Vol. 379 No. 2
asked the Minister for Defence the vessels which are available to the Naval Service for inshore patrols or for minesweeping duties; if it is intended to replace the two minesweepers, Fola and Gráinne; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
23.
asked the Minister for Defence if he has satisfied himself that the Naval Service have sufficient patrol capability to ensure that our fish stocks are protected properly; if his attention has been drawn to the huge task being undertaken by the Naval Service with not more than three patrol vessels in action at any given time; if the Government have applied for EC aid to finance extra patrol cover; and if there is a greater role for the Air Corps in this situation.
26.
asked the Minister for Defence if he intends to bring the number of naval patrol boats up to the required Navy standard.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15, 23 and 26 together.
The Naval Service has five off-shore patrol vessels at its disposal including L.E. Eithne which is a helicopter-carrying ship. Two maritime Dauphin helicopters are available for use in conjunction with L.E. Eithne and two Beech King aircraft are devoted exclusively to fisheries surveillance duties. The full integration of the maritime Dauphin helicopter with L.E. Eithne will greatly enhance the fisheries surveillance capability.
The off-shore patrol vessels have a limited capacity for inshore patrolling. This is utilised to the fullest extent practicable and will be enhanced when the Dauphins have been worked up to a full operational capacity later this year.
The capability of the Naval Service and the Air Corps to carry out fisheries surveillance operations is kept under constant review. The question of increasing that capability is under active consideration at present in which connection an application to the European Commission for financial support will be presented to the Commission in the near future.
Arising from the Minister's reply — and this ties in with his own Ministry of the Marine — is he satisfied with the number of patrol boats for fishery protection which we have at present, particularly when we take into account the international boats that might be plundering our fishing areas? I want to put on record that my understanding is that we have only three such boats because the others are being serviced while those three are out on patrol, and that they patrol an area only once every 21 days. Is that an accurate account of our capabilities of patrol?
We would endeavour to have the maximum possible surveillance in operation to secure our fishing interests. Some of the questions refer to the inshore area. Some of these boats, the ones that are out of commission now, are not suitable for that kind of inshore patrol work. I am aware from my own Department's involvement in this area that there was a necessity for some inshore patrol vessels, and some of these have been provided recently, separately from the Naval Service, by the regional fisheries boards, one in the south-west and another in the north-west. We would endeavour to secure the maximum financial support possible from the European Communities to enhance our fishery protection service. As I have said already, that matter is under active consideration at present.
Having regard to the Bill before the House at present which refers to the extension of the territorial jurisdiction from three nautical miles to 12 nautical miles, is the Minister satisfied that, when this Bill is enacted, we will be able to enforce it with the naval resources available to us at present?
That legislation is not an issue on this question, but we are satisfied that it is possible to provide an adequate level of surveillance and protection service within the resources available to us at present. Naturally we would like to enhance and improve the service where it is possible to do so. The Air Corps have at their disposal two Beech King aircraft for fishery surveillance, two maritime Dauphin helicopters for use with the Eithne and the other patrol vessels which were already mentioned. As I have said, this matter is under active discussion at present in my Department, the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs, who are putting together a formulated scheme for submission for Community funding for further surveillance equipment. The immediate requirement in this context would be the replacement of the minesweepers. Taking the overall situation into context and the fact that we have acquired some new patrol vessels, especially for inshore protection which is of some concern also, I am reasonably satisfied that the situation is under control.
One final question.
I am calling Deputy Peadar Clohessy who has tabled a priority question on this matter.
Is the Minister aware of a recent statement in a daily newspaper that along the east coast huge numbers of arms were landed unobserved despite the fact that the boat that landed those arms was under surveillance by the authorities?
The Deputy is raising a very specific matter now.
The Naval Service at present have one P 30——
That is a seperate question.
——and four P22 boats despite the fact that they require twice that many. I feel that our coasts are not patrolled at all.
Would the Minister agree that the policy he is pursuing is that of running down the naval arm of the Defence Forces? Arising from my question about the two minesweepers, Fola and Gráinne which are the only two minesweepers that could provide proper inshore patrol and minehunting facilities, is it his intention to replace the Fola and Gráinne? What is the Minister's intention for the Verolme Cork Dockyard?
Obviously that is a separate matter.
In relation to inshore protection which some Deputies are concerned about and to which the Deputy's question refers, I would suggest to the Deputy that inshore protection was not served to the best possible extent by the type of vessels he spoke about. In fact, one of the inhibiting factors of protecting the inshore areas was that these vessels were not suitable for that type of work. I am aware of this not from the Minister for Defence's point of view but from the fisheries point of view for which I have responsibility. To a large extent that type of surveillance equipment would have to be provided by bodies such as the regional fisheries boards who have responsibility in inshore areas. Smaller vessels such as the ones the Deputy has in mind are necessary in these areas. As I have already pointed out, the Naval Service have the Eithne which can carry two helicopters for this type of service, the Deirdre, the Emer, the Aoife and the Aisling. I am reasonably satisfied that within the resources and the equipment available to us we can adequately protect our fisheries service.
I am calling Deputy Paul Connaughton and Deputy Pattison and then I am going on to deal with another question.
In regard to the naval surveillance vessels, is it true that several fishermen do not see one of those patrol vessels for three weeks? Can the Minister honestly tell the House that, as far as the illegal importation of guns and drugs is concerned and foreign fishery boats fishing off our shores, we can even remotely be in a position to have a good surveillance service? How sincere are we in our efforts to get EC funding to change the matter because not alone is this a problem for us——
That is a separate matter.
——but it is a problem for the Community as well, as the Minister is well aware.
That is a separate question.
As the record shows, we have already received substantial funding from Community funds for this type of surveillance equipment and that is what made it possible to purchase the Eithne and other vessels. I am satisfied that, within the resources and the equipment available to us, there is an adequate level of service to protect our fisheries.
Having regard to the fact that there have been at least 17 known accidents with fishermen involving submarines, can I ask him if the surveillance equipment which he refers to will be adequate to detect submarines in our territorial waters?
I do not have information about submarines. If the Deputy puts down a separate question about the effect of submarines in this area I am sure the Minister will reply directly to him in that regard. From my experience I wish to put on the record the excellent contribution that the Naval Service have made to the protection of our fisheries. The evidence is there for anyone who cares to examine it that the Naval Service have been very successful in surveillance and in the control of our fisheries limits. Anybody who has been following what has been happening will know that the naval service in particular have been successful in a number of apprehensions and convictions in recent years for breaches of fisheries regulations.
We are asking them to do too much.
