Cathal Berry (Kildare South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to debate the final stages of this motion on the EU maritime surveillance programme. It is a project that I am very much in favour of. I am in favour of it for three reasons, primarily. First of all, it is very simple. From Ireland's perspective, it consists of just a single computer and a single telephone in the naval base in Cork, which will allow our navy to communicate securely with both voice and data to like-minded navies across the European Union.

It really is that simple. It is modelled on the same carbon copy on which the Garda Síochána's interaction with Europol is based. If the Garda Síochána can discuss matters from a security perspective with like-minded colleagues throughout the EU, I see no reason that the Naval Service cannot do the same on constabulary matters relating to the high seas. A cost of €50,000 a year is peanuts when one considers what we are getting in return.

The second reason I am in favour of this motion is that, as an island nation, it is absolutely in our interest to maintain law and order on the high seas, particularly in our territorial waters. The programme will assist the Naval Service to deter, detect and intercept rogue vessels beyond the horizon, before they make landfall in this country. It will interdict the smuggling of drugs, people and weapons. All Deputies know that every town and village in rural, regional and coastal Ireland has a drugs problem. The product is coming across the Atlantic in large shipments, at which point they are easier to detect. Once the shipments make landfall, they are broken into smaller consignments that are much harder for the Garda Síochána to detect. We must intercept these vessels beyond the horizon, before they make landfall to save the public from the scourge of drugs.

The third reason I support this motion is that, as a result of Brexit, our maritime security has never been more important. We now have a third country on our doorstep with a massive sea border. The land bridge is gone and we are much more reliant on our sea lanes of communication. We also have massively more responsibilities from a sea-fisheries protection perspective.

Those are the three reasons I support the motion. I am pleasantly surprised by the enlightened comments of Deputies Howlin and Gannon on the motion. They gave an accurate assessment and appraisal of the situation. I suspect their comments have not gone unnoticed in military communities and constituencies up and down the country. They are hugely appreciated.

The one concern I have about the MARSUR project is not the project itself but our ability to contribute to it. It goes back to the crewing of our vessels, as Deputy Howlin rightly pointed out. I fully appreciate that the Minister is working very hard on this issue but we have yet to see tangible improvements. As he is an accomplished mariner in his own right, he knows that a ship is only as good as its crew. We have a problem in the Naval Service from a crewing perspective. How is it that if we need an additional 600 customs officials for Brexit, an additional 400 Covid contact tracers or an additional 600 vaccinators, we can recruit and retain them, we cannot seem to recruit and retain sufficient sailors? I fully accept there is a multitude of reasons, but the dominant factor is that they are not being paid enough for the job they are expected to do. There is no point in tinkering with the peripheries on this issue. The elephant in the room is pay and it is an issue that must be resolved.

The reason this problem exists in the first place is that our sailors have no access to the Workplace Relations Commission or the Labour Court. They have no access even to pay talks to negotiate and barter a better deal. They cannot engage in any industrial action whatsoever and, as a consequence, they have absolutely no bargaining power. They are relying on this House and the politicians in it to defend them. The navy is in a very unusual spot in this regard. It is very capable of defending everybody else but it is incapable of defending itself from an industrial relations point of view. That is where we step in.

The Commission on the Defence Forces offers an essential opportunity to solve this problem. I am a little concerned, however, that the chairperson of the commission, when he was before the defence committee earlier this week, was very circumspect, which I understand, about solving the pay issue in the Defence Forces. It is very clear from the terms of reference of the commission that pay structures and pay systems can be recommended or advised against by it. I encourage the Minister, if there is any clarification required from a terms of reference point of view, that such clarification be given to ensure the commission has the appropriate powers, independence and autonomy to solve this problem once and for all.

See this speech in context