Defence deployment to Lebanon
Senator Craughwell's request for a defence debate about the Lebanon deployment prompted a long argument with the Leader over whether the matter was individual or operational. The Leader insisted there were contingency plans and that the House should not divide on an operational Defence Forces issue.
It is far from an individual case.
Comment on this
The Senator raised a specific issue about a specific individual.
Comment on this
It impacts on hundreds of others.
Comment on this
It is inappropriate and unacceptable to invite the Minister of State with responsibility for defence to the House to discuss an operational matter.
Comment on this
It is an operational matter regarding the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, and troops going abroad. I remind Senators that-----
Comment on this
The amendment relates to the closure of barracks.
Comment on this
The Senator did not mention barracks in his amendment to the Order of Business.
Comment on this
I am just throwing it out there.
Comment on this
He did not mention barracks being closed.
Comment on this
Radio Cavan is good at interrupting sometimes.
Comment on this
It is disingenuous for the Leader to attack me-----
Comment on this
I understand the Senator's motivation and appreciate where he is coming from. We should put political partisanship aside when it comes to members of the Defence Forces. However, this is not about pay or conditions. If that were the case, the Senator would have welcomed the additional €32 million for defence and the €15 million for pay and conditions of the Defence Forces in the budget.
Comment on this
The Defence Forces may be getting €32 million, but €30 million was unspent this year and €92 million has been returned to the Exchequer since 2014. The Leader should not draw me on.