Dara Calleary
Question:38 Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Defence if he will make a commitment that there will be no further barracks closures. [8406/11]
Priority Questions
Army Barracks
I cannot give a commitment that there will not be further programmes of barrack consolidation. The defence property portfolio is kept under review to ensure the most effective use of military resources having regard to the roles assigned by Government to the Defence Forces. The consolidation of the Defence Forces formations into a smaller number of locations is a key objective for me as we strive to maximise the effectiveness of the Defence Forces. The dispersal of personnel over an extended number of locations has been identified as a major impediment to essential collective training. It also imposes increased and unnecessary overheads on the Defence Forces in terms of barrack management, administration, maintenance and security.
In the context of the 2009 budget, the previous Government announced the closure of four barracks — Monaghan, Lifford, Longford and Rockhill House, Letterkenny — which has been achieved and also St. Bricin's Hospital in Dublin. The consolidation of St. Bricin's is linked to the provision of modern medical facilities within the existing departmental property portfolio. The Deputy will also be aware that the special group on public service numbers and expenditure programmes recommended the closure of Cathal Brugha Barracks, Rathmines. However, Cathal Brugha Barracks is a very significant installation with a wide range of military facilities, accommodation and storage depots and its closure at this time would have significant financial implications.
With regard to further barracks closures, the position is that this issue will be kept under constant review. Should the need arise, from an operational position or as a way of utilising scarce resources in a more beneficial way, consideration may be given to the closure of further barracks.
I thank the Minister for his reply. At the outset I wish to diverge slightly from the subject matter of the question and commend the Minister on his decision to hold an inquiry into the events which occurred in the Lebanon some 20 years ago. He has my full support in respect of that inquiry.
When in opposition, the Minister's party vehemently opposed the closure of the four barracks to which he referred. The policy to date has been that the money raised from the sale of barracks has been reinvested in the Defence Forces in the context of purchasing new equipment and paying for the modernisation of other barracks. If there are to be further closures, will the Minister provide a commitment to the effect that the policy to which I refer will remain in place? Is he in a position to update the House with regard to the process relating to Connolly Barracks in Longford, the Lifford military post and Monaghan Military Barracks? I am seeking to ensure that responsibility for the barracks in Monaghan has been transferred fully from the Department of Defence to the Department of Education and Skills, which is to establish a VEC campus there.
As the Deputy may know, a total of €85 million was received in respect of the sale of seven barracks at Ballincollig, Fermoy, Naas, Castleblayney, Monaghan, Longford and Islandbridge — latterly called Clancy Barracks — which has been closed for over 12 years. Only part of Longford Barracks was closed. Should barrack closures occur in the future, I would be anxious that we should continue with the approach that was adopted previously, namely, that the money obtained should be reinvested in the Defence Forces. As a result of the way in which moneys have been dealt with in recent years, the Defence Forces have been in a position to modernise buildings and procure up-to-date equipment. Such equipment is extremely important in the context of domestic duties and peacekeeping operations. I do not intend to depart from such an approach should it prove necessary for barrack closures to take place.
Is there a list of barracks within the Department relating to barracks which may be considered for closure? When the Minister entered the Department was he briefed in respect of any barracks that may be considered either for closure or within the context of decentralisation?
There is no list of potential barrack closures. In the context of the overall resource limitations within which the Government is operating and by which my Department is affected, we are considering how best to use the resources available in order to maintain the Defence Forces at the very high level at which they currently operate and provide an efficient and streamlined defence establishment which will be both fully operable and capable of meeting its civil and international obligations. It is my intention to proceed along that route. There is no hidden list relating to potential barrack closures. However, an overall review is being conducted in the context of the financial stringencies impacting on the Government as a consequence of the huge financial difficulties with which we are confronted and our obligations pursuant to the EU-IMF agreement concluded in December last.
Defence Forces Personnel
Jonathan O'Brien
Question:39 Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Defence if the drug Lariam remains on the approved list of drugs given to the Defence Forces for services overseas in areas affected by Malaria in view of the controversy regarding its side effects; if other anti-malaria drugs have been approved for use; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8523/11]
Lariam is a chemo prophylactic agent first authorised for use in 1989 by the Irish Medicines Board which is the statutory body charged with regulating the use of medicines to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines available in Ireland. It remains the medication of choice for the Defence Forces for overseas missions to certain malarious areas. While certain risks associated with the use of the drug were highlighted in drug safety newsletters in 1996 and 2003, the Irish Medicines Board remained of the view that the benefit-risk profile for the product remained acceptable. The board continues to review the safety of this and all other medicines on an ongoing basis and updates the product information as appropriate.
In accordance with best practice in prescribing this medication — and taking account of the contra-indications, warnings and side effects highlighted by the Irish Medicines Board — the Defence Forces screen all personnel for medical suitability. The screening system rules out from overseas service personnel with certain conditions such as, for example, depression, anxiety, neurodegenerative disorders, etc., which, as has been indicated by the Irish Medicines Board, are more likely to precipitate serious adverse reactions to Lariam. Pregnant personnel are also excluded.
In the case of overseas missions to malarious areas, the medical screening involves an assessment of the individual's suitability to be prescribed the selected anti-malarial agent in line with current Irish Medical Board guidelines. This typically involves review of the individual's previous experience, if any, with the medication. His or her medical history is also screened for those conditions which have been identified as precipitating serious side effects in association with the medication. In addition, blood tests are carried out to ensure that the liver is healthy, as liver disease is an accepted contraindication to the use of Lariam.
It is the policy of the Defence Forces medical corps that personnel found suitable for Lariam should commence their medication three to four weeks in advance of their travel. The purpose of this precaution is twofold. While it allows a slow build-up of the medication in the bloodstream, it also permits assessment by the person of his or her individual reaction to the medication while still in Ireland. During this probationary period the individual can consult a medical officer over any adverse reaction, minor or major. Some minor reactions may be transient, but if persistent or troublesome, the individual will be deemed to have sensitivity to the medication and found not medically suitable for the mission.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Defence Forces take all necessary precautions in assessing the suitability of personnel before prescribing Lariam in accordance with the prescribing instructions and information provided by the Irish Medicines Board. Personnel are screened both before and after deployments and all necessary actions are taken to ensure those with contra-indications to Lariam use are deemed unsuitable for overseas service and not prescribed the medication.
There are three other anti-malaria medications available: Chloroquine, Malarone and Doxycycline. However, in the case of each of these products there are specific reasons they are not suitable for use by the Defence Forces in sub-Saharan Africa which I will now set out. Chloroquine is no longer in use because of the development of widespread resistance. Doxycycline has to be taken in the absence of dairy products and can produce sun-sensitivity skin rashes in some individuals. This is particularly significant when used in very sunny climes. For this reason, it is not recommended for first-line use by the Defence Forces in sub-Saharan Africa. Malarone is unsuitable for use as it is licensed by the Irish Medicines Board for no more than 28 days continuous use in a malarious area. In this context, this prophylactic agent is only suitable for use where the overseas deployment does not exceed 28 days.
These are among the reasons Lariam remains the anti-malaria chemoprophylactic agent of choice in areas where the predominant species of malaria is the virulent Plasmodium Falciparum. Lariam, therefore, is the agent of first choice on any sub-Saharan missions undertaken by the Defence Forces. On the other hand, Doxycycline is the anti-malaria chemoprophylactic agent of choice in Afghanistan where the predominant species of malaria is the less virulent Plasmodium Vivax.
Is the Minister aware that a number of reports have been made to the Irish Medicines Board on the use of this drug? Has his Department been given notice of possible compensation claims resulting from its use? He has said Defence Forces personnel are medically tested before serving abroad. However, there is no medical testing of personnel on their return. Since February 2009, the United States army no longer lists Lariam as the preferred anti-malaria drug. It now uses an alternative. Is Lariam used because it is the cheapest anti-malaria drug on the market? Is this why we continue to use it despite warnings about its safety?
The reason we use the drug is not because it is the cheapest on the market. Three other anti-malaria medications are available: Chloroquine, Malarone and Doxycycline. However, there are specific reasons each of these products is not suitable for use by the Defence Forces in sub-Saharan Africa, the area in which the drug has been used. Chloroquine is no longer in use because of the development of widespread resistance. Doxycycline has to be taken in the absence of dairy products and can produce sun-sensitivity skin rashes in some individuals. This is particularly significant when used in very sunny climates. For this reason, it is not recommended for first-line use by the Defence Forces in sub-Saharan Africa. Malarone is unsuitable for use as it is licensed by the Irish Medicines Board for no more than 28 days continuous use in a malarious area. Therefore, this prophylactic agent is only suitable for use when the overseas deployment does not exceed 28 days.
With regard to the extent of problems resulting from the use of Lariam, there are three members of the Defence Forces with serious symptomatology which may have been caused or contributed to by Lariam, although there is nothing conclusive in this regard. I am also advised by the military authorities that all three personnel have made a full recovery and that their cases have been reported to the Irish Medicines Board. In addition, I understand there is a further cohort of seven personnel with less dramatic symptomatology who remain under review. Again, there is no conclusive evidence that the use of Lariam was a factor in any of these cases.
I understand the United States defence forces stopped using the medication owing to concern about inadvertent prescribing of the drug to soldiers who should not take it. The United States defence forces did not carry out an assessment in advance of soldiers using Lariam of the contra-indications of use or whether its use was appropriate. Instead, the US authorities undertook mass administration of a drug, Lariam, which is, essentially, for soldiers serving in areas subject to malaria. The US defence forces have ceased using the drug. They are now using another drug, one of the ones the Irish Medicines Board has passed and to which I made reference but which is only recommended in this state for use by the Defence Forces continuously for no longer than 28 days.
Will the Minister continue to monitor the use of Lariam? He has said the US army no longer uses it. There is a reason for this. A number of US personnel reported side effects, as has happened in this state. Does the Minister know of any suicides by people who had taken this medicine?
I am unaware of a suicide by any member of the Defence Forces linked to this medicine. The US defence forces stopped using Lariam because they had not undertaken medical examinations to ascertain whether there were contra-indications, as are undertaken in this state before soldiers are posted abroad on UN missions. The US defence forces mass-prescribed it without undertaking any checks. That gave rise to particular problems in the way they dealt with the matter. There are substantial numbers of deaths from malaria every year in areas subject to it. The prescribing of this drug provides members of the Defence Forces with protection against malaria that is crucial if they are to engage in peacekeeping missions in areas where malaria is prevalent. It is the job of the Irish Medicines Board to keep any drugs prescribed in any circumstances in the State under review, including those made available to the Defence Forces for any purpose. I presume it will keep Lariam under review, as it has been doing up to now.
Decentralisation Programme
Catherine Murphy
Question:40 Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Defence when it is likely that the proposed centralised head office of the Defence Forces will be completed; his views that the establishment of such a headquarters is of vital importance in streamlining the workings of the Defence Forces; the factors preventing the establishment of such a headquarters; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8597/11]
The previous Government's decision on decentralisation provided for the transfer of the Department's Dublin-based Civil Service staff, together with a number of military personnel, to Newbridge, County Kildare, and the decentralisation of the Defence Forces headquarters to the Curragh. Decentralisation to Newbridge took place in November 2010. There are now approximately 170 civil servants and 50 military personnel located there. The move to Newbridge sees all civil branches of the Department located either in Newbridge or Renmore, County Galway. The Chief of Staff, Deputy Chiefs of Staff, the director of strategic planning and other relevant military staff have also relocated as planned.
Defence Forces headquarters is distributed between five locations. Unfortunately, the level of priority afforded to the Defence Forces by the previous Government did not ensure Defence Forces headquarters was centralised at the same time, or in advance of the Department of Defence moving to Newbridge. I would have thought it was of greater importance to centralise Defence Forces headquarters than the civil side of the Department of Defence. I find the prioritisation in that approach to an important issue very strange. The original decision on decentralisation provided for two buildings, one in the Curragh and one in Newbridge. The civil and military elements of the Department were to be accommodated between the two buildings. However, the previous Government decided to defer proceeding with decentralising Defence Forces headquarters to the Curragh.
It is clearly preferable to have all of the key managers, both civil and military, working in close proximity. The Department is actively pursuing options to address this situation. The use of existing departmental property in the Curragh is being considered as an alternative to a new building. Discussions in this regard are ongoing with the Office of Public Works. Only a week or so ago I visited the Curragh to examine the possible site and the nature of the works that might be necessary to provide the centralised headquarters that should have been put in place some years ago.
I completely concur with the Minister that the level of priority was the reverse of what it should have been. I understand there is an internal memo which states there are serious operational difficulties as a consequence of not having a centralised headquarters. I presume risk assessments are made all the time. Senior officials of the Defence Forces will never say they cannot do their job. However, it should be of concern to us that such a situation arose. Is it likely that there will be a fall-back position in the foreseeable future? Are we talking about an excessively long period to remedy this problem? What can be done to overcome the operational issues in the meantime? Five years ago we would not have thought our banks would be accorded junk status and our economy would have collapsed. When it comes to the Defence Forces, we like to think they are somewhere in the background which is where they should be. A system of risk analysis would help us foresee the kind of issues that could present.
Despite my concerns about Army headquarters and Defence Forces headquarters being dispersed through five different locations, I have no doubt about the capacity of the Defence Forces to fulfil their duties and meet requirements. I am very impressed by their commitment. The senior military managers, the directors of specific corps such as transport, ordnance, communications, and so on, and their staff, are currently located in five locations — McKee Barracks, Saint Bricin's in Infirmary Road, Cóláiste Caoimhghín in Glasnevin and Clonmel Barracks. However, the current situation is entirely unsatisfactory. I am very anxious that it is addressed. I am conscious of the difficulties because of the current financial climate. I actively engaged on this issue from the moment I was appointed Minister for Defence. I have had discussions within my Department about this and with the Chief of Staff and other members of the Defence Forces. I will do what I can to bring about a more rational situation whereby headquarters staff operate from a single building and in a manner that facilitates efficiency, co-ordination and co-operation at the highest level. I have no doubt that at present, the Defence Forces, even with these difficulties, are performing at the highest level and to the maximum of their capability.
What are the serious operational issues?
I am not aware of serious operational issues. The current situation is inefficient and inappropriate and it is not favoured by the Defence Forces. Quite clearly we need centralised headquarters. My objective is to identify how that can be best achieved within the current difficult financial circumstances. I hope we will make some progress in the coming months to put in place a plan which the Government will be able to adopt and implement.
Security and Defence Policy
Dara Calleary
Question:41 Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Defence if he is committed to retaining the UN resolution component of the triple lock; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8407/11]
Ireland's international security and defence policy context is defined by our policy of military neutrality, an active political and operational role in support of the United Nations, our commitments to the United Nations stand-by arrangements system, our participation in the evolving Common Security and Defence Policy and our participation in NATO's Partnership for Peace. Ireland has accorded central importance to the United Nations since it became a member in 1955 and, within the UN system, has supported effective international action in areas such as disarmament, peacekeeping, development and human rights. Ireland has taken seriously its obligation under the United Nations Charter to make available to the Security Council its armed forces, assistance and facilities, to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. This is reflected in Ireland's long and well-regarded history of participation in overseas missions mandated by the United Nations. Ireland is a strong supporter of the UN and in accordance with Article 24 of the UN Charter respects the primary responsibility of the UN Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. The existence of such UN mandates confers legitimacy upon and acceptance of peace support operations by groups engaged in conflict.
Successive Governments have made it clear that the triple lock provisions, as provided for in the Defence Acts, would continue to apply to service abroad by contingents of the Defence Forces. Ireland's policy on this was most recently reinforced in the adoption by the people of the Lisbon treaty in 2009. Ireland's act of ratification of the Lisbon treaty was reinforced by the associated national declaration which states, "that the participation of contingents of the Irish Defence Forces in overseas operations, including those carried out under the European common security and defence policy requires (a) the authorisation of the operation by the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations, (b) the agreement of the Irish Government, and (c) the approval of Dáil Éireann, in accordance with Irish law."
That said, I would not wish that our legislative provisions would prevent the Defence Forces from participating in missions which support Ireland's underlying principles of providing support in the areas of international peacekeeping, humanitarian missions or peace support operations.
In the current volatile international security environment, this matter should be kept under review to ensure that in the absence of a Security Council resolution we are not found wanting should circumstances arise where the Government would wish to consider Defence Forces participation in a crisis calling for a response from the international community which conforms to Ireland's proud tradition in contributing to international peace and security. Ireland's policy on the triple lock provisions could be the subject of constructive public debate in the formulation of the next White Paper on defence. As matters stand, the triple lock remains part and parcel of Government policy.
I wish to ascertain from the Minister the exact position. He has reinforced his commitment and that of the Government to the triple lock mechanism. However, the Fine Gael manifesto proposes that the triple lock be modified to allow the Security Council pass a resolution that should not prevent us from taking part in overseas missions. Our triple lock mechanism has worked on the basis that the United Nations has fully supported any of our international obligations. Fianna Fáil believes this can still be done in a crisis. The Labour Party is committed to retaining the triple lock. There is currently a divergence in Government policy. Are we to go the Fine Gael way or the Labour Party way or the Frankfurt way?
The Deputy is only trying to make mischief. I have set out quite clearly the Government position. The Deputy will be aware that a motion will be before the House on Thursday which deals with sending our troops to UNIFIL as part of a peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon. We are complying with the application of the triple lock mechanism and we are in the third point of the triple lock in dealing with a resolution required from this House. However, these are issues that should be debated openly. The last Defence Forces White Paper was published in 2001. On occasion we become tied into perspectives on peacekeeping that can be unhelpful. We should have an open discussion and debate on these issues without trying to play party politics or score unnecessary points.
Difficulties arose on an occasion when we could have participated in a peacekeeping mission. I understand the circumstances arose with regard to the question of participation of the Defence Forces in the first EU peace support operation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia which was launched in 2003. These circumstances related to the fact that while United Nations Resolution 1371 welcomed international efforts, including the efforts of the EU, to support the implementation of the UNRA peace agreement, it did not authorise an international United Nations force explicitly in the manner required by the Defence Acts. As a consequence, a peacekeeping mission that was necessary and desirable took place but Ireland was excluded from participation. It is important to openly debate these issues in a practical way, having regard to the very proud traditions of our Defence Forces in participating in peackeeping missions, to ensure we can continue to do so in the future on occasions and in parts of the world where our assistance is sought.
I acknowledge that proud tradition. Unfortunately and owing to a previous engagement, I cannot be present in the House on Thursday morning but the Minister has Fianna Fáil's full support. What is the Minister's personal view of Ireland's potential involvement in a European security system as committed to in the Fine Gael manifesto? I do not wish to create mischief but there is no mention of the triple lock mechanism or a debate on triple lock and Ireland's neutrality, in the programme for Government. Is this an add-on to the programme for Government or is Fine Gael still trying to work it out with its colleagues in Government?
Ireland is part and parcel of the European security system in the context of contributing to and assisting in European Union contributions to peackeeping and humanitarian missions. That is part and parcel of a programme to which the Deputy's Government subscribed and which it supported. I find it unusual that the Deputy should have any issue about the matter.
The issue is on the other side of the House.
Departmental Properties
Jonathan O'Brien
Question:42 Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Defence if any lands owned by his Department are in the process of being sold; if he envisages any land being sold in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8524/11]
The Department of Defence has identified 33 properties for disposal. The properties are dispersed throughout the country. Their disposal will take account of market conditions to maximise the return to the Defence Forces and generate funding for reinvestment in equipment and infrastructure. The properties include married quarters located outside barracks, lands that are considered surplus to military requirements, vacated barracks and smaller properties that have no further military use. Agreement has been reached with regard to 25 properties or parts of larger properties. The remainder will be brought to the market as current sales are finalised. The property portfolio is being kept under review. The Department may seek to dispose of further properties in addition to the 33 that have already been identified. A recent value for money review on military training lands has identified some properties that should be considered for disposal. The Department is looking at these properties with a view to preparing them for disposal.
Can the Minister tell the House how much money was raised when the properties in question were disposed of? Is it intended that the money will be ring-fenced for defence purposes? If so, has the Minister received a commitment from the Minister for Finance to that effect? Are any of the eight remaining properties that will go to the market suitable for use by local authorities that are keen to improve local facilities such as housing? Open spaces could be used to develop community facilities, for example. Is it possible to get some information on the eight remaining properties that it is hoped will be brought to the market?
Agreement has been reached to sell 11 married quarters that are situated outside barracks to the occupants of those properties. Three areas of land in Kildare and two at Kilworth, County Cork, are to be disposed of to the National Roads Authority. Six properties in Kilworth, Lifford and Rockhill are being disposed of, partly to local authorities and partly to the Department of Education and Skills. Parts of the sites at Oranmore, County Galway, and Knockalisheen in Limerick are to be disposed of to other Departments or State agencies. Five other plots — two at Knockalisheen in Limerick and three at Fermoy — are to be sold to the occupiers, which are sporting organisations or have leases on the properties concerned. The Department expects to dispose of these properties for a total of approximately €5.1 million. These sales are currently with the Department's legal advisers, who are conducting the necessary conveyancing of the properties in the normal legal format. The proceeds of these sales will be reinvested in the Defence Forces. At this time of financial difficulty, it is particularly important to use such funds for the benefit of the Defence Forces. If other properties are surplus to requirements, I expect that any moneys accrued from their disposal will be similarly reinvested. I can put the details of the prices that were agreed for the individual properties on the record of the House if the Deputy wishes.
Perhaps it would take too much time to do so. The full details are available if the Deputy wishes to hear them.
The Minister has said he intends that the €5.1 million will be reinvested in the Department of Defence. Does the Minister for Finance share that view? Has he given the Minister a commitment that this money will be ring-fenced? We are familiar with other cases in which we wanted money to be ring-fenced for use in our communities, but that did not happen. I refer to the case of the Criminal Assets Bureau, for example. The Minister's opinion and analysis of the matter is grand as long as the Department of Finance agrees with it.
I understand there is no difficulty about that.