Edward Nealon
Ceist:13 Mr. Nealon asked the Minister for Defence the reason for the cancellation of the UNIFIL supplies trip of the LE Aisling.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - UNIFIL Supplies Trip.
Tomás MacGiolla
Ceist:17 Tomás Mac Giolla asked the Minister for Defence the reason the planned visit by LE Aisling to Lebanon was cancelled; if, as a result of the cancellation, a military consignment of 600 rifles will have to be shipped home from Lebanon by commercial freight; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 17 together.
The proposed sailing of LE Aisling to Haifa with supplies for the Irish UN contingent was postponed until later this year because LE Aisling was required for fishery protection duties.
A decision has not yet been taken in relation to the means by which any stores which might have been brought home by LE Aisling will now be transported.
Was that not a very embarrassing situation for the Navy? Could it not have been foreseen that the vessel would have been required for fishery protection duty? Will the Minister give me an assurance that the cancellation was not because of lack of personnel to man the vessel?
It was anything but. It was a very practical decision made by me on the basis that the fishery protection duties are very important and it is on the basis of the fishery protection duties that we get the necessary funding from the Community for both our Navy and our Air Corps engaged in marine surveillance. I want to emphasise that point. That was paramount in my mind when I made the decision. What was to be transported out to Lebannon from here has been transported. We are now discussing and have almost reached finality on how various cargoes can be brought back. What I have to do as Minister is weigh the balance. The paramount consideration was fishery protection and on this depends the funding of the Navy which is now being considered in Brussels and which will amount to 50 per cent funding. I was getting my priorities right.
Someone made the original decision and obviously was not getting their priorities right. Would the Minister accept that that was a major cock-up?
No, because I can understand a particular service in the Department of Defence making a decision in their own way. I have a different responsibility. I have to take the overall responsibility and I am responsible to the Government on a collective responsibility basis. When I ascertained that the Navy were going ahead with this tour of duty I decided that a far more sensible approach would be to leave this until later because shortly the Community will be deciding on the exact amount of funding for Ireland and it is very important that our case stand up, and our case stands up on the basis of the fishery protection we are affording. These are the facts. This matter is now pending. It is under current examination by the Commission with a view to formulating the precise amount of money we are to receive. The allocation will depend on our facing up to responsibilities in regard to fishery protection.
That is the only interest the Community has in this matter and funding does not arise unless that matter is given priority by our Navy and by our Air Force. Do I make myself clear?
The Tánaiste makes himself clear to some extent. We are told the Navy personnel had in fact changed their punts to dollars, that the ship was loaded and ready to slip anchor. How could things have been allowed go that far before a decision was taken? Am I correct in believing that there exists a Defence Forces handbook of priorities that puts peacekeeping exercises ahead of fishery protection exercises?
This was just a servicing matter, not a peace-keeping operation in the total sense of the UNIFIL operation. It was a servicing operation that could be conducted other than by an Irish Navy ship. It was really a matter of postponement. I do agree that there has been an annual visit and that will take place later in the year. As of now this matter is being considered by the Commission of the European Communities and the attention we are giving to fishery protection at present will rate very high in their consideration of our claim to financial aid and funding, and I think I got my priorities on this.
I want to bring this question to finality. I want to dissuade Members from the notion that we can debate the matter. It is not open to debate.
Is the Minister now telling us that the LE Aisling puts to sea on fishery protection duties not so much because of the particular duties needed at that time but because of the finances we need from the EC?
The Deputy should not make that silly point. It is quite obvious that our Naval Service arrived at their present strength largely because of 50 per cent funding over a number of years from the European Community; in fact some years ago it was 75 per cent. I am dealing with realities and I hope everybody appreciates that. I must take a much broader view of this matter than would be taken by the very good people who are in charge of the Naval Service. They have a particular duty to their service and a responsibility to it but I have to take a broader governmental view of the whole matter.
What number of vessels did the LE Aisling apprehend in the course of its fishery protection work? Was the LE Aisling protecting the national interest or the Community interest? What number of vessels was apprehended during the same time last year?
The Deputy is going into a lot of detail worthy of a separate question.
That is a separate question, one that I answered very fully here a month ago but I will let the Deputy have details.
Given that the rifles will now be shipped by a commercial freighter, will the Minister confirm that there will be an Army presence on that carrier?
Of course. If munitions are involved, there will have to be an Army presence involved. That would be a normal security safeguard.