr. John Fearon

To be fair, the ESB is commenting from the perspective of having a piece of equipment in place for a week. We have had similar equipment in place since the UPS units were put in, and we have consistently found difficulties. We have to address that.

The ESB is not referring to upages and downages, but saying they are within standards and actually compare favourably to Dublin.

Mr. John Fearon

Unfortunately, the facts do not bear that out. Reference was made in the Seanad as well, I know, to an ESB letter, in which it was stated that if storm damage was discounted, the supplies were up to standard. Unfortunately for us, discounting storm damage is not an option. I know it is extreme, but the position I am looking at is not the type of situation one meets in an ordinary business environment. I am looking for equipment that will perform in the most adverse weather conditions around the country.

I accept that, but the Coast Guard equipment is not similar to the ESB's in terms of recording brownages and jumps in the system. One can only rely on the standard of the national supplier which is the only one available. Would it not be correct to say that there have been outages in Dublin as well?

Mr. John Fearon

Absolutely, but not at the same level. That is the only point I am making.

In Mr. Fearon's report as regards parallel staffing, he says the establishment of new centres would give rise to disruption and overlapping staffing needs in a transition period. The Secretary General of the Department, Mr. Maurice Mullen, said on 27 November 2007 that there would be no parallel staffing for new centres. Is that not a contradiction? How can it be said today that will be a staff overlap, when he said that there would be no such overlap? How can we have both?

Mr. John Fearon

Clearly one cannot.

Fine. That is all right.

Mr. Fearon has to be allowed answer fully.

Mr. John Fearon

In our situation parameters are changing all the time. I pointed this out in a paper looking for orientation decisions. In other words, I was trying to get an indication from the Minister on what way to proceed. I pointed out the difficulties associated with the different options I proposed. Given that decentralisation moves must be voluntary, I could not see that moving something involving sensitive processes, such as the emergency marine radio centres, could be done without an overlap in staff.

Therefore, what is being proposed is something that is not actually possible.

Mr. John Fearon

No. We outline the difficulties and we manage our way around it. I indicated in the note at the time that what I proposed required negotiation and development.

Was Mr. Fearon aware that Mr. Mullen had said that?

Mr. John Fearon

He had not said it at the stage that I did. I wrote the report and things subsequently became clear. The economic position is changing, as is the amount of funding available. It is becoming increasingly clear that the hope we had for additional staff to get us over that period is more remote at this stage. It is probably impossible. We spent the past 18 months negotiating with people, and Mr. Mullen played an important part in negotiating with the Department of Finance to get additional staffing for maritime safety services. We have achieved that in the past 18 months, which has been a big help. In managing a transition from our existing location in Dublin to somewhere else, or if it was to happen in the other stations, the option of having additional staff to do just that is pretty remote.

How can it actually work? If we are not allowed overlapping staff, and there cannot be parallel recruiting, are we not in a logjam?

Mr. John Fearon

My job is to find a way around these difficulties. If that was the position presented to me, I would have to find some kind of solution.

Will lives be put at risk if there are gaps in the staffing system?

Mr. John Fearon

No. I have tried to make it clear that the motivation behind what I am suggesting is to provide a better maritime safety service. The one principle before us is to figure out what provides the best maritime safety service for this country for the long term. We would not take action which would put lives at risk.

I have a big problem with the fact that this issue is being dealt with by the Department of Transport. I think the marine section of that Department should be a standing Department of its own. The report stated that new staff required employment for their partners. Did Mr. Fearon inquire about the CVs of the spouses of these staff? What has that got to do with the provision of a better maritime safety service? Of the staff in Valentia, all but two of the spouses are in gainful employment.

Another issue raised was that of educational facilities. I assure Mr. Fearon that the secondary school in Cahirciveen is probably one of the best in the country, where 80% of the graduates go on to third level. There is also an institute of technology in Tralee. There are families members of staff in Valentia that are studying marine science. Does Mr. Fearon not concede that the educational requirements and employment status of spouses would be well catered for?

Mr. John Fearon

The point I was making was that there is a range of issues that must be considered in looking at the best possible location. There is no one issue that makes the case stand or fall. We have traditionally drawn our staff from a fairly narrowly defined cohort that has been exclusively male. That has been the position for a long time. All the staff are still male, but the world in which we are operating is changing and there are other issues which arise when people consider taking up a position in a particular location. It was one of the factors which I felt should be taken into account in looking into a possible third site. The arguments made by the Deputy about the facilities available locally have been fairly strongly put by representatives from Donegal and Kerry.

I do not know if Mr. Fearon realises the respect the wider community has for the people who operate the station in Valentia. To take them out of a rural, coastal community is not a runner for me.

Mr. John Fearon

No. My appreciation of the level or the quality of the work done by individuals is not under question. I have never raised any doubt about the quality of the work that individuals do today. I am looking at the kind of service that will best serve Ireland's needs 20 years from now. That has nothing to do with most of the individuals who are working in the area today. One thing that strikes me constantly is the commitment of our staff, in particular the way the maritime safety needs of this country are met by volunteers who give up their time effectively without payment. I am under no illusion as to how important that is and how vital it is in providing a national safety service.

I welcome Mr. Fearon here today. He stated that any move from either of the current sites would have an adverse impact on the local community. Two good friends of mine were recently lost in a fishing accident off Inishowen. Their bodies were found quickly, which was of great consolation to the families. They will not accept an explanation that moving the station from Malin will be more efficient. It does not matter whether this is reality or merely their perception. It comes back to Mr. Fearon's statement that any move from the current site will have an adverse impact on the local community.

I have a difficulty with some of the other phrases used. The Minister made it clear that neither Malin nor Valentia should be closed or disposed of as Irish Coast Guard locations. However, there was a lack of clarity as to whether the intention was to maintain the stations as unmanned radio facilities. In 2003, it was proposed that the marine rescue co-ordination centre, MRCC, in Dublin would close, leaving Malin and Valentia as the two manned marine emergency response centres. That was indicated in Mr. Fearon's report. However, subsequent decisions on decentralisation meant that maritime staff were to be transferred to Drogheda. However, we have since been told that the move to Drogheda will not take place.

My concern relates to the wording of the report. I refer in particular to the extract alluded to by Deputy Sheahan:

Moreover, new staff require access to schools, shopping and leisure facilities and employment for partners. At present about half of the staff do not live in either home MRSC county. Indeed, for historic reasons, staff at Malin are paid travel allowance to attend work there. This is likely to be exacerbated in the future, as new entrants are unlikely to live locally due to the remoteness of the existing stations. Therefore they are most likely to be unavailable to cover for emergencies or illness on short notice.

The first sentence, suggesting that we have neither schools, shops, leisure facilities nor employment opportunities, represents an appalling indictment of the area in which I live. Were the 13 people employed at Malin asked about their spouses' employment? At the time the report was published, nine were working full time, two were working part time, one was retired, one was a full-time carer and one was a full-time housewife. None described himself or herself as unemployed.

Malin is located within a short distance of the Letterkenny Institute of Technology, the University of Ulster campuses at Magee and Coleraine and Limavady College. With the ferry across the River Foyle, we are within an hour and a half of Queen's University and the University of Ulster at Jordanstown. It takes longer to travel from north Dublin to the shopping centre in Dundrum than from Inishowen to Belfast. The wording in the report is not only inaccurate but offensive to the communities at which it is levelled.

The report states that "about half of the staff do not live in either home MRSC county". In the case of Malin, my information is that the closest staff member is 0.25 miles from the station, while the furthest is 56 miles away and with a travelling time of 75 minutes. Seven staff members live within ten miles of the station and six within 30 miles. The average distance from the station is 19.2 miles, with an average travel time of 27 minutes. These averages are raised by the inclusion of the person living 56 miles from the station.

I do not accept the notion that Malin is so remote that nobody would wish to apply to work there. How many applied for the last vacancy there? My understanding is that there were a substantial number of applicants. It is also my understanding that the decommissioning of the whitefish fleet will mean people from Greencastle will be seeking new jobs. Heretofore, they would not have been considered qualified to work in the service, but I understand there have been changes in this regard recently. I am confident the Coast Guard will struggle to deal with the number of applications for jobs in this location.

I reiterate that Malin offers educational and employment opportunities and that there are people seeking these jobs. I have spent many hours speaking to Mr. Fearon about this issue and I would appreciate his response.

Mr. John Fearon

I will try to deal with the range of issues raised. In regard to the impact on the local community, I fully accept that perception plays a strong role in this. In terms of trying to deal with families who have had a difficult experience, logical arguments will not be much help. The reality is that we would be able to provide this service from other locations if that were necessary. We rely heavily on the voluntary work of local people. I am very much aware that one could not find better than the Greencastle unit. That local knowledge and participation is critical to the work we do.

The co-ordination service can be provided more remotely while still delivering the same, if not a better, quality of service. Senator Keaveney indicated - it has been pointed out to me on several occasions since I wrote the original paper - that local communities found some of the language offensive. I can only apologise for this; it certainly was not my intention. When I spoke about an adverse impact on local communities, what I had in mind was employment and taking people away from those sites. As the Senator indicated, I referred to keeping Malin and Valentia open as radio sites. I hope I made clear the intention that, even if they were open, they would not have the same level of staffing they have today but that we would try to find some other work that would keep some numbers at both locations. The reason I raised this as an issue - it has featured in the debate that has taken place since last October - is the concern that if the number of radio masts throughout the State is reduced, there could be an adverse impact on radio coverage. There was no question of reducing that level of cover. That is why this comment was included.

I hope I was clear, in setting out the position for the Minister in this report, in regard to the history of the case and the alternatives that were considered before I arrived on the scene. The position I was presented with was that a decision had been made that there was to be one site on the east coast and one on the west coast at either Malin or Valentia. That is difficult to deliver. The background to the paper was the need to explore the possibilities in terms of where this second location might be. In looking at the various issues and considering the amount of investment I deemed to be necessary, it seemed that the possibility of a third location other than Malin nor Valentia at least warranted consideration.

The Senator referred to the distances from the station at which Malin staff live. It was pointed out to me robustly almost as soon as the report was published that referring to the counties was unfair. I accept that and have undertaken revised work that has produced results that correspond to the data provided by the Senator. The difficulty remains, however, that the number of staff living 50 km or more from either Malin or Valentia is higher than the corresponding figure for Dublin. As I said in response to Senator Daly, none of these issues on its own makes or destroys the case. However, the distance issue is a significant consideration.

On a point of order, he is raising an issue there--

I will give the Senator an opportunity to revert to this issue but all his colleagues are entitled to contribute.

There is an inaccuracy.

I will give the Senator adequate time at the conclusion.

Mr. John Fearon

There is that position in respect of distance and it is true to say that any people who have joined recently have tended to be further removed from the stations than those who have been there for some time.

I must move on.

Everyone else has tried to respond to what has been said. My questions were not answered. I asked about the distances and have now been told that a distance of more than 50 km is unacceptable. My statistics show that only one staff member is more than 50 km distance because, if I am correct, 30 miles equates to 50 km.

Mr. John Fearon

Yes.

This is inaccurate. In the report given to the Minister, it is stated that more than half the staff live outside counties Kerry and Donegal. Senator Keaveney has pointed out and Senator Coghlan will point out that far more than 50% of the staff live within those counties. Why did Mr. Fearon include this point in the report? Was research carried out? Who provided him with the information he included in the report stating that more than half the staff live outside those counties?

Is that correct? Where do a majority of the staff live?

Of the 14 staff in my area, I understand that only two live outside the county.

Moreover, this is a red herring because someone who lives in Derry is far closer to Malin than those who live in west County Donegal.

This pertains to the accuracy of the report given to the Minister. It was stated in black and white by Mr. Fearon in this report that in respect of staff, more than half live outside. It stated that "at present, about half the staff do not live in either home MRSC county".

Mr. Fearon should clarify this matter for members.

Mr. John Fearon

At the time, the reference was to approximately half of the staff living outside the county.

More than half.

Mr. John Fearon

It stated "about half of staff".

The report stated that "at present, about half the staff do not live in either ... county".

Mr. John Fearon

Okay.

In Malin, more than half the staff do not live in the county. That is contrary to what was written.

Mr. John Fearon

Indeed.

Who gave Mr. Fearon the information that--

Mr. John Fearon

I took that information from our records at the time. There have been changes since.

No, the figures members are providing are from that day.

Mr. John Fearon

My figures are different.

Perhaps Mr. Fearon was misinformed.

Mr. John Fearon

While that is possible, the point was made to me subsequently that looking at the issue on a county perspective, for the reasons suggested by Senator Keaveney, was unreasonable. For the reasons outlined, I recognised this and therefore conducted the exercise again by considering distances from the centre. Even at that, my figures still differ from those in Senator Keaveney's possession.

Have those figures been made available to members? I would like to see the figures.

I seek clarification. At the time Mr. Fearon wrote the report, was what he put down true?

Mr. John Fearon

I believe it to be true.

Does Mr. Fearon have the paperwork supplied to him that allowed him to include such figures on a paper that was given to a Minister? From where did he get this information?

Mr. John Fearon

I got it from personnel records.

Would he be able to supply, within two days, the personnel records presented to him on which basis he included such information? The first question thrown at me was the reason I cared about the issue because most of the people involved did not even live in County Kerry. This question arises from the aforementioned sentence. However, it was not true for either County Donegal or County Kerry. Mr. Fearon supplied that figure to a Minister. Will he supply, within two days, the personnel records on which he based that statement?

Mr. John Fearon

I will get records and will supply them to the joint committee.

My question remains unanswered because the phrase I am worried about is "new staff require access to schools, shopping and leisure facilities and employment for partners". Does this still apply? Are these sites still places that lack schools, shopping, leisure centres or employment for partners?

Mr. John Fearon

While the sentence still applies, I accept the point the Senator is making regarding the existence of facilities in those locations. However, that changing position still is a factor with which we must deal. The factors that attract staff to work in a particular location are changing. The point she made about the change in the fishing industry in County Donegal is relevant and eases the problem for us considerably.

However, Mr. Fearon has not withdrawn the suggestion that we lack schools, shopping, leisure facilities and employment.

Mr. John Fearon

No, I do. In fairness, that is not what I--

The other question I asked--

We must move on. The Senator had more time than the preceding two members.

I merely asked how many applied for the last job.

Very well. How many applied for the last job?

Mr. John Fearon

I do not have that figure to hand.

Mr. Fearon should guess.

Mr. John Fearon

There were many applicants for the last job. My understanding is the successful candidates have lived at some considerable distance from the centres.

However they chose to apply for the job like anyone else applying for any other job. As a final comment, I note that stating no decision is imminent now is not a decision. Mr. Fearon stated he was seeking certainty. The people of Malin and its surrounds are looking for certainty. While they have been promised an upgrade to their facility, they will remain in a never-never land for the foreseeable future. While I welcome that today's presentation suggested it will not be closed in the foreseeable future, there still is no certainty for those people. Will the outstanding work that was promised in 2002-03 be carried out in Malin?

Mr. John Fearon

I am not in a position to answer that question. The Minister has instructed us to concentrate on getting a marine rescue co-ordination centre, MRCC, established in Dublin, to purchase two sets of equipment and to link both Malin and Valentia to those sets of equipment. That is what we will now do.

I now call on Senator Paul Coghlan, to be followed by Deputy Blaney. Thereafter, I will give everyone else a chance to come in immediately.

In common with my colleagues, I welcome Mr. Fearon and Mr. Reynolds before the joint committee and I welcome the opportunity for this dialogue. Perhaps the Minister should have attended.

The joint committee may decide whether the Minister should attend. I believe he should.

That would be a matter for consideration by the joint committee. I intended to raise a matter that already has been touched on. I believe that information in the report is fallacious, particularly in regard to Valentia, because it stated that most of the staff of 14 lived outside the county, whereas I believe this only applied to two staff members.

Mr. Fearon is aware that between 1998 and 2002, following the closure of four stations in the United Kingdom, the number of accidents and deaths in that jurisdiction increased by 17.3% and 28%, respectively. He probably is also aware that the relevant House of Commons select committee opposed closure of the aforementioned centres in the United Kingdom in 1998 and reiterated that opinion in 2004. I ask Mr. Fearon whether a risk assessment was carried out regarding the likely impact of the closure of Valentia or Malin in the light of the aforementioned British statistics.

Mr. Fearon's statement today referred to an efficiency review of expenditure. In this straitened times, we would be best served by the retention of these historic centres, which have served both the service and the State so well over such a period. I believe there is room in both for the necessary new equipment to be installed and I do not understand, in the national interest, the reason there should be an obligation to opt for new locations at all. While this is the reason I would like to question the Minister on this issue, I accept that is a matter for this joint committee to consider. I believe such an outcome would provide the best coverage strategically for the country. However, Mr. Fearon should comment on the British statistics and the impact, were anything to happen to Valentia or Malin. Moreover, he might tell members whether he believes the information for which I do not blame him as I do not know how it crept into the system. While he may wish to comment further in this regard, I believe it to be fallacious.

I welcome Mr. Fearon and Mr. Reynolds to the meeting with the committee. It is the one thing that has united Kerry and Donegal. It does not happen too often but it has happened today. We, as members, believe this issue is attacking our society and the extremes of this country. Even the priest in Aranmore, which is one of the islands off Donegal which the delegation would probably class as being a long way from Malin Head, is so concerned that he came here today to ascertain the situation. There is no reason for this unless there is so much concern.

Like Senator Keaveney, I took issue with Mr. Fearon's remarks in respect of the ability of people to obtain employment in Donegal because he is not qualified to make such remarks. I wish to see two points clarified. On 11 November 2003, the then Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, stated in the Dáil that the service provided by the Dublin centre would be transferred to Valentia and Malin Head. As Assistant Secretary in the Department, why did Mr. Fearon did not act on that report?

In his report, Mr. Fearon stated:

However in 2006 it was confirmed by Minister of State Pat the Cope Gallagher that there should be two centres but with one on the East coast and one on the West coast at either Malin or Valentia. That still leaves decisions needed as to location on each coast. Dublin/Drogheda on the East; Malin/Valentia or some other location on the West coast.

The then Minister of State, Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher, stated before the Oireachtas Select Committee on Transport on 14 June 2006:

As part of the review, the Irish Coast Guard management will finalise its assessment of the needs of the rescue co-ordination centres and plan for development. The 24-hour, seven days per week services at Malin Head and Valentia will remain.

Can Mr. Fearon enlighten us as to why his report misquoted the Minister of State in this regard?

Mr. John Fearon

In respect of the two sets of comments that have been made, Senator Coghlan referred to where people live. Clearly, there is some difficulty with those figures. The figures I am using today, where I am using the distance rather than the count, differ from the figures used by the Senators, so we will look at those again. When staff are on call, some live locally and I would not have counted those in these figures. I would have looked at the permanent addresses for the staff because I cannot reconcile my figures with those being quoted at me this afternoon, so there is an issue at which I must look.

Again, I am not sure where the reference to more half of the staff came from. The copy of my report which I have here talks about how half of the staff do not live in either home MRSC county, so I need to clarify exactly what it is but I will check it in the next few days and get back to the committee.

With regard to the closures in the UK, my understanding is that it was in respect of staffing and the numbers of staff that might be available. The need to have adequate coverage and watch coverage at any particular time is something of which we are acutely conscious. It is something that does give us difficulties. We have to use a considerable amount of overtime to provide that coverage but we do it. Having the two centres would make it easier for me and more efficient for us to provide that certainty about staff coverage.

This issue also drives my concern about the availability of staff locally. That is my view and I accept that other people have a different view, which is fine. From the perspective of where I am working in terms of trying to deliver a service with the resources I have, I must put forward what I think is the best position for the country. I fully accept that my comments and advice are one voice and that the Minister will get advice from many other sources and has received much comment on this proposal before he ultimately makes a decision. This is the position as I see it in respect of ensuring adequate coverage. I believe we can provide a better service by having stations in two locations.

The comment about room for new equipment has been repeatedly made. This is perhaps part of the debate that may not have been as well articulated as it might have been. I am looking at the question of why Ireland should not have the best possible coast guard service in Europe in the future and the sort of coast guard service we want to provide nationally in the future. How sophisticated will it be? We have already moved away from a situation where the Irish Coast Guard depended on people who could look out to sea with binoculars, which was critical in times gone by. However, we have moved on from there.

In the months since I wrote the report, we have installed and connected into Europe an automatic identification system which enables us to keep track of all large vessels operating off our coast at quite considerable distance, where one has no chance of seeing them. We get all the information on those ships such as their movements, their port destination and cargo. This all feeds into a system which is co-ordinated at European level through the European Maritime Safety Agency in Lisbon.

The picture in respect of maritime security is changing. There are maritime safety and security requirements and security is driving much of this. The position in respect of large ships will also change in the coming years when the International Maritime Organisation will require all large ships to have long range identification systems. This will enable us to see ships 200 miles out and more. We could see them 1,000 miles out if we had to.

These are all changes that are coming down the road at us. My concern is that trying to fit all of this into buildings that were designed for another purpose will not meet the long-term needs of Ireland 20 years from now. We must see what that might look like. Therefore, my argument in October was that this was what we should aim for and try to do.

On a point of clarification--

It must be a quick one.

Mr. Fearon raised the issue of buildings. He is aware that Valentia is a purpose-built building and that there are three operators in a small room that is no bigger than the distance from the Vice Chairman's chair to the back wall to his desk and that it is the fourth largest operating room in Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales. However, in his report, Mr. Fearon stated that, "locating the centres at either Malin or Valentia would require major construction work". How can Mr. Fearon reconcile these facts?

Mr. John Fearon

I will do so. I introduced the accommodation issue because Senator Coghlan asked about it.

I will return to Deputy Blaney's questions. The situation depends on what one wants to do with the new centres. Given the comparison between our centres and those in Bangor or Dover or those to which Senator Daly referred, we could do better in terms of accommodation. This is my opinion and others are entitled to disagree with it. The Minister will take all opinions into account before he makes a decision. My motivation for giving my advice was an aspiration to have the best facilities possible. I accept that we could manage by shoving more equipment into the rooms--

It is the fourth largest. How much better must it be? Must it be the largest?

Mr. John Fearon

It is the fourth largest operations room. While it works well in meeting our day-to-day requirements, we must be ready for a major emergency. Fortunately, we have not been required to deal with one yet.

We have been. What about the Air India crash? The entire operation was run from Valentia Island and none of the senior staff in Dublin came down.

Deputy Blaney had questions.

Mr. John Fearon

I will not forget them. In light of meeting future needs, we must have a different set-up. More facilities are required if, for example, other people come in. I formed this opinion after examining other Irish operating centres and some in the UK and the US. My colleagues have visited centres elsewhere in Europe. My opinion is open to challenge and debate.

It was never my intention to cause upset in the communities to which I referred. I held an opinion on what drove the attractiveness of particular locations in terms of the job we do. I never implied a difficulty with either county.

On a point of order--

That is exactly what Mr. Fearon stated.

I will not take that point of order.

He stated that there was no education, employment for spouses, facilities or anything else so that people would not go to Malin Head or Valentia Island. He is now trying to state the opposite.

The Senator's point is on the record.

Why are so many people applying for the jobs if the areas are so unattractive?

The point has been placed on the record and will be brought to the Minister's attention, who I hope will address the committee to answer its questions. With all due respect, the buck lies with the Minister, not Mr. Fearon.

Mr. Fearon supports pulling the services.

I know, but the Minister must speak.

I do not have a problem with that, but I want to ask Mr. Fearon while he is in attendance why he would stand over a fact that--

He has answered that question. Four other--

He did not answer it. He kept stating that he did not want to upset people by saying that counties Donegal and Kerry were unsuitable locations.

Four Members have sat through the meeting and deserve an opportunity. I will first call Deputy McHugh.

Mr. Fearon did not answer my question on the discrepancy in the report.

It is an important question.

Mr. John Fearon

They are all important. Regarding local employment, that was the position when I wrote the report. I did not refer to the counties, only to particular locations. I suggested that consideration be given to the question of whether it might be possible to find a better location. I never referred to the counties as a whole.

Given that they are located in the counties, it does not matter to what Mr. Fearon referred. He is splitting non-existent hairs.

One can imagine that those living in the counties would not like the terminology.

Mr. John Fearon

I accept the Vice Chairman's point. If it has caused offence in the wider communities, I apologise because it was not my intention.

I have two points to make in response to Deputy Blaney. Since I have only spent two years in this field, I am not in a position to comment on events in 2003. By the time I arrived in the maritime safety sector, the decision had been taken on Dublin and either Malin Head or Valentia Island. I acted on this decision.

What was the position on both locations?

Mr. John Fearon

A maritime rescue co-ordination centre, MRCC, was to be located in Dublin and a group of approximately 30 maritime safety personnel - I do not have responsibility for the Irish Coast Guard alone - were to be located in Drogheda. This caused me a difficulty.

Why did the position change? In 2003, it was proposed that the MRCC in Dublin be closed.

Mr. John Fearon

Yes. The decision changed between 2003 and September 2006. By the time I arrived, the decision was for Dublin to play home to one MRCC, a group to be located in Drogheda and the other MRCC - there were always to be two - to be in either Valentia Island or Malin Head.

The only consistency is the threat to Malin Head and Valentia Island, which were to be pitted against each other. This is strange.

Please allow Mr. Fearon to continue.

Mr. John Fearon

I am not in a position to comment on the 2006 reference to Malin Head, but I assure the committee that my job upon arriving in the maritime safety sector was to try to implement a decision on locating an MRCC in Dublin, a group of 37 maritime safety personnel - the figure varies - in Drogheda and a second MRCC at Valentia Island or Malin Head. I was left with a series of issues on which I needed clarity, which prompted me to investigate the issue and to write a report.

The situation was obvious upon walking into the stations. Shortly after starting my job, I visited all of the stations and met those staff members who were present. They were all clear on the necessity of new radio equipment. Senator Coghlan referred to something that bothered me in that, years later, a call for tenders had still not been made. I needed decisions on how to move the project to tender. This necessity drove me to consider the matter, put forward recommendations and achieve an understanding of the basis on which a tender could issue. I am pleased to report that the tender has been issued.

When I started on the second point, I provided a quote that I will read again:

However in 2006 it was confirmed by Minister of State Pat the Cope Gallagher that there should be two centres but with one on the East coast and one on the West coast at either Malin or Valentia. That still leaves decisions needed as to location on each coast. Dublin-Drogheda on the East; Malin-Valentia or some other location on the West coast.

When I asked Mr. Fearon whether this statement was correct, he nodded. He has now said that this is not correct and that the decision was taken in Dublin.

Mr. John Fearon

I am sorry Deputy. I am confident about the report. Can the Deputy refer me to the page?

I do not have the page. It is a quotation.

Mr. John Fearon

It is on page 8. What sentence is it about which the Deputy feels I am not being consistent?

Dublin and Drogheda on the east coast.

Mr. John Fearon

Yes. That was because I was bringing forward an argument on what should be done in respect of the splitting of the total staff. The MRCC was to stay in Dublin. The whole Coast Guard is a subset of maritime administration. The MRCC operational staff are a subset of Coast Guard staff. It was suggested to leave MRCC staff in Dublin but move headquarter staff to Drogheda. My thesis was that this was not the best option. Wherever the MRCC was put, the headquarters staff should be with it. If we were to move headquarters staff to Drogheda, everyone should be moved with them.

This is my last point.

I must move on.

Yes, this is my last point. Why was that at odds with what the then Minister of State, Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher, who stated that as part of the review of the Irish Coast Guard management, the 24-hour, seven days a week service at Malin and Valentia would remain, on 14 June 2006?

Mr. John Fearon

All I can say is that when I came into this position in 2006 that the position given to me by the then Minister of State, Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher, was that there would be one centre in Dublin and one in Malin or Valentia. I was trying to get clarity on which of those was to be the site.

In other words, there was a change of policy somewhere along the line.

I spoke to then Minister of State, Deputy Pat The Cope Gallagher, today. Mr. Fearon's report is based on the idea that the then Minister of State said there should be a centre on the east coast and one on the west coast. At a meeting of this committee Deputy Pat The Cope Gallagher said that it should be Malin and Valentia. Could Mr. Fearon give us a copy of the document in which Deputy Pat The Cope Gallagher stated what Mr. Fearon put in the report?

Mr. John Fearon

I can, yes.

I welcome Mr. Fearon and Mr. Reynolds to the joint committee. Since Mr. Fearon's submission was released to the public domain, it has created much debate, opened feelings and stimulated those within the marine safety sector and the marine and coastal industries. The debate has been a learning experience. I have learned more about the co-operation within Ireland and, in my neck of the woods, between the Belfast coast guard station and Clyde, Scotland. What seems obvious to me is that this is a unique, cross-Border, interregional, transnational project of a tangible nature. Everything that is articulated in the Good Friday Agreement has to do with this interregional, transnational relationship. Equally, there are relationships and interlinks in Kerry with Spain and France.

I do not want to spend my time articulating a rebuttal of a document dated 5 October 2007. Many groups have articulated the argument, from the Inishowen Development Partnership to Donegal and Kerry county councils. Given that staff are not allowed to speak on record, retired employees of Malin and Valentia, people from the fishing and marine fraternity and politicians from Northern Ireland have articulated the strong argument for the retention of three centres, Valentia, Malin Head and a centre on the east coast. That argument is not on parochial grounds but on the basis of reason, rationale and common sense.

I welcome that Mr. Fearon, his team or civil servants and the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, have facilitated the debate in the past few months. We now have more clarity on this document, even though the last paragraph is as clear as mud. The content shows me where this debate is coming from. On 5 December, there was an efficiency review of expenditure and a directive was sent by the then Minister, who is now the Taoiseach, to the Department responsible for transport and the marine to carry out a review of expenditure. The document before us examines the parameters of the review and refers to management, travel, consumables and the sharing of services. Did this review consider risk assessment in terms of safety at sea and saving lives?

Having followed the directive, the then Minister put two ICS systems out to tender. We can argue about reasons for or against but this occurred as a result of the directive. Effectively, one will be prioritised on the east coast, as mentioned in this document, and there is no mention of prioritising one on the west coast. Are we in limbo on the west coast?

Where will the second ICS temporary location be? The document does not specify if it will be in Malin or Valentia. If there is to be a fourth location, where is it? The idea of a fourth centre for a temporary location is completely contradictory to what we are trying to achieve. Will this be implemented in the short to medium term?

In fairness to the witnesses, they do not have the answer to this. The Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is the person who should be before the committee with the information. Will this fourth location, where the ICS system will be temporarily located, become the second station? If this is the case, will there be a medium-term or long-term downgrading of Malin and Valentia?

Committees are not to be used as a political forum and I will not use this to make a political point. The Minister should be before the committee explaining this limbo situation in which we find ourselves. He should also be here to make the decision. It seems that no decision has been made. If civil servants are trying to do their job working from a directive, they need leadership. Perhaps Mr. Fearon can clarify this. Will there be a fourth temporary location for the ICS system?

I call on Senator Ó Domhnaill now because I understand he has to leave the meeting soon.

I apologise to other speakers but I must leave soon.

We have all been here all evening.

I know, we will let Deputy Healy-Rae speak soon. I hope Senator Ó Domhnaill will not take long.

Mr. Fearon mentioned centres not being as important in Donegal given the situation with regard to the fishing industry there. However, it is as important now to have a centre in Donegal as it has been at any time because leisure craft use the sea. While the fishing industry has seen a downgrading and the fleet may not be as strong as it was, we have oil and gas exploration off the coast, leisure craft and the offshore islands. There is a strong need for the services at Malin Head to be retained. Fr. Duffy is here from Aranmore Island. There is also Tory, Inishbofin, Gola and a range of other islands off the coast of Donegal. If island life is to continue, the islanders deserve the commitment of having the Malin Head services retained.

I agree with Deputy McHugh's comments on the ICS and the temporary location of one of these systems. It appears the second temporary ICS is being linked to Malin and Valencia. The last line of the report states the Malin and Valentia desks will be remotely connected to the second ICS. What does "remote" mean? It sounds like something out of the back of Angola. How remote? We do not want a remote system. We want a professional system which will work effectively for the communities which we represent.

With regard to retaining the existing staff at Malin and Valencia does this include maintaining the staffing complement and replacing someone who retires? I would like clarity on this matter.

I am amazed by Mr Fearon. Senator Mark Daly asked him about the ESB and he stated he carried out his own investigation. If any company has a problem with the ESB tomorrow to whom will it go? It will not go to a Johnny-come-lately but to the people in charge of the ESB. I take Senator Daly's point that we were satisfied with the report from the ESB that there was no question about the ESB in Valencia or Malin. I seriously question Mr. Fearon's statement that he carried out his own investigation. Who is Mr. Fearon to carry out an examination of the ESB and not go to the ESB itself?

It was stated that the existing staff will be retained. What will they do? The station on Valencia Island has 17 staff. Closing it will have a worse effect on Valencia Island than closing a factory of 300 staff in Limerick or Dublin. That is the effect it will have. These staff are supposed to be retained. What will they do, cut turf? Their record is equally as good as the famous man leading them today, Mick O'Connell. His record is unequalled in Irish GAA history and the record of the people from Valencia Island is also unequalled. The people of Malin and Valencia Island would like to know what will they do if they are retained.

I now call another Kerry hero, Deputy Deenihan.

He has lots of medals.

I have more medals than Mick O'Connell.

This is a major issue for Kerry. I am from north Kerry but Valencia Island is a landmark for Kerry and is recognised throughout the world, particularly the shipping world. This will dismantle part of a culture built up for generations and centuries. I recognise that Mr. Fearon is a civil servant giving an overview and we all agree that we want the best possible coast guard service in Europe. We have the resources to do so but not along the lines proposed by Mr. Fearon.

Civil servants would appear before us and suggest closing Kerry General Hospital. Mr. Fearon is looking at this from a global perspective. We are looking at it from a local perspective as representatives of our county and we are entitled to do so. Ultimately, it will not be Mr. Fearon's decision. It will be the Minister's decision whether Valencia, Malin or both will remain open. However, it is important to question Mr. Fearon on his assumptions, as we are doing today.

The Donegal representatives are annoyed with Mr. Fearon's interpretation and perception of the services there with regard to human resources and it is fair enough that he denies this. If he examines Kerry from a technological and telecommunications point of view, Fexco is located north of Valencia Island in Caherciveen and it communicates with the entire world. Kerry Group, the largest food company in the world, has its headquarters in Tralee. It controls its markets in South America, North America, Asia and throughout the world from there.

Recently, Spectra which is located in Listowel, competed against international competition to win the speed camera contract for the entire country. We have an extremely innovating technology park in Tralee. When Mr. Fearon speaks about telecommunications it would be unfair of him to state the reason he wants to close Valencia - something he is proposing to do by stealth - because we do not have the necessary telecommunications in Kerry. The people of Fexco and the other companies I mentioned would not agree with this.

Mr. Fearon listed a number of criteria, one of which is infrastructure. Senator Daly spoke about the ESB. The ESB spent a great deal of money ugrading its entire system network on Valencia Island. The previous chairman of the ESB was from Valencia Island and perhaps this is why it was done. In this regard, surely a place such as Valencia Island or Malin has the least potential for disruption. This defeats Mr. Fearon's argument.

Mr. Fearon mentioned an estimate of approximately €2 million to upgrade the core equipment. From where did this estimate come? Who supplied it? Will Mr. Fearon comment on the overall cost of the project, including new buildings which must be provided, new staffing arrangements, core equipment and the telecommunications system to be used? If, as Deputy Healy-Rae stated, Valencia and Malin are redundant and, as is perceived they will close by natural wastage, what will be the continuing costs of maintaining them?

In conclusion, from a location point of view, the arguments do not stand up and, from a cost and human resources point of view, some of the arguments do not stand up. Mr. Fearon has taken a very academic, theoretical overview of what is happening with our coastguard service. In the process, he is in danger of destroying a culture and infrastructure that is rooted in two parts of the west coast. If he does that, he will be doing a major disservice to those communities and the whole of the west coast of the country.

I ask Mr. Fearon to try to wrap up in five minutes, if possible.

Can I get an answer about the people at Valentia? What will they be doing if the station is not retained?

Mr. John Fearon

I will answer Deputy Healy-Rae's question first, if that is acceptable.

Mr. Fearon may answer them in whatever order he prefers.

What is the status of this? Has the second report gone to the Minister yet? Is this the second report? I understood a second report was to be sent to the Minister on which he would base his decision. This document implies that the Department is moving ahead by prioritising the east coast. What is the status of the decision making on this?

I ask Mr. Fearon to answer the questions posed.

I ask him to answer my question, please.

Mr. John Fearon

Certainly, Deputy. In relation to the ESB--

I asked Mr. Fearon about Valentia. I am asking about the staff. What will they be doing?

Mr. John Fearon

What we have been asked to do now is to link Malin and Valentia into the new ICS equipment. That means that at Malin and Valentia, people will continue to do the jobs they are doing today. That is the effect of that. When--

Is the Department moving new equipment into Malin and Valentia?

Mr. John Fearon

We are linking Malin and Valentia into the ICS equipment.

Will new equipment be installed?

Mr. John Fearon

We will put in some new equipment.

That equipment will link them to the remote centre.

Mr. John Fearon

Exactly.

Where is the remote centre?

Mr. John Fearon

That question was asked previously and I will come to it presently, Senator.

On the issue of staff, the Civil Service rules are very clear about moving staff from one location to the other - it must be voluntary. One cannot force people out. I indicated in the report that I would have had to negotiate the position with the staff involved to phase in the change over a sustained period of time, to make sure that people were gainfully employed at all times.

The one difficulty I have in all of this is that I am trying to make best use of the resources I have. I cannot afford not to have people working flat out, all of the time. That is part of the dilemma that we are trying to address. That is the position in relation to staff, which I hope is clear.

On the issue of the ESB, I accept that I am not an engineer. Nor did I do the work. It is not that we conducted an investigation. We have equipment on site and engineering staff. The findings from the equipment and advice from our engineers is that there are some difficulties. Of course, we will contact the ESB and try to find a resolution. Ultimately, we cannot afford to allow a station to go down because that would present us with real difficulties. We have generators - although some of them may need to be replaced - which can pick up on a temporary glitch in the system. However, we are working with very sensitive equipment and it is not ideal to have a situation, for whatever reason, where the UPS is tripping out on a relatively frequent basis. No matter what decision is taken, I must get to the bottom of this problem and get it sorted.

On a point of information, Mr. Fearon is raising his concerns about the ESB and the UPS system. In that context, I wish to quote from a letter from the ESB, dated 22 February 2008, in response to the Department, which states that, "the UPS at Valentia, County Kerry is being brought to our attention now for the first time".

If the Department were so concerned about the electricity supply to Valentia, surely it would have contacted the ESB before the various Deputies and Senators from the affected areas raised a furore. Mr. Fearon said the ESB was not up to standard but the Department did not bother to contact the ESB until February this year.

I also wish to remind Mr. Fearon that he has promised to supply us with the UPS and engineer's reports within two days.

I wish to raise a point of order and then I will not speak again at this debate. I ask Mr. Fearon if there is any truth in the rumour that a person or persons from the Department of Transport landed in County Clare, examined a site and bought it for some kind of station. Is that true? I would be very grateful if Mr. Fearon could give me a straight answer on that.

There is a vote in the Dáil and we may have to suspend the meeting in a minute or two.

What are those last two lines about?

Mr. John Fearon

There is no truth in that rumour.

There is no truth in the rumour about Clare. I thank Mr. Fearon for his reply.

I ask Mr. Fearon to answer the remaining questions, in so far as he can. We will have to wind down for the Dáil vote shortly.

Mr. John Fearon

I will try to get through the questions I have been asked as quickly as possible, given the constraints members are under. Regarding Deputy McHugh's comments, this has been a learning experience for us all. It has been a difficult period since last October but at the same time, I welcome the fact that this has raised the profile of maritime safety on the national agenda. The issue of maritime safety goes way beyond these two stations. A lot of work must be done in the area but the raising of an awareness of the issues and sensitivities around maritime safety and the role it plays for this country, as a gateway into Europe from the sea, has been extremely beneficial.

On the issue of three centres, an efficiency review was conducted, with a risk assessment as an integral part of that. The review concluded that two centres would suffice. It concluded that even one would suffice, but we are pursuing two, to increase the resilience. The resources I have are not unlimited. I must make the best use of the resources I have and that is what is driving this. I cannot simply keep increasing everything.

We have now come to end of the meeting. As Mr. Fearon can see for himself --

I have just one question. I beg the Chairman's indulgence as I have waited here all day. Where will the ICS be located?

Mr. John Fearon

I do not know. One ICS will be located wherever the new headquarters are located but at this point in time I do not know where either of them will be based.

This was one of the best attended meetings of the Joint Committee on Transport in the past six months and, without exception, members spoke very sensibly. They come from the areas that count most, as far as they are concerned. An enormous number of issues were raised today on which further clarification is needed, including technical issues concerning the ESB and where people will work. This process should be re-examined and from this committee's point of view, nothing less than a meeting with the Minister will suffice. Serious differences of opinion were expressed here today as to the level of accuracy in the report. I do not say it was inaccurate from Mr. Fearon's point of view because he has done a professional job, for which we thank him. However, many questions were raised which should be put directly to the Minister. This committee is the right forum in which to seek answers. We have long discussed national spatial strategies but, coming from the west, I have noted the good reasons that are regularly given for not leaving infrastructure in place. In other words, compelling reasons are given for removing something that works from its context and centralising it. I thank Mr. Fearon and Mr. Reynolds for being so up-front with their answers but the committee will have to further investigate this matter.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until noon on Wednesday, 9 July 2008.
Top
Share