Vol. 857 No. 5
6. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Defence the discussions his Department has had with the Department of Health to make the emergency aeromedical service in Athlone, County Westmeath permanent; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41250/14]
For more than a decade, I have been campaigning, alongside others in this House, to establish a helicopter emergency service, HEMS, in this country. Following the closure of the accident and emergency department in Roscommon County Hospital, the local community took the initiative of seeking to establish an air ambulance service.
In 2012, the Government established a 12-month pilot air ambulance service using the Air Corps helicopter. Although the service has been a phenomenal success, we have no clear commitment regarding the retention of the service. It is being extended on a three-month basis.
As the Deputy will be aware, as he has been involved in this issue, in June 2012, a memorandum of understanding was agreed between my Department and the Department of Health, in regard to Air Corps support of a pilot emergency aeromedical support, EAS, service operating out of Custume Barracks, Athlone. The purpose of the pilot service was to assess the level and type, if any, of dedicated aeromedical support needed to assist the national ambulance service, primarily in the west for certain types of patients. The pilot focused on the requirements of the HSE clinical care programmes, such as acute coronary care and stroke.
An evaluation of the pilot service was undertaken last year by an inter-agency audit and evaluation group and a report submitted to the then Minister for Health, who accepted the report's recommendations that an EAS service should be established in the region and that consideration should be given on how best to provide such a service. A working group, chaired by the Department of Health and comprising representatives from my Department, the HSE and the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services, was then established to examine options for the provision of a permanent EAS service into the future. The group is nearing completion of its work and its report will be finalised shortly. Meanwhile, my Department has agreed to extend Air Corps participation in the pilot service, in order to allow time for the working group to complete its work. As the Deputy knows, it has been agreed in principle to maintain the service. What is being decided is how to do it and under what cost structure. The details will be available very shortly.
I thank the Minister for his response and I am glad he has, again, committed to the retention of the service in principle. However, would he not agree that continually rolling over the three-month period is undermining the service? Would he not agree that the Air Corps, in conjunction with the national ambulance service, has developed a very fine service? There is great mutual respect between the organisations, and the Air Corps is very anxious to be part of the permanent structure. Can the Minister assure the House that the Air Corps will form an integral part of any new structure announced?
This has been a very good success and a great partnership. The Defence Forces, as always, have shown they can be flexible and accommodate broad requests and concerns with which they are asked to assist. The Air Corps has done a great job. We await the result of an implementation group on how we can provide the service into the future on a permanent basis. If the recommendation is that the Defence Forces continue to provide a service, we will look at it, I suspect, very favourably. However, it may not be the recommendation. Let us wait until we get that recommendation. We will keep the service in place until the working group's recommendations are clear and we have a plan to implement them. I am happy to do so. There will be no end to the service. It is about maintaining a pilot project, to which my Department and the Defence Forces, through the Air Corps, have been integral. We will maintain that service until there is an implementation plan and a clear understanding as to how the permanent service will be put in place. If it involves a request to the Defence Forces, we will consider it, I suspect favourably, but I will wait and see what the recommendations are first.
I thank the Minister for his response. The nub of the issue is that the most cost-effective way to deliver the service is through the Air Corps. There is no net cost to the Department of Defence for providing the service. Due to air traffic control rules, the Air Corps has more flexibility than a commercial operation would have. Why does there seem to be reluctance on the part of the Department of Defence to grasp this wholeheartedly and ensure the Air Corps is central to the development of any new service?
There is no reluctance at all. We have been a fully-fledged partner in providing the service, which everybody accepts has been a great success. However, it is a pilot project which we will keep in place until a permanent structure and implementation plan has been agreed. If such a plan involves a request for Defence Forces participation, we will consider it, and I suspect we will do so favourably. The Defence Forces are not a health service. We are part of a pilot project that has worked very well and will look at partnering any future proposals and roll-out plan if we are asked to do so. We should wait and see what the implementation group proposes, how it proposes to fund it and how the structure will work, so we can have an air ambulance service for the west of Ireland that functions well on the back of the very successful pilot project. The Defence Forces are, and will continue to be, very supportive of the project.
7. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Defence the plans for new recruitment for the Defence Forces for the coming years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43238/14]
I ask the Minister for a breakdown of his plans for new recruitment in the Defence Forces, including the Permanent Defence Force, Reserve Defence Force, Air Corps and Naval Service. Are there any plans for new apprentices and agency staff? Can he also comment on revising the 21-year limit for members of the Defence Forces who are willing and able to continue in service?
I thank the Deputy for his question. The Government is committed to maintaining the stabilised strength of the Permanent Defence Force at 9,500 people, comprising 7,520 Army, 886 Air Corps and 1,094 Naval Service personnel. I am advised by the military authorities that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force, at 30 September 2014, the latest date for which details are available, was 9,200 comprising 7,413 Army, 757 Air Corps and 1,030 Naval Service personnel. The personnel requirement of the Defence Forces is monitored on an ongoing basis in accordance with the operational requirements of each of the three services. As there is significant turnover of personnel in the Permanent Defence Force, targeted recruitment has been and is taking place so as to maintain the agreed strength levels.
General service recruitment will continue in 2015 from the recruitment panels formed from the current general service recruitment competition launched in March 2014. Some 441 recruits have been enlisted to the Army and Naval Service to date, of which 385 remain in training.
The intake of cadets into the Permanent Defence Force is normally carried out on an annual basis taking into consideration the operational requirements of the Defence Forces and the resource envelope allocated to the Department of Defence. It is too early to say what the requirement for an intake of cadets in 2015 may be.
Direct entry competitions are held as required from which specialist appointments are filled. A competition for the recruitment of five engine room personnel for the Naval Service is currently under way, with a closing date of 14 November 2014. A competition for the appointment of doctors remains open with applications being accepted on an ongoing basis.
A Reserve Defence Force, RDF, competition was also launched in March 2014. As a continuation of this campaign, the Defence Forces are currently accepting applications for the RDF until 14 November 2014. Future recruitment into the RDF will be informed by RDF strength figures.
With the support of the Chief of Staff and within the resources available, it is intended to retain the capacity of the Defence Forces to operate effectively across all roles and to undertake the tasks laid down by Government both at home and overseas. On the 21-year rule, I would refer the Deputy to a very long and detailed answer I gave on that issue earlier.
I thank the Minister for his response. Is he satisfied with the level of training new recruits will receive and the level of ongoing training for current members of the Defence Forces? Does he believe the Defence Forces are adequately equipped? In the context of the inspectorate's review of the Garda, how would the Defence Forces stand up if the spotlight was shone on the situation that prevails at present?
With regard to pay, Deputy Daly noted that changes to allowances have resulted in Defence Forces pay reducing by 20% since 2009. Is the Minister happy the pay levels are sufficient to encourage new recruits to enter the Defence Forces?
There is certainly strong demand for the recruitment calls that are under way at present. In fact, I have received letters from various Deputies making cases for people who have applied and so on. There seems to be strong demand for that, despite the fact there are issues in need of review in regard to remuneration and pay.
In terms of equipment, I am satisfied we have adequate and appropriate levels of equipment and we are investing in new equipment all the time. As the Deputy will know, for example, the big expenditure in the Naval Service has been on new ships, which means there will be three new ships in three years. I cannot ever remember a time when that has happened before, and it is happening at a time when the Government is under a lot of financial pressure. We have already seen the LE Samuel Beckett, next year we will see the LE James Joyce and we will see a third ship 12 months later. Likewise, there are investment programmes for the Army and Air Corps. I am satisfied that we are investing in the Defence Forces.
With regard to the overall situation, as it happens, the Defence Forces have been looking at themselves. We have had an outside person who is eminently qualified looking at issues like morale, bullying and reporting channels and support systems for personnel within the Defence Forces.
I welcome the Minister's statement. When will that report be completed and published? I ask him to provide more detail on the extra investment in the Army and Air Corps. I accept investment has taken place in the Naval Service.
That report has been published. I launched it in Collins Barracks some two months ago. The author was there and talked about her experience of literally being immersed in the Defence Forces and all of its complexity, and so on. It was the third such report published by the same team as part of the attempt to modernise and put new structures within the Defence Forces.
We see on the front of The Irish Examiner today, unfortunately, a case of totally unacceptable behaviour within the Defence Forces which is currently being investigated by military police. That should not be happening within the Defence Forces and we will deal with it.
In terms of the broader look at the Defence Forces, I want to reassure the House there is a very critical look in the mirror to make sure we are doing everything that is appropriate in terms of a modern, well equipped, well trained and motivated Defence Forces. If mistakes are being made, we will address them in an open way.
8. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Defence his plans to continue the use of lariam as the anti-malarial drug of choice for future deployments in the affected region. [43269/14]
As the Minister will probably be aware, the issue of the use of lariam as an anti-malarial drug has caused profound concern for many years now. He will also probably know United States forces no longer use this drug. I want to probe whether there are alternatives and whether the Minister will stop the use of this drug in the Defence Forces.
The lariam debate is controversial and has been for many years. I remember taking lariam at one point when I went to travelling in Africa, and having the debate with my doctor on this issue, so it is not new.
The Deputy will be aware that malaria is a very serious disease which kills approximately 1 million people per year in sub-Saharan Africa alone. It is a grave threat to any military force operating in that area. In the decade of deployment to sub-Saharan Africa by the Defence Forces, not a single member of the Defence Forces has died from malaria. The anti-malaria regime in place in the Defence Forces includes the use of lariam, and I would contend it is working.
The Health Products Regulatory Authority, HPRA, formerly the Irish Medicines Board, is the statutory authority with responsibility for quality, safety and efficacy of medicines in Ireland. The Defence Forces policy in regard to the use of anti-malaria medication is in line with current HPRA guidelines.
The Defence Forces are fully aware of the range of reported side effects attaching to all anti-malarial medications. Significant precautions are taken by the Medical Corps in assessing the medical suitability of members of the Defence Forces to take any of the anti-malarial medications, all of which have some side effects. There are three anti-malarial drugs licensed by the HPRA in use in the Defence Forces, lariam, malarone and doxycycline.
It is the policy of the Defence Forces that personnel are individually screened for fitness and medical suitability for service overseas, including a medical risk assessment for lariam.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Where malaria has been identified as a risk in a particular mission area, the choice of chemoprophylaxis medication is dependent on a number of factors, including the type of malaria in the destination, resistance to particular drugs, the profile of the traveller - contra-indications, underlying health conditions and purpose of travel - the duration of travel and adherence issues. The choice of medication is a medical decision made by medical officers in the Defence Forces, having regard to the specific circumstances of the mission and the individual member of the Defence Forces.
Former Ministers for Defence have had the various allegations surrounding the use of lariam investigated thoroughly and obtained the advice of leading medical experts, who concur with the prescribing practices followed by the Defence Forces. Anti-malarial medications, including the use of lariam, must remain in the formulary of medications prescribed by the Medical Corps for Defence Forces personnel on appropriate overseas missions to ensure that our military personnel can have effective protection from the very serious risks posed by this highly dangerous disease.
As the Minister knows, the statute of limitations provides for a period of two years but, often, the symptoms in regard to lariam present years afterwards. I am aware there are legal cases under way. My worry is that, rather than the State just acknowledging there is an issue, it will defend it to the last and continue to use lariam when there are other options available. It worries me that the United States armed forces have stopped the use of lariam. We know the array of advisers they have - multiples of what we have in Ireland - yet they have made that decision.
I am not a qualified scientist or pharmacist but it causes me concern that the reason we have not stopped the use of this drug is that we are going to defend legal cases and fight them all the way. My concern is that the outcome of this may be a damning indictment of this State.
I want to set the record straight on something I consider very important. We are not continuing the use of lariam because of legal cases that are being taken. We are continuing the use of lariam in the Defence Forces to ensure we have a responsible approach towards ensuring members of the Defence Forces do not contract malaria. We are acting on the advice of the Health Products Regulatory Authority, the former Irish Medicines Board, as most people will know it.
I am not a qualified doctor either but I took medical advice before I took lariam. Luckily, I did not have any side effects from it and I did not contract malaria either, and I have been to Africa many times. The Defence Forces are making decisions on the basis of the best medical advice that is available in Ireland and in terms of the best and most effective way of protecting our Defence Forces when they are operating in a country that has malaria. That is the only motivation here. If we get a change of recommendation from the Health Products Regulatory Authority, we will act on that, regardless of court cases. The only priority for me is protecting our Defence Forces and to ensure we do everything we can to protect them when they are in a difficult environment abroad. Malaria is a big part of that because we have a lot of troops in Africa.
There is no challenge to the fact the Minister is fine after taking lariam or that we need to protect ourselves from the threat of malaria.
My point is that a number of former members of the Defence Forces believe their mental health problems are connected to side effects from taking lariam. The United States forces have stopped using lariam. Have our relevant authorities ever engaged with the relevant authorities in the United States to ask why they removed lariam and if there are grounds for us to do the same?
There are many people in this House who sometimes are not overly complimentary about the US military in terms of some of the decisions it makes but for me, that is not so much the issue. We have medical advice available to us in Ireland, which is of the highest standard, and we follow that advice. That is from where we take our lead. If there is growing international evidence to the contrary, we will look at it, whether it is in the US or in some other part of Europe or the world. I assure the Deputy that the only motivation here is the best interests of and the medical protection of our armed forces. If the Deputy has a concern about anything in this area, he should send it to me and we will look at it.
The only reason I mentioned I took lariam was that I was making the point that if one is not a doctor, is a policy-maker or has a different skills set and is making a medical decision, one takes one's lead on that decision from those who know what they are talking about and who understand medicine and the challenges of lariam and malaria which, as far as I am concerned and from an Irish perspective, is the Health Products Regulatory Authority. We will take our lead from that body unless there is reason to raise questions because of international evidence, which we will look at.
9. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence the assurances he will provide that the Defence Forces public procurement policy excludes companies which have been linked to violations of international law, in view of previous contracts with a company (details supplied). [41265/14]
In the lifetime of this Government, although not under the Minister's watch, just short of €3 million of taxpayers' money was spent on security contracts with the Israeli company, Elbit Systems, which has been found guilty of violating international law. Now that the Minister is Minister for Defence, will he give us an assurance that the public procurement policy of the Defence Forces will include a ban on any dealings with companies found in violation of international law?
I have previously outlined the position in regard to the procurement of defensive equipment by the Department of Defence. I have also explained the scale and type of such equipment the Department has acquired from Israeli companies in recent years and the purpose of such acquisitions, which is to afford the greatest possible force protection to Irish troops.
The matter of barring Israeli companies from entering tender competitions for the provision of military goods would be akin to Ireland unilaterally placing an embargo on such goods from Israel and this raises serious implications for Irish foreign policy which are outside the remit of my Department. As the Deputy is aware, trade policy and market access are largely EU competencies and any restriction or ban on imports from any particular country would have to be concerted at EU level. The manner in which the Department of Defence procures goods and services remains constant with international best practice and is in line with EU and UN decisions on trade embargoes. I am satisfied that this is the appropriate way in which to continue rather than Ireland taking any unilateral decision to target individual companies or countries in that respect.
The Minister outlined previously what was bought, what it was used for and under what procurement policies it was bought but that was not really the question he was asked to deal with, as I am aware of all of those things. The question being posed here is that when companies engage in unlawful practices and we do business with them, then we are facilitating that. While there might be procurement policies, it is also the case that many of the Minister's international peers, recognising this injustice, have taken positive action to ensure they do not have dealings with companies which violate international law, as all of those operating in the settlements do. I am thinking, for example, of the British Government which has an overseas business risk policy that outlines and tries to encourage people not to deal with the settlements. The Dutch Government has been actively involved in providing advice to companies not to deal with the settlements while the Norwegian Ministry of Finance prevented pension funds' money from going into this system for the same reason.
The Minister can take proactive action. It is not unilateral action. The Minister had no problem signing us up to sanctions against Russia, which affected Irish farmers, but he does not seem to have any difficulty standing by while women and children are massacred in Gaza. We can take positive action in these matters.
Is the Deputy suggesting we should not have taken the foreign policy decisions we took in regard to Russia?
The Minister spoke about unilateral actions and said that he had a problem with-----
We have not taken unilateral action in regard to Russia. We are part of an EU decision to impose sanctions because of what has been happening in eastern Ukraine. It is not unilateral action. None of the examples the Deputy outlined in Britain, Norway and the Netherlands involve an embargo being imposed by a government on individual companies or on Israel, as a country. They are examples of countries trying to use pressure points to get change.
Ireland has made strong statements on much of what has happened in Israel and Gaza in recent months and we will continue to do so because we have a strong Government position on those issues. However, what the Deputy is asking me to do is effectively to blacklist companies because of a policy position or a view on those companies. What I am saying is that Ireland generally makes decisions as part of a collective within the EU or the UN in regard to sanctions or embargoes on the basis of a recommendation at multilateral level rather than a unilateral level.
The point I was making was that the Minister supported an embargo in regard to Russia but is not, in any way, advocating a similar action be taken against Israel. The question did not relate to all Israeli companies but specifically to those which violated international law and those involved in illegal Israeli settlements, which is a slightly different thing. The Norwegian Government took direct action.
I am not asking the Minister to deal with public procurement policy, as that is not his ministerial brief, but he is responsible for how the Defence Forces spend taxpayers' money. Is he prepared to stand over a situation where taxpayers' money, spent on Defence Forces' machinery, is being given to companies involved in violating international law because that is the case with Elbit Systems? It is not up for any dispute whatsoever-----
Please do not mention names. This is not a court of law.
It is not and I am not radically quoting anything unfounded.
Your question did not name any company. It stated "details supplied" for a reason because you know that we do not do that here. I call the Minister.
I am quoting from a Trócaire document, which is a public one.
This is the Parliament.
The point I am making is that the Department of Defence procedures in terms of procuring goods and services is absolutely consistent with international best practice at UN and EU levels. That is a decision we have made. If there is a collective proposal at UN level to take targeted action and to use trade as a way to force change in some part of the world or in a region, then Ireland will be part of that discussion but I am not in a position to make foreign policy decisions in regard to individual companies, and certainly not on the back of a parliamentary question.
10. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Defence when Irish Defence Forces personnel currently participating in ISAF will be withdrawn from Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43271/14]
The Afghan war was probably the most senseless and useless one we can recall. It has gone on for twice as long as the Second World War. There really is not much merit in Irish troops being there and they probably should never have been sent there in the first place. US and British troops are leaving Afghanistan with their tails between their legs. How soon will the Irish troops leave Afghanistan?
I am not sure I agree with the Deputy's assessment. Ireland has participated in the NATO–led UN mandated International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, in Afghanistan since 5 July 2002. Seven members of the Permanent Defence Force are currently serving in the mission headquarters. The ISAF mission is due to conclude on 31 December 2014 when Afghani National Security Forces will take over full responsibility for security within Afghanistan. NATO will lead a follow on training and support operation called resolute support mission with effect from 1 January 2015.
Defence force participation in all overseas missions is reviewed on an ongoing basis. The overall drawdown of ISAF personnel is currently under way and the withdrawal of the Defence Force personnel will be co-ordinated in this context. Irish personnel will complete their service with the ISAF mission in December 2014, which is when the ISAF mission ends.
The proposed NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, post 2014, will be a follow-on training advisory and assistance mission in support of the Afghan National Security Forces capacity building. The question of Ireland's contributing to the follow-on mission in Afghanistan is being considered in the context of what other contributing countries are planning. Any participation by Ireland in the follow-on training mission will be subject to Government approval.
The Irish troops were involved in advising NATO personnel on bomb disposal. If the Government leaves the troops there for the next phase they will advise Afghani state troops, which will be a very dangerous exercise. It would be like an outsider coming to Ireland during the Civil War and giving Michael Collins’ men advice on bombs. It is just looking for trouble.
The Minister questioned my analysis of the war. The war started as an effort to destroy Al-Qaeda, which has mushroomed since. It went on to become a campaign for democracy and women’s rights. Women’s rights have gone backwards since then. It became a war to protect Western cities, and it has done the opposite. It became a war to eradicate opium production but that is at a record high with the production and supply of 90% of the world trade. Any action on the part of Western powers in Afghanistan has been a disaster.
I am not saying the war in Afghanistan was a success.
Is the Minister saying it is a disaster?
I am saying that I do not agree with the Deputy’s full assessment of it. There have been and continue to be huge challenges in Afghanistan. Ireland’s view has always been that we would make a limited contribution to sharing an expertise that we have from a training perspective. Our people are in headquarters there, and are not involved on the front line. It is not akin to joining a civil war.
If we make decisions in the future it will be on the back of a request and a consideration of that request as to whether Ireland can contribute to stability and peace-building in Afghanistan following a very difficult, traumatic and tragic war there, about which I fully agree with the views expressed by the Deputy. That will be the consideration. We are not considering front-line troops. We are considering potentially making a contribution to building capacity within the Afghani security forces so that they can run their country.
The Irish personnel who get involved in these missions are very well trained and highly qualified. We have nothing but peace to work towards when we get involved but the people we often get involved with do not. Peace is not the objective of the Western powers in this or the Middle East region. If it was, things would be happening differently. President Obama in his term of office has bombed seven Muslim countries-----
This is Question Time. Would the Deputy put a supplementary question?
When will the Minister make the decision on the Irish troops? Would he reconsider this because any involvement on the part of Irish troops with Afghanistan does nothing for our self-esteem?
The Deputy seems to suggest that Ireland should have nothing to do with Afghanistan and abandon the new government which faces challenges. I am saying that we are considering requests for assistance, given all the complexity of Afghanistan and the nation-building programme that needs to proceed there now.
Nation-destroying.
Yes because the nation has been destroyed.
The Western powers have destroyed it.
I listened to the Deputy’s statements, by and large, and am trying to respond to them.
I will bring a recommendation to Government for approval and we will be totally open about it. That decision has not yet been finalised but it will need to happen shortly if we are to make even a limited contribution on the follow-on mission to ISAF. We are considering that in some detail at the moment and decisions will be made in due course.
