2. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence the status of the multi-role vessel programme, and rationale for any change from multi-role vessels to multi-role combat vessels in the context of the reduced ability of multi-role combat vessels to provide humanitarian assistance and disaster relief domestically and internationally; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [60447/25]

Sentiment score: -0.15

We have been talking about the replacement of our Navy ships and upgrading our fleet for some years. Throughout it all our focus has been on multi-role vessels, MRVs, as they are the best equipped to do what our Navy does best in providing humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Are we now pivoting to multi-role combat vessels, MRCVs, as has been reported, which marks a shift away towards a more aggressive naval policy?

Sentiment score: 0.10

I am comforted to hear that we are not going to invest as a State in multi-role combat vessels because my key concern is that we have a long-established priority to acquire multi-role vessels, which give us a flexible fleet that is capable of surveillance and humanitarian functions. They are vital for maritime disaster relief, our capacity for peacekeeping and our ability as an island nation with a volunteer Coast Guard to respond to the needs of people in case of emergency. In delicate peacekeeping and humanitarian situations, multi-role vessels are much less likely to be met with resistance than an armed warship and have much more flexibility in the assistance that we can provide. I do not deny that we need serious investment in our Defence Forces, but we need to be clear on what we are trying to achieve because multi-role combat vessels would not deliver our humanitarian and disaster relief aspirations. They would limit us to a much more aggressive role at a huge cost to the Exchequer. We are currently unable to staff the ships that we have. Combat vessels are bigger and more expensive, require more specialised staff and are more expensive to run. I have not heard any discussion on the opportunity cost of going down that path. I am glad to hear that it is not on the agenda. The Tánaiste listed off some technical names of vessels. Will he clarify that none of those are combat vessels?

Sentiment score: 0.17

None of them are combat vessels; excellent. We need to have a candid conversation about sub-sea infrastructure and the shadow fleet because that is the other context in which this arises. We could have the finest combat vessels available patrolling every inch of Irish waters, but most of the sub-sea infrastructure we are talking about also runs outside of our territorial waters. In those situations, we would be completely unable to do anything to protect those cables, no matter what kind of ships we had. We know this because it has happened on the edges of the waters of NATO member states in the Baltics. While combat vessels may provide an opportunity to virtue signal to other EU countries about our willingness to take part in an arms race, the reality is that our capacity and fleet is best served by equipping them for humanitarian and disaster relief and surveillance. MRVs can monitor cables and foreign vessels and can also save lives on a scale that MRCVs cannot. It is comforting to hear that there are no plans to invest in combat vessels. I will be holding the Tánaiste to account on that.

Sentiment score: 0.15