Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

We had a detailed discussion of this motion at committee. The conversations we had were thorough and well-thought-through. At the time, I felt that the responses from the Minister were quite adequate in terms of why this motion is being brought forward and what we stand to benefit from it.

The contributions I made then have not changed. I will reiterate them here. There is a substantial difference between Irish neutrality and self-isolating for the sake of it. What is on the table here is not a threat to our neutrality. I am adamant in respect of fighting back against that suggestion. That has ramifications beyond this Chamber and I would not like to give the impression that it does.

On the idea of collaboration, we all agree, and it has been asserted both here and at the committee, that the idea of collaborating in respect of our defence and defence in a multitude of forms is massively important. However, we cannot just use rhetoric alone as a form of collaboration and say we would like to collaborate only on the conditions of X, Y, and Z, which will exist, without actually specifying how it will be done. What is being suggested here is quite reasonable, namely, the idea of collaborating on cyber attacks, against satellites, on bomb disposal and military sea rescues. To me, that sounds absolutely fine. I made the point at the committee that it does not go far enough.

When we think about the incursions into our spaces that have occurred over the past 18 months, they have occurred beneath our seas through fibre-optic cables, which represents a genuine threat to Ireland's space as a centre of power in respect of data and infrastructure. We have seen other powerful nations actually focus in on that. My criticism of MARSUR is that it does not go far enough in terms of protecting us against what have been genuine real threats to our space over the past 18 months. I ask the Minister how he intends to come up with a strategy by which we can defend ourselves when this happens, because it is actual threat. I also ask what the expectations of our involvement in MARSUR III will be. We are not paying a huge amount of money in respect of our contribution to being involved. We do not have sonar or massive vessel capability, for example, so what exactly are we offering or will we be expected to offer into the future?

There is also the very real issue of morale and the retention of staff in our Naval Service. We must highlight that issue and bring it to the fore in our concerns. When we table proposals such as MARSUR III, we should always be taking into account that to meet the relevant criteria we will have to improve X, Y and Z when it comes to the retention of staff in our Naval Service. I know the Commission on the Defence Forces has been established. On the issue of the European Defence Agency, EDA, I would also like to ask how we can ensure our vessels are manned, operable and the actual threats we face in respect of our air and sea spaces can be catered for.

I know that MARSUR III is an on-the-surface plan. I genuinely think that we have missed an opportunity here to consider what is going on below the surface, and that we are not yet capable of defending ourselves there. We need to be standing strong on that front, because I imagine that it is something that will represent a greater threat to us in the decades to come. It impacts our position as a centre of communications.

See this speech in context