Vol. 897 No. 3
65. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence given the recent terror attacks in Paris in France, if he has instigated any review of the Defence Forces' role and capability in dealing with such an attack here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41395/15]
This question is posed in the aftermath of the appalling atrocities in Paris. Understandably, it seeks to establish what review the Minister has conducted of the role and capability of the Defence Forces in dealing with a similar attack, were one to occur here. The Minister has indicated that such an attack is unlikely, describing the risk of one taking place as low. Nonetheless, we all want to be sure that we have the capacity to respond.
The Deputy asks a reasonable question. Primary responsibility for the internal security of the State rests with the Department of Justice and Equality and An Garda Síochána. Among the roles assigned to the Defence Forces in the White Paper on Defence is the provision of what is known as aid to the civil power, ATCP, which in practice means providing assistance and support to An Garda Síochána when requested to do so.
There is ongoing and close liaison between An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces regarding security matters, including aid to the civil power deployments. A wide variety of military training activities is specifically designed to counter or respond to possible security emergencies. Regular co-ordination and liaison meetings also take place between the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána on ATCP issues.
The full spectrum of Defence Forces personnel and equipment is available for deployment in response to any security issue or other emergency that may arise.
Within the Defence Forces, both the Ordnance Corps and the Army Ranger Wing specialise in providing an immediate response to emergency incidents that might require their highly specialised capabilities. The Ordnance Corps consists of a number of explosive ordnance disposal teams which are on standby 24/7 to respond when a request for assistance is received from An Garda Síochána to deal with suspect devices. It is worth noting to the House that there have been 500 such call-outs in the last three years and that the Defence Forces have never failed to deal comprehensively and safely with any of those challenges.
The Army Ranger Wing is an integral unit of the Defence Forces whose roles include provision of specialist ATCP support to An Garda Síochána. The need for a high level of preparedness to deal with any requests for special forces operations is inherent in the unit's mission. Members are trained to the highest levels of motivation, physical fitness and skill-at-arms for their specialist role. The Army Ranger Wing is on standby to be called upon to undertake duties in any part of the country.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
I confirm that the Defence Forces keep their operational plans and response capabilities for dealing with a wide range of threats under constant review. I also confirm that a further review of operational plans has been instigated by the Defence Forces in light of the dreadful terrorist attacks that occurred in Paris just over a week ago. It is my priority as Minister for Defence to ensure that the operational capacity of the Defence Forces is maintained to the greatest extent possible. On an ongoing basis, I receive advice in this regard from the Chief of Staff and he has confirmed to me that he is satisfied that the Defence Forces are equipped and resourced to respond as appropriate to any such events were they to occur in this State.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I put a written question to the Minister last week on the Army Ranger Wing at which time he indicated that he was not in a position to respond. I note, however, that today the Irish Independent appears to have been briefed and informed that the White Paper covers the extension of the Army Ranger Wing's capacity by approximately 50%. The make-up is of the order of 100 personnel. Has the Minister given any thought to an independent review of our capacity and in particular that of the Defence Forces to act as an aid to the civil power? Was the terminology the Minister used when describing the risk as low somewhat inaccurate and is not the accurate term for the current risk "moderate"?
The description of the threat assessment, which has not changed for a number of months including in the aftermath of the attacks in Paris, is "possible but not likely". On the capacity of the Defence Forces to respond we, of course, keep that under constant review. Another review of capacity was begun in the immediate aftermath of the Paris attacks. I rely on my Chief of Staff and the Defence Forces to give me regular updates on response capacity, which changes all the time. From a military, policing or intelligence perspective, no country in the world, regardless of scale or resources, can protect its citizens against all eventualities. We are learning that at our cost internationally. We will constantly look to best international practice, share information and learn lessons. Within the White Paper, we talk about the need for flexibility, modernisation, change and constant review processes. In fact, the new White Paper sets out that the Defence Forces will have a fundamental review every three years. Part of the assessment in putting together the White Paper included an insistence on increasing the resources going to special forces and the size of the Army Ranger Wing by 50%. That makes a great deal of sense in the context of what has happened subsequently.
I welcome the proposed increase in the size of the Army Ranger Wing. There is no doubt about it. In respect of a catastrophe in Dublin, the Army Ranger Wing is based in the Curragh. In a written reply to me recently, the Minister indicated that we had eight helicopters with the capacity to transfer personnel. How readily available are crew for those eight helicopters and at what notice can they move? How quickly could we get them in the air and moving towards Dublin or whatever location nationally a disaster was occurring? Can the Minister tell the House what is the capacity of those helicopters? Is it 30 or 40 personnel or more?
I understand that a ranger in full kit can occupy the space of two people on board a particular helicopter. Does the Minister have any proposal to acquire additional helicopters in order to deal with the eventuality of such an attack?
While these are interesting questions, the Deputy will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to discuss operational matters such as those about which he is asking, for example, response times.
The people on the street are discussing them.
I am sorry, but the people on the street should be reassured that we have An Garda Síochána, which is the primary response body in emergencies. Its emergency response units have been highly trained at home and abroad and have significant capacity. They are supported by Defence Forces personnel when called upon to do so. Speaking as the Minister with responsibility for the Defence Forces, we are ready to provide that capacity. We do it regularly in respect of ordnance.
The Army Ranger wing is one of the best in the world at what it does in terms of its capacity, training, etc. There are ongoing conversations between the Defence Forces and the Garda to ensure that we constantly review, upgrade and assess the response capacity in order to respond to whatever threat may arise.
It is important that I reinforce the message for those who may be listening. The threat levels in Ireland have not changed. The threat of an attack in Ireland is possible, but not likely. We all have a responsibility to reassure people in that regard.
66. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware of the vigil which took place on 11 November 2015 at Merrion Square in Dublin 2 in support of serving and former Defence Forces members who claim to have been affected after taking Lariam; if he will meet the Action Lariam for Irish Soldiers group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41391/15]
On 11 November, I attended a vigil in Merrion Square in support of serving and former Defence Forces members who claimed to have been affected by the anti-malarial drug Lariam. It was a moving ceremony and I heard disturbing stories from those present. I heard from former members who were still struggling with the negative effects that they believed had ruined their lives and from the parents of former soldiers who blamed Lariam for the suicides of their loved ones. Will the Minister consider meeting the Action Lariam for Irish Soldiers group to discuss these issues openly?
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue, which Deputy Clare Daly has also raised repeatedly and on which she has submitted another question for later today. I am aware that the vigil took place. Since then, I have received a letter from the group seeking a meeting. I am more than happy to meet it. I will respond to it in the coming days and set up a meeting before Christmas.
Since our last Question Time, I have held a detailed and long meeting on Lariam with our entire team in the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces, including the Chief Medical Officer and the other policy and medical experts and personnel. Following that Question Time, I met someone who had been affected by Lariam and subsequently put many of the questions that arose then to our experts to try to get answers. I will happily meet people who believe that they have been the victims of the consequence of taking Lariam as an anti-malarial drug.
My only objective is to try to do the right thing to protect the health of our Defence Forces personnel while they are abroad in areas that are affected by malaria. It is a serious risk, as malaria is a killer and we need to protect our troops from it. How to do that and what drug to use are questions of judgment and medical assessment, that is, the screening process that people go through individually before being prescribed Lariam. I will refer to this matter again. Our expert group has been reconvened to examine our policy on Lariam. We are considering what is being done internationally. I expect the group to report to me around the end of January.
I have no tie to Lariam. My only concern is to do what is right for our troops by taking the best possible medical advice and learning from the experiences of the many people who have been involved in making that decision. I suspect that I will have to answer more questions on this matter.
We are all on the same page.
The reason the questions are being asked continually is that we are all concerned about soldiers who have been affected negatively by the drug. One question they ask is whether the Minister is satisfied that, in all circumstances in which personnel have been asked to take Lariam, they have been given complete information on the possible side-effects.
The Minister mentioned the inquiry group. We approached this during our last Question Time and the Minister said he was establishing the group. That is positive news for all those who have been affected. In the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions, there are ongoing inquiries. Has the Minister been following them? In the Irish case, the group is to sit privately to consider the matter, but in the United Kingdom, for instance, there is an open inquiry. Has the Minister considered having an open inquiry? Does he believe the route he is taking is quicker or more successful?
As with all such matters, people express concern that the first priority of the State or Departments seems to be to protect the system where difficult events have occurred. An example is institutional abuse. Will the Minister consider opening up the inquiry so the public can see what is going on?
First, it is not an inquiry; it is a working group of experts that is to make recommendations to me on the continuing use, or otherwise, of Lariam as an effective antimalarial drug. Some 1 million people die in sub-Saharan Africa each year from malaria. It poses a very serious risk to military personnel when they are serving in that region. We have choices. Approximately three drugs are available that could be used to protect serving personnel abroad from malaria. None of them is without issues and problems. There is no simple solution. Nobody is denying that some people have negative side effects when they take Lariam. However, it is a matter of weighing up risk factors to protect people from a very serious disease and at the same time doing everything we can, within reason, to screen people to ensure they are suitable candidates for Lariam before they take it. A number of people have not travelled abroad because they were deemed unsuitable on screening. Therefore, they do not get placed on overseas missions.
This is not about an inquiry but about a medical assessment by a group of experts, both national and international, examining all the work that has been done internationally on this since the last time it reported. It is to make a sensible medical recommendation to me. It is not about having an inquiry.
There is certainly an inquiry on the impact of Lariam. It is not only about those who are currently affected but also about the future of Lariam prescription in the Defence Forces.
The Minister is considering whether to send more Irish troops to Mali after France invoked a mutual defence clause under the Lisbon treaty. We opposed that whole element when it was being negotiated. If the Minister gets Cabinet and Dáil approval and more troops are sent to Mali, will they be taking Lariam, or will they have another option? I have read articles and advice by highly respected doctors stating that there are equally effective and much safer alternatives. The Minister is saying the matter is still under review, but I am worried about the next batch coming down the track and what we will do about it. Will the personnel be given options in this regard?
We have had troops going to various parts of the world for 58 years. If we are to send more troops to any part of the world - we have not decided to do this, so let us not start overstepping the mark - we will have to go through the usual procedures for assessment and reconnaissance.
We will also have to go through a triple-lock decision-making process, as is appropriate. In addition, we will have to ensure that it is consistent with what we want to do from a foreign policy and defence policy perspective and in a way that is consistent with neutrality.
I am answering a question on the Mali issue later on, but whenever we send troops to parts of the world that have a malaria problem we have to make the appropriate assessments to ensure that we try to protect them as best we can. There is no distinction between officers and ranks, which is a suggestion that was made previously. I asked that question forcefully and I got a forceful response. This is purely about screening, assessing and trying to protect people as best we can, given the drugs options that are there. As regards any doctor that suggested to the Deputy that there is some kind of simple solution and that we should just switch to another drug, I suggest that it is not as straightforward as that from a medical point of view.
67. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence the merits of deploying members of the Irish Defence Forces in Mali, given the history of that country. [41375/15]
This question is obviously posed in the context of the French authorities invoking Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union, including the requirement to aid and assist in the event of an attack on another member state. There is speculation in the media that the Minister was considering allowing French troops currently located in Mali to be relieved of their duties and go elsewhere, and for their spaces to be filled by extra Irish Defence Forces personnel. I think that would not be a worthy decision to make, but I wonder what the Minister's thinking is on this.
First, for the record of the House, I will state what Article 42.7 actually is. It is not a mutual defence clause but a mutual assistance clause. There is a big difference. The article states:
If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
In other words, for a country like Ireland, we have an obligation to look at how we can be of assistance, but we do not have an obligation to do anything that in any way undermines or contradicts our own policy on defence, which is one of neutrality. Therefore, this idea that we are somehow compromising neutrality is just not true, and we are not being asked to do it either by France or by anybody else. What I have said in response to the extraordinary and tragic attacks on the streets of Paris is that Ireland would do what it could within the confines of what we can do. Consistent with our own policy, laws and Constitution, we will do what we can to help.
The context in which we spoke about Mali was that if France makes a decision that it needs to redeploy some of those troops - which it may do, because they are spread across multiple peacekeeping missions right across North Africa, from the Central African Republic to Mali, Somalia and into the Middle East - to focus on national security issues, which is their decision, then the UN will have problems in terms of those peacekeeping missions that may have reduced personnel. It is in that context that Ireland may well speak to the UN about how we could offer some expertise. We have a lot of expertise and credibility in peacekeeping; we are very good at it. However, people should not try to link Irish neutrality with assistance to France, as if Ireland is involved in some kind of offensive operation.
If France feels the need to reallocate resources towards national security, which is very reasonable in the context of what has just happened there, Ireland will obviously consider assisting, from a UN perspective and from a good neighbour perspective, by potentially picking up some of that burden. That is all we are looking at. We will take our time and make our decision accordingly.
There is a link, of course, despite the Minister's best wishes. He is correct that the article involved clearly states that whatever action is taken, it "shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy" of the individual member state.
The problem is that this Government and the previous Government have had an incredibly fluid interpretation of what it means to be a neutral country. While resources in France are spread across multiple peacekeeping operations, it is also the case that the French President has announced that it is going to engage in a pitiless war against ISIS. It is engaged currently in a bombing campaign in Syria and so on. The idea that Irish troops would relieve French troops in order for them to engage in actions elsewhere within that context would be reprehensible.
We can try to divorce our foreign policy from security issues - the Minister tried to do so in reply to the first question as well. The reality is that the best defence for our security is that we stop using Shannon Airport on a repeated basis by the US military, because it is an undoubted fact that the risk and threat to Ireland increases as a result of our assisting that aggressive war, which is so counter-productive.
With respect, I think France is better placed to make decisions on how it protects its citizens than Deputy Daly, which is what she seems to be proposing. The country saw over 130 of its citizens mowed down or blown up on the streets of Paris. An Irish citizen, who luckily was not killed, was injured significantly.
France has a right to respond to protect itself and it will do that. What it chooses to do is not going to be influenced by Ireland one way or the other. However, if France is redeploying troops to protect its citizens at home and abroad and if that creates gaps in peacekeeping missions in different parts of the world, then Ireland could potentially be helpful to the United Nations in filling them. Of course we will look at that, because that is what Ireland does. We do peacekeeping and we do it well. We try to bring stability, protect people, train people and bring some sense of normalisation to conflict zones. We will continue to do that. That is all that is at play here.
We will come back to this House if we make a decision to do that, which we may not do. If we do we will go through the normal procedure and justify everything we do in the context of settled policy in Ireland around neutrality.
I assure the Minister that will be strenuously resisted in this Chamber. The Minister's stance has exposed the utter hypocrisy of western authorities in respect of this matter. France is better placed and France has a right to defend its citizens - exactly contradictory remarks were made when Russia engaged in the same reprehensible actions by bombing Syria in response to attacks on Russia. The West said Russia should not be doing that because it was endangering its citizens. That was correct for Russia but it is also correct for France.
Sadly, French citizens, completely innocent people who have been slaughtered, are the victims of their Government's foreign policy. French people are closely aligned to Ireland and Irish people have close ties with them. The best aid we can give them is to advise them not to play into the hands of ISIS and to get their Government to stop funding Saudi Arabia, which funds ISIS, and to stop it engaging in actions which will give rise to ISIS activity.
Mali is a former French colony. Much of the intervention and the role of the French authorities in that region stems from their desire to keep control over the uranium, gas and oil supplies in that region. That is really what is at risk there. The idea that we would be involved in some post-colonial effort is reprehensible.
What I think is reprehensible is that Deputy Daly seems to be suggesting that the tragedy in Paris is the fault of the French Government as opposed to madmen, who are fundamentalists and who want to destroy the way of life that cities like Paris represent. Paris is multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-colourful. No city in the world has more mixed marriages than Paris. It is a place I had the privilege to live in as a student for a period. The suggestion in this House that we should be looking at ourselves to blame for what happened on the streets of Paris is reprehensible. France has an obligation to defend itself. We all have an obligation to work together in the European Union to protect our own citizens, in Ireland, France and everywhere else.
In that context, we will make decisions in a way that is consistent with our laws and Irish neutrality, which is settled policy in Ireland and which I support. I am certainly not going to start lecturing other countries about how they should protect their citizens in the context of what has just happened.
68. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the number of Defence Forces personnel currently on overseas missions; if there have been any new requests to participate in new missions or to contribute further to existing missions; how long it is expected that the Naval Service will continue to be deployed in the Mediterranean; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41396/15]
The question addresses the issue of Irish personnel serving overseas and seeks to establish whether the Minister is considering requests for any new missions or to extend existing missions. I refer in particular to the work of the LE Samuel Beckett and LE Eithne in the Mediterranean and whether it is considered appropriate to continue their life-saving actions after Christmas.
As of 1 November, Ireland has contributed 429 Defence Forces personnel to 12 different missions throughout the world. The main overseas missions in which Irish Defence Forces personnel are deployed are the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, which comprises 192 personnel, and UNDOF in Syria, with 150 personnel. The Naval Service humanitarian service mission in the Mediterranean comprises 60 personnel.
The previously mentioned training mission in Mali comprises ten personnel. I had the privilege of visiting them around St. Patrick's Day this year and stayed in the hotel that, unfortunately, was the subject of an attack a few days ago. Their professionalism and the contribution they are making towards stability in the country is impressive.
In terms of the Mediterranean mission, I understand the LE Samuel Beckett will come home, probably between 14 to 17 December. We will not immediately send another ship to replace it. However, I anticipate we will send another ship early in the spring, perhaps towards the end of February or March, but we want to have a period of assessment of the mission. We have sent three ships in a row to the Mediterranean and nearly 9,000 people have been rescued. I expect many rescues will also be needed next year. I hope whoever is in government will be in a position to send an Irish navel vessel to the Mediterranean again to work with the Italians on a bilateral basis to continue that humanitarian work, something which has won us many friends in the Mediterranean but, more importantly, has saved many lives and has proven the capacity of the Naval Service within the overall Defence Forces to be able to undertake complex missions abroad.
I expect there will be another mission next year. There will be a reflection period of six to eight weeks to determine how we can improve the mission and we will talk to our colleagues in Italy. At the previous Council meeting, the Italian Minister specifically asked me to ensure the Naval Service stays in the Mediterranean. I reassured her that we would certainly consider that and I would discuss the issue with the Government early next year.
I salute all of the personnel involved in the particular initiative to which the Minister referred. I also salute the Minister for the very constructive role he has played. In the intervening period between our departure from the Mediterranean and our likely return, what sort of arrangements will be in place? It is to be presumed the flow of people will continue. What sort of engagement has the Minister had with our European counterparts to ensure some sort of alternative arrangements are put in place?
I had a very interesting meeting last week with representatives from Médecins Sans Frontières, which is very much part of the humanitarian mission in the Mediterranean and is doing a fantastic job as an NGO. The numbers have reduced quite significantly in recent weeks. The LE Niamh, which was in the Mediterranean before the LE Samuel Beckett which is currently there, rescued about 4,500 people. Unfortunately, there was also a lot of tragedy during the same period in terms of people who drowned.
The numbers will not be anything as high for the LE Samuel Beckett, although the situation is still very challenging as the Mediterranean is now much rougher because of the time of year. As a result of that, the information we have received is that the numbers have fallen quite dramatically. If anyone is in any doubt as to the extraordinary challenge we face in terms of refugees and migration generally, they should know that the last time I examined the figures on the numbers of people who crossed the Mediterranean, I found that the number for this year alone is 780,000.
Another 800,000 people are on the beaches of Libya. There will be a major job to be done again next year simply to save people's lives, and Ireland will be involved in this. If there is to be a break period of eight weeks to reassess the mission, the best time to do it is probably towards the end of December and the month of January, when we are likely to have fewer people and families attempting to cross the Mediterranean.
The famine developing in Ethiopia will augment the outpouring of people from the African Continent. To turn to the more contentious issue of Mali, if the Minister envisages coming before us with a triple lock proposal on increasing the number of personnel who might be deployed on this mission, does he see the nature of the mission itself changing? I understand that at present we provide military training and advice to the Malian armed forces. If there were to be a new mission, would it simply be an intensification of what is under way or would it be radically different from what is proposed? What detailed risk assessment will the Minister undertake in light of the attack on the Radisson Blu Hotel in Bamako?
The Deputy is right, as the mission in which we are involved at present is a training mission, but there are multiple missions in Mali. There is a bilateral mission with a series of African countries in the Sahel region, in which France is involved. There is also a European mission and a UN mission. Prior to the attacks in Paris, we had completed a piece of reconnaissance work on Mali generally. As to whether we could look at a relatively minor increase in our presence there to do more and to share the resources and knowledge we have, the reconnaissance we did will be very useful to measure what we could do within the acceptable risk parameters of peacekeeping. It is important to remind people that none of our peacekeeping operations are in easy zones. The reason peacekeepers are needed is because these are difficult conflict areas which need our help, and Mali is no different. I assure the Deputy we will not send Irish troops anywhere without the appropriate assessments, and there will be no knee-jerk reactions to anything.
69. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence if he will immediately order the cessation of the use of Lariam in the Irish Defence Forces, pending the publication of the findings of the working group into the drug, given the growing number of calls for this and given the paper published by Dr. Ashley Croft in The Pharmaceutical Journal on 12 November 2015 urging the discontinuance of the use of Lariam for the British military. [41376/15]
This follows on from Deputy Crowe's question on Lariam. I am glad to hear the Minister has had some engagement since his last meeting with Mark O'Sullivan. Mark has been medically discharged since that meeting, and he is in the Gallery along with a number of his colleagues who have been negatively impacted by Lariam. This question is quite specific. The Minister has said he is interested in the best medical assessment. A recent report in The Pharmaceutical Journal by Dr. Ashley Croft was very clear about the danger of Lariam. We need to cease prescribing it immediately, in advance of the Minister publishing the outcome of the working group. Will the Minister stop prescribing it, because there are other alternatives which are just as effective in dealing with malaria? In the interim, when will we see the working group report and will it be published and discussed in the House? It is now a matter of absolute urgency.
I am aware of the paper recently published to which the Deputy refers and the ongoing debate relating to the use of Lariam. The health and welfare of the men and women of the Defence Forces is a priority, as I said earlier to Deputy Crowe. As I have already indicated to the House, the choice of medication for overseas deployment, including the use of Lariam, is a medical decision made by medical officers in the Defence Forces, having regard to the specific circumstances of the mission and the individual members of the Defence Forces. Significant precautions are taken by the Defence Forces' medical officers in assessing the medical suitability of members of the Irish Defence Forces to take any of the anti-malarial medications. It is the policy of the Irish Defence Forces that personnel are individually screened for fitness for services overseas and medical suitability, and a medical risk assessment for Lariam is carried out on an individual basis. The Irish Defence Forces policy on the use of anti-malarial medication is in line with the Health Products Regulatory Authority's current approved summary of product characteristics.
As I previously indicated to the House, my Department established a working group in January 2011 to examine the use of Lariam and other anti-malarial drugs in the Defence Forces. The group produced its report to a former Minister for Defence in 2013. I am advised that the group investigated the allegations surrounding the use of Lariam and obtained the advice of leading medical experts who concurred with the prescribing practices followed by the Defence Forces. Since production of its report, members of the working group have continued to monitor developments in the area of malaria.
My Department has recently reconvened the working group which is engaging once again with experts, both nationally and internationally, on the use of Lariam and other anti-malarial drugs in the Defence Forces. As I stated, I would like to get the report before the end of the year but I want to ensure it is as thorough as possible. My understanding is that I will probably get it in January.
We have a real problem at this stage and there are people in the Gallery and beyond who believe that the attitude being adopted by the Irish Defence Forces is now akin almost to reckless endangerment. It is a fact that other drugs deal just as effectively with malaria as Lariam, which has 27 neurological side effects that leave permanent damage. Malaria is treatable if it is identified early. The other two drugs are just as effective and lead to substantially fewer side effects than Lariam, so why would they not be prescribed in the interim? The French never prescribed Lariam and the Americans have suspended its use. There are investigations in Australia. We know that across the water in Britain-----
The Americans have not suspended its use.
Let me finish. Across the water in Britain, almost 2,000 British soldiers were given Lariam last year, with 14% treated for side effects. Since 2008, almost 1,000 people in Britain have been hospitalised in psychiatric facilities or treated in medical mental health facilities for side effects of Lariam. People want to know if its use will be ceased now and that treatment will come in the form of one of the other drugs. Publish the report promptly so we can get out of this nightmare for people.
Of course we will publish recommendations as soon as we have them. The Deputy is making sweeping generalisations. The United States decided to stop using Lariam for troops sent to Afghanistan. We have troops in Afghanistan and we never gave them Lariam because it is not the appropriate drug for troops being sent to Afghanistan. It depends on the region, where personnel are going and for how long, and the strain of malaria. All this is part of the medical assessment. The reason most countries involved with peacekeeping continue to use Lariam is because there is no simple transfer to another drug. The suggestion that there are no complications or problems with the other available drugs for malaria is also not the way it is. If it were the case, we would transfer to another drug. Nobody is suggesting there are no problems with Lariam but we are trying to minimise those problems through effective screening, with Lariam only being used where it is the recommended drug to minimise the likelihood of having a problem with malaria. We do not always prescribe Lariam and it is only used for certain regions, where it is the best prescribed option to protect our troops. If the recommendation is to cease its use, we will do it straight away.
We have a real problem with this. It is a fact that many Defence Forces personnel would refute strongly the Minister's assertion that there is individual screening. They have testified to the opposite, that they are not given appropriate warnings or assessed for mental health history and so forth. Even if they were, are the measures put in place to protect them, given that this could jeopardise their careers?
The Minister spoke earlier about weighing up risk assessments. In a parliamentary reply from 4 November, the Minister admitted that the Defence Forces have not carried out adequate risk assessments on this drug. He reinforced in the reply that Lariam is the first drug of choice in dealing with malaria for Irish personnel.
That is out of sync with other defence forces around the globe.
It depends on the region. The Deputy is trying to exaggerate for effect.
The problem is that these risk assessments have not calculated how many deaths have occurred through suicide by those taking Lariam.
We have assessed that.
Where is the publication? Where is the assessment of the permanent neurological damage done to former Defence Forces personnel in our State? Malaria is treatable; the side-effects from Lariam are not. It has destroyed the lives of people in the Gallery and their families, and it is not good enough to carry on regardless when the known side-effects for this drug were identified in 1995 and the information is getting stronger by the month. Why does the Minister keep doing it and exposing others?
I know the Deputy has genuine concerns about this issue, but so do I. Let us try not to make sweeping statements that are not true. We have looked at the incidence of suicide in the Defence Forces and among ex-Defence Forces personnel. We have looked at that in a lot of detail as regards trends over the last 20 years. We have tried to make comparisons between times when a lot of Lariam was being prescribed and times when not a lot of Lariam was being prescribed, such as now, because we do not currently have many troops in sub-Saharan Africa. The trends do not change hugely. It is tragic that people take their own lives for all sorts of very complex reasons. If there are links with the drugs they have been taking, then they need to be exposed, but there is no settled agreement on whether Lariam, for example, has permanent side-effects.
There is.
No, there is not. I asked that very direct question of our Chief Medical Officer. Rather than jumping to conclusions and making political decisions to be popular, I am trying to make decisions on the basis of the best medical advice I can get, both nationally and internationally, just like in the UK-----
Minister, I have to go on to the next question.
Despite the inquiries that are being made at the moment, the policy in the UK has not changed-----
Thank you. I call Deputy Mick Wallace.
-----in terms of using Lariam to protect their troops, and is the Deputy suggesting-----
We are going on to Other Questions now.
-----that they are not looking to protect their troops from Lariam in the UK?
We are way over time. I call Deputy Mick Wallace. Members should please observe the clock.
