Vol. 212 No. 3
asked the Minister for Defence (a) the number of armed ships or boats of his Department (1) in commission and (2) not in commission, (b) the name or the number of each ship, and (c) the tonnage, horse power, draught, cruising speed, top speed, type of armament, and complement of each ship or boat.
10.
asked the Minister for Defence if it is the intention of his Department to purchase additional armed vessels of the type most useful for fishery protection.
With your permission a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 10 together.
My Department has three armed ships, viz. L.E. Macha, L.E. Maev and L.E. Cliona. Owing to a shortage of key personnel, it is possible to have only one of them operational at any one time. The particulars requested at (c) of the Deputy's question in respect of each of the three ships are as follows:—
|
Displacement |
1,020 tons |
|
Horse power |
2,750 |
|
Maximum draught |
17 feet |
|
Cruising speed |
11 knots |
|
Top speed |
16 knots |
|
Armament |
(a) One 4 in. Quick-firing surface and anti-aircraft gun. |
|
(b) One 2-pounder anti-aircraft gun. |
|
|
(c) Four 20 millimetre Oerlikons anti-aircraft guns. |
No decision has been taken concerning the question of purchasing additional armed vessels for fishery protection.
Is the Minister aware that a 14 knot protection cruiser is useless for protecting our fisheries at present?
No, I do not agree with that.
Does the Minister not know that the one ship he has left is useless for protecting our fisheries?
It is not useless; it is inadequate.
It is most inadequate. Is the Minister aware that his colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, has succeeded in having our territorial waters extended to 12 miles, and the Minister is not able to protect our present fisheries with his one ship. Even if we had 20 boats doing 14 knots, they would be useless. Will the Minister take steps to purchase boats for fishery protection?
No, there is no immediate proposal for such purpose.
Is the Minister aware we have one of the most valuable fisheries in Europe? Is he going to abandon that and allow it to be poached by armadas from behind the Iron Curtain?
The Deputy was told on several occasions here, and other Deputies as well, that our immediate problem is one of manning the two ships that are idle for want of men. The ships are in a good condition. We have tried to get personnel for these ships. We have given special allowances for sea-going duties. We have not yet attracted sufficient men to man these two ships because there are too many civilian opportunities for employment.
Is the Minister aware that the complement of men in the one ship we have would man a fleet of coastal cutters that could protect our fisheries? There is no need for a crew of 60 or 70 for fishery protection.
I asked the Deputy on the last occasion he raised this question to give his idea as to the type of vessel he had in mind. He indicated he would have a considerably larger number of smaller craft at various points around the coast that would sortie out when they saw what looked like a trespassing trawler. Does the Deputy think that that is a solution to our fishery protection problem?
I would say yes, if the Minister could get the type of cutter used in the American Navy for the protection of coastal fisheries in the Pacific and North Atlantic.
Now that we have solved the problem, let us pass on.
In the meantime you have given the Russians a lot of valuable information.
They have it already. They are fishing like blazes. They are old friends of yours. You acted as pawnbrokers for them when you gave them the money for the crown jewels.
Lest the Minister should be disturbed by the amount of information he has now imparted to the Kremlin or be deterred from a full frankness to the House by the statement made by the Minister for Agriculture, has he not had made to him proposals for the purchase of smaller vessels capable of doing 27 knots, which would carry a complement of from 20 to 30 men, instead of the deep-draught, larger vessels at present requiring 80 or 100 men to put them to sea. Inasmuch as we have extended our responsibilities fourfold, at least in area, for fishery protection, does he not think, as Minister for Defence, the House is entitled to some reassurance as to whether he proposes to provide, or to try to provide, adequate protection for the extended area for which we have accepted responsibility by signing the Convention the House approved today?
I have not received any such proposal. It seems to me what Deputy Dillon has in mind is somewhat akin to the type of specification already given by Deputy Lynch. What we want are boats that will patrol and prevent illegal fishing. Apparently, what the Deputies have in mind is a large number of boats located around the coast—of course, they will require a servicing base—that will sortie out of these various points when they see what looks like a marauding trawler. That will not give adequate protection to either our present fishing area or the one now proposed. We would need four vessels of the type we now have to protect our 7,000 square miles. If we were to supply what the Deputies have the habit of describing as "adequate protection," we would want, I take it, on a proportionately calculated basis, at least four times the existing number. That would be 16 ships. It is quite easy to calculate what the cost would be of such a fleet, not to mention the annual cost of running it. Indeed, we would be in the position of the man who got a new business system. The system was such that he had to scrap the business to ensure that the system worked.
This is becoming a debate.
I do not want a debate. I want to ask the Minister this question: His colleague in the Government told us this morning he had signed a Convention and sought our approval for our Government accepting not only the liability to protect certain seas off our coasts for Irish vessels but also for selected foreign vessels deemed to be customarily fishing in these waters; and surely if we have signed a Convention accepting that responsibility not only to our own nationals but to foreign nationals, who may claim the right to bring vessels into our territory in order to protect themselves——
This looks very much like an argument.
I am asking the Minister for Defence has there been no consultation between himself and the Minister for External Affairs prior to the signing of this agreement on our behalf for this accommodation, when he gets up on the day we have approved the instrument signed on our behalf and says we cannot do it.
We have no liability.
Under the Convention, we have a liability to protect the rights of vessels customarily fishing there against trespass by unauthorised vessels. Has there been no consultation between the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Defence? It is fantastic on one day to say that we cannot do, and do not intend to equip ourselves to do, what we undertook to do earlier on the same day.
The Minister said there was no such obligation.
