Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Ceist:1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence his plans for Magee Barracks in County Kildare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34865/15]
Priority Questions
Defence Forces Properties
This question is direct and straightforward. It relates to the historic Magee Barracks in Kildare, which was originally a 64-acre site. Recently, a magnificent new Educate Together school was opened on part of the site but the remainder of the land is in an appalling state. It is a monument to dereliction and the site of continuous anti-social behaviour. I am trying to establish what the Minister intends to do about it.
I thank the Deputy for raising the issue, which we have discussed a number of times, and I understand why he might have an interest in it.
In July 1998, the Government approved a programme of evacuation and sale of six Army barracks considered surplus to military requirements. Magee Barracks was one of the barracks identified for closure. On 1 July 2003, the Government decided the former Magee Barracks in Kildare town would be among the State lands released to Kildare County Council for inclusion in the sustaining progress affordable housing initiative. On foot of this Government decision, the council prepared a local area plan for the site which encompassed a range of uses including community use. Following discussions between the Department, the council and the then Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and in accordance with the terms of the housing initiative, it was agreed that the entire site would be transferred to the council. A final contract for transfer was issued to Kildare County Council in January 2009. Subsequently, however, the council advised the Department that it no longer wished to take possession of the property.
Officials from my Department recently met the chief executive officer and an official from Kildare County Council. The discussions centred on a number of issues including the Department’s future plans for Magee Barracks. It is proposed to dispose of the remaining 50 acres of the barracks by public auction later this year. An auctioneer has been appointed to manage the disposal on behalf of the Department and the Chief State Solicitor's office is currently finalising the contracts for sale.
The local development plan for Kildare town, 2012 to 2018, has made provision for substantial community developments on the barracks site. Consequently, any buyer will be obliged to comply with these provisions, thereby ensuring the local community will benefit directly from the sale.
I said previously when we discussed this issue that we would engage with Kildare County Council and we have.
I am sorry. I will let the Minister back in.
That is the result of that conversation.
The key issue is that when the barracks were initially closed, a firm written commitment was given at the time by the Department to transfer ten acres of the site to the benefit of the local community either by way of the land itself or the equivalent value. I welcome the fact that the Minister has had discussions with Kildare County Council. If the position is as simple as he portrays it and if the council, in its previous manifestation, refused to accept the land when it was offered in its entirety, then that was a massive dereliction of duty on its part. However, he said the land was subject to zoning.
Any piece of land, particularly any block of 50 acres of land, in the centre of any town will be subject to zoning and criteria set out in a county development plan, but that does not constitute a replacement for the undertaking previously given.
Let me be clear. We have sold to the Department of Education and Skills an eight acre site which the Department made available and which, as Deputy Ó Fearghaíl states, has been the site for the building of a fantastic new school. We also intended to transfer the rest of the site to Kildare County Council. We thought that was what the community wanted and that is what Kildare County Council said it wanted at the time, but it has changed its mind. We are anxious that the dereliction to which Deputy Ó Fearghaíl has referred would not continue. The way to do that is to ensure this site is properly developed. The site is subject to appropriate zoning through the county development plan. Obviously there are restrictions and requirements on any developer in terms of how it would be developed in the interests of community development as well as what it is a developer wants to do. The responsible thing to do at this stage is to move the matter on to try to ensure that the site, which is a valuable one and has great potential for both the local community and other uses, is developed. We need to facilitate that progression because all we have had to date is stagnation. We have an obligation to move on it.
I agree absolutely with the Minister that we need to move this matter on and see the site developed. However, the Minister is saying effectively that he intends to renege upon the commitment given to the community.
The Minister just said it and I am afraid the reality is that he wants and intends to renege on the commitment that land would be made available directly to the community. What might come to the community by way of community benefit from the development of the land is incidental and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Minister's Department. He has no control over or role in that fact. The decision makers in Kildare County Council who decided, unbeknownst to the elected members of the county council, they would not accept the land are no longer there. They are no longer there to answer why they refused this land. I ask the Minister, finally-----
Kildare County Council can still decide if it wants the land.
Just a second, please. There are time limits, which is why we have a clock.
Finally, is there any short-term intention to use the site for any purpose?
Let me make this absolutely clear. If Kildare County Council wants to acquire this land, it still has the opportunity to do so. Deputy Ó Fearghaíl should not start blaming this situation on previous management. Today, if Kildare County Council decided to pick up the telephone and say it wants to acquire the land and develop it for community use, social housing or other purposes, we are open to that conversation, as we have always been. Deputy Ó Fearghaíl should not try to spin this for political reasons, blame management who are no longer in place and start pointing the finger at me and others, saying we are not being co-operative. We are happy for this land to be transferred to Kildare County Council for what was previously agreed. Unfortunately we now know that the current management and council do not want to proceed with it, which is fine. They have instead decided that this land will be developed by the private sector but under zoning restrictions. This is how the situation will proceed.
I thank the Minister.
The same restrictions would apply to any piece of land.
The Department of Defence is happy to facilitate the council, but Deputy Ó Fearghaíl should not try to twist-----
The Minister and his Department are reneging on the commitment.
Sorry, please.
We are not reneging on anything.
You most definitely are.
We were happy to do a deal with the Department of Education and Skills, which we have done-----
Which was welcome.
We are over time.
-----and with Kildare County Council, which we offered to do, but it decided against it. Deputy Ó Fearghaíl cannot expect the Department of Defence to do much more than that.
Before we proceed, will all concerned look at the clocks? Otherwise we will run short of time and the unfortunates on Other Questions will not get a chance to come in and ask their questions.
Defence Forces Medicinal Products
Seán Crowe
Ceist:2. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware of a mounting body of evidence from experts that the use of Mefloquine or Lariam is linked with severe depression and other psychotic episodes and if he will consider suspending its use by the Defence Forces given that other safer options are potentially available. [34910/15]
The continued use of Lariam by the Defence Forces has been continually raised in this House with the Minister and his predecessors, now in opposition. Another question has also been tabled on it this morning. We are trying to find out why the Defence Forces continues to use this drug. Does the Minister know the number of people in the Defence Forces who claim this has triggered in them psychotic or severe depression? Other countries have stopped using this drug.
I thank Deputy Crowe for raising this issue, which has been raised regularly in the House. It has been debated in other parliaments in different parts of the world as well. The truth is that malaria is a very serious disease and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people every year. When we send our troops into conflict zones that are affected by malaria, we need to ensure we have the best medical treatment for those soldiers. I have stated repeatedly that I am not a qualified medical doctor. Politicians should not be making a decision on this matter except on the basis of the medical advice available. This has been my approach.
I am aware of the ongoing debate relating to the use of Lariam. The Deputy will be aware that 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 member of the Defence Forces concerned. The Defence Forces are aware of the range of reported side effects attaching to all anti-malarial medications. Significant precautions are taken by the Defence Forces medical officers in assessing the medical suitability of members of the Defence Forces to take any of the anti-malarial medications. It is the policy of the Defence Forces that personnel are individually screened for fitness for service overseas and medical suitability. A medical risk assessment for Lariam is carried out on an individual basis. The Defence Forces' policy in relation to the use of anti-malarial medication is in line with the current Health Products Regulatory Authority approved summary of product characteristics.
In January 2011, having regard to current and potential litigation, my Department established a working group 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.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Since production of its report, members of the working group have continued to monitor developments in the area of malaria chemoprophylaxis. My Department has recently reconvened the malaria chemoprophylaxis working group. This group met in August and has engaged once again with experts, both nationally and internationally. The group expects to provide an updated report to me later this year.
By way of additional information, the Deputy may wish to note that Roche Products (Ireland) Limited, Roche, which distributes Lariam in Ireland, recently informed the Defence Forces that it is planning a discontinuation of Lariam from the Irish market with effect from 31 July 2016. I understand that Roche has indicated that its decision is based on a commercial assessment and takes into consideration medical needs, potential alternative treatments and prevention options. I understand that Roche has indicated that it is not aware of any withdrawal plans in other countries, particularly in the UK. It was indicated that in some European countries Lariam has however been withdrawn in the past due to low demand, malaria incidence and need for prevention. The implications arising from this decision by Roche are being considered in full by the Defence Forces medical branch.
I conclude by reminding the Deputy that malaria is a very serious disease killing approximately 1 million people per year in sub-Saharan Africa alone. It is a grave threat to any military force operating in the area. Anti-malarial medications 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.
This sounds to me like a classic case of doctors differing and patients dying. If one looks at other militaries around the world, two years ago the US military declared the drug to be one of last resort. US Army Special Operations Command has banned its use. Defence Ministries in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Canada have either banned its use or use it as a last resort only.
We would not knowingly put soldiers at risk if we could avoid it. It appears from the evidence coming from other jurisdictions that that is their conclusion as well. They have moved to some other drug. The producer, Roche, has also said there are potential side effects to this drug. Why is this happening? Is it because it is the cheapest drug? Is it because we have stockpiles of the drug? Families are suffering. They want to know what triggered this response in their loved ones, which is why we are trying to get to the core of the issue this morning.
I understand why the questions are being asked but we would not make any decisions on anti-malarial drugs which would unnecessarily put anyone at risk. The only priority is to make our troops as safe as possible when they are abroad. There is no simple solution here. There is no anti-malarial drug which is free of all side effects. They just do not exist.
There are alternatives to Lariam.
There are alternatives but each alternative has a complication.
The complications are not as serious though.
In all seriousness, there are lots of countries which still use Lariam. My Department has recently reconvened, on my instruction, the malaria working group. This group met in August and has engaged once again, because of the issues raised, with experts, both nationally and internationally. The group expects to provide an updated report to me later this year.
Roche Products (Ireland) Limited, which distributes Lariam in Ireland, recently informed the Defence Forces that it is planning to discontinue the supply of Lariam to the Irish market with effect from 31 July 2016. I understand this is simply a commercial decision but we will need to plan for the consequences of that decision. We are, and have been, considering alternatives to Lariam but there are no easy answers here. It is not as if one switches from Lariam to something that gives equally effective results with no side effects. Those drugs do not exist. We have to make a balanced decision in the interests of the safety of our troops and that is what we will do.
The key issue is the safety of the troops. We know from other countries that there have been huge psychotic disorders. We know from Roche that hallucinations, psychosis, suicide, suicidal thoughts and self-endangering behaviour have been reported and the drug may induce potentially serious neuropsychiatric disorders. The difficulty is that many people are asking why the Minister is adopting this position and if it is because of potential court cases. We always seem to adopt this approach of defending the State first and Joe Citizen second. That has been the pattern-----
That has nothing to do with it.
That has been the pattern with drug products and so on. The Minister defends the State rather than the individuals and the worry in respect of this is that there are many cases and will be court cases about this. There is no doubt about that.
If there are court cases, then of course they will go to court.
The Department of Defence will be paying that in the court.
Thank you, Deputy. The Deputy has made his point.
What the Deputy is trying to do is-----
What we are doing about this is wrong. The Minister tries to defend the State when he needs to own up to what is happening.
There are other Deputies waiting to ask questions.
What the Deputy is not referring to is the fact that 1 million people a year die of malaria. He is not referring to the fact that we send our troops into regions that have serious malaria issues. I need to protect them, to make sure they are not in those figures of people who die from malaria each year. There is a balance to be achieved here to make sure that when we make decisions to send troops to places like Mali, to other parts of North Africa and other parts of the world, where they are badly needed as peacekeepers, we protect them. We need to take the best medical advice available to us on those medical decisions. That is what we do. This has nothing to do with court cases in Ireland.
It is to do with dodgy drugs.
If there are court cases in Ireland we will deal with them. The only priority for me is making sure that when we make the serious decision to send troops abroad on peacekeeping missions, they are protected with the best medication we can give them for any diseases they may encounter in those areas.
Thank you, Minister.
That is the only issue and if that means moving away from Lariam because there is a better drug that can get better results, we will do that but it will be on medical advice, not on political point scoring.
Would the Minister please respect the Chair? Thank you.
Does the Ceann Comhairle want to change the order and take my Lariam question next?
The Deputy can proceed with Question No. 3.
We will come to it in a while.
Shannon Airport Facilities
Clare Daly
Ceist:3. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence if he is satisfied with existing arrangements between his Department and the Department of Justice and Equality and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding the presence of foreign military aircraft on Irish territory; if he has had discussions with these Departments to recommend a more active role for Defence Forces personnel in relation to protecting our neutrality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34754/15]
Is the Minister happy with the arrangements between his Department and the Departments of Justice and Equality, Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Transport, Tourism and Sport with regard to the many foreign military aircraft that regularly land on Irish territory and indeed overfly with serious weaponry and troops? Could the Defence Forces be more active in respect of our neutrality?
This is an issue we debate regularly in this House and that is fine. In accordance with the Air Navigation (Foreign Military Aircraft) Order 1952, primary responsibility for the regulation of activity by foreign military aircraft in Ireland rests with my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Pursuant to this legislation, permission is required for foreign military aircraft to overfly Ireland or to land at Irish airports. The arrangements that are in place for seeking such permission are a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, but I understand that these include a provision that such requests must be submitted to his Department by the embassy of the country in question. Primary responsibility for the internal security of the State rests with the Department of Justice and Equality and An Garda Síochána. There is ongoing and close liaison between my Department and the Department of Justice and Equality and between An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces regarding security matters, including aid to the civil power, ATCP, deployments. One of the roles assigned to the Defence Forces is the provision of ATCP which, in practice, means to assist An Garda Síochána when requested to do so. This role was affirmed by the Government in the recently published new White Paper on Defence.
In the development of the new White Paper, discussions were held with a range of other Departments and agencies on significant cross-cutting policy issues. This process of consultation did not result in any impetus to make changes to the arrangements that have been in place since 2003 when the Defence Forces were first deployed to Shannon Airport at the request of An Garda Síochána.
In relation to recommending a more active role for the Defence Forces in protecting our neutrality, I wish to stress that the use of Shannon Airport by foreign military aircraft is not incompatible with our neutrality. Successive Governments have made overflight and landing facilities available at Shannon Airport for well over 50 years and this is fully consistent with Ireland’s obligations under successive resolutions of the UN Security Council. I am satisfied with the existing arrangements in place and I have no plans to recommend a more active role for the Defence Forces.
As the Minister said, we have discussed this before and will certainly discuss it again. We particularly tabled it this time against the backdrop of information released under freedom of information requests to the Minister’s colleagues in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, which revealed that last year 272 flights received permits to take weapons or explosives through Shannon Airport, that the majority of flights were taking US troops between military bases and locations in the Middle East and that routinely US troop carriers and aircraft with machine guns, rocket mortars and other war matériel, is transited and flown over our air space. We ask this question because Defence Forces personnel are called out to Shannon to protect some of those aircraft almost daily. Against the backdrop of US involvement in the bombing of the hospital in Kunduz, can the Minister assure us that aircraft was not transited through Shannon?
I need to repeat again that I am not the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. The Deputy should address the policy questions on the use of Shannon Airport to him. The job of the Minister for Defence, the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces is to assist An Garda Síochána when it asks for help. That is what we do in respect of Shannon. It is unfortunate that there is deemed to be a security risk for planes that land in, and take off from, Shannon but when An Garda Síochána requests assistance, it gets it. The broader foreign policy questions the Deputy seems to be raising need to be addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade.
The Minister is a member of the Cabinet and has opinions and is touted as a future leader of Fine Gael but he cannot hide behind his Department in this matter. The fact that four Departments are involved has been used as a ploy by the Irish State not to give the correct information. It is a bizarre arrangement that military aircraft are allowed to transit on the myth that they are somehow unarmed and not involved in military exercises but civilian aircraft take in the guns and soldiers behind. How the Minister can brazenly say that does not affect our neutrality is beyond belief.
In September 2013, a US carrier, an AC-130W, very similar to the one that carried out the bombing of Kunduz hospital, landed and refuelled at Shannon. It is, I think, the one that forgot to take in the cannon on the wings. Does the Minister think it is acceptable that his personnel would potentially be there to guard such an aircraft which was ultimately involved in a war crime?
Of course I have views and the bombing at Kunduz was a tragedy that should not have happened, but I am Minister for Defence and the role of the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces in Shannon Airport is very clear, just as the role of the Department of Justice and Equality on security issues is clear. Within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the policy decisions are clear. In the context of a foreign affairs policy decision and our decision to remain militarily non-aligned and a neutral country, that policy has been confirmed in the White Paper on Defence, just as it was confirmed in the foreign policy paper produced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Flanagan. If we felt that what happens in Shannon Airport undermined that policy we would have to deal with that, but we do not.
Naval Service Strength
Seán Ó Fearghaíl
Ceist:4. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the reason the Naval Service Reserve underwent such a drastic drop of 76% in seagoing days between 2013 and 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34866/15]
This relates to the Naval Service Reserve and the question of their seagoing days. In a recent parliamentary question it emerged that the reserve was at sea for 576 days in 2013, but this fell by 76% to 130 days in 2014 and a mere 58 days this year. It is strange to have a naval reserve that is not at sea. That is from a Kildare landlubber to a Cork seafarer.
First, I concede that we have had challenges in the Naval Service in the past two years on a number of levels. We have had to prioritise where our ships are. We have had ships in the Mediterranean since May and we had some problems with a delay in the delivery of the LE James Joyce. We also had issues with maintenance, all of which contributed to limited resource availability for the reserve.
The Naval Service Reserve trains its members to supplement and aid the work of the Naval Service in carrying out its wide variety of roles. As part of their training, naval reservists receive instruction in motor boat handling, sail training, navigation, marine communications, weapons training, fire fighting and sea survival. Subject to the availability of seagoing berths, naval reservists also receive annual training on board Naval Service ships when on patrol. The availability of seagoing berths was, however, significantly restricted in 2014 for a number of reasons, including the non-availability of LE Orla and LE Ciara due to the necessity of urgent remedial works on both vessels. In addition, there was a requirement to carry out unforeseen maintenance arising from a serious engine problem encountered by LE Eithne. Furthermore, the priority requirement for new Naval Service recruits to be rotated to sea duty on completion of their professional training further limited the availability of sea berths for members of the reserve. With the Naval Service fleet having returned to its full complement of eight ships, it is envisaged that there will be scope for an increase in the number of seagoing days for reserve personnel in the future. For this reason, I anticipate that there will be an increase in 2016.
I wish to place on record my admiration for the members of the Naval Service Reserve, who provide valuable support to the Naval Service at sea and on land. They also provide support for a range of ceremonial events, most recently in Dún Laoghaire at the naming and commissioning ceremonies for the newest naval vessel, LE James Joyce.
One thing on which everybody in this House would agree in light of international events is a greater need for coastal vigilance than at any stage in the past. In addition to the ships to which the Minister made reference, I understand the naval reserve had access to and use of four motor launches, three of which have been in dock at the naval base and awaiting repair since last year. I am aware that the flag officer commanding the Naval Service stated that due to a shortage of engineers within the Naval Service they have been unable to carry out these necessary and fairly minor works to these launches. That would appear to be another reason the naval reserve is not seeing the number of seagoing days one would expect.
I am a little surprised that people are going to the Deputy with this information when, if I had the information, we could fix it. I will find out if this is the case, but I have not been told of any problem with three out of the four naval launches. The real issue is getting reservists onto ships for patrol hours offshore to give them experience so that, if and when they are needed, they have the necessary experience on ships to support our Naval Service, fit in with a crew and train with them seamlessly. With respect, I do not think they will get those days on launches. We have had some particular and unusual problems with having to take ships out of use for a period to undertake work on them, but that is now done and we have our full complement of ships again, so I expect the numbers to improve significantly. I will, however, check the launch issue.
I do not think there is the same level of confidence within the reserve itself in the commitment of the Department. The Minister has constantly spoken positively about the reserve. What I have read in the White Paper about the reserve is positive, but people on the ground are telling me that this is not what they are experiencing. Every reasonable person in this House would say the work the Naval Service is doing to save lives in the Mediterranean is absolutely magnificent. We could get into the political aspects of what we should be doing, but fishing people from the water and saving their lives is enormously important. Has the reserve had any input into that process and does the Minister envisage its having an input into that service if it continues?
I am not quite sure what the Deputy is getting at when he says we could talk about the politics of what we are doing in the Mediterranean.
I am not talking about it. Others are.
The politics of it are that it is absolutely the right thing to do. The politics of it is that I made a decision that, instead of focusing our resources on fisheries protection, which is what we would normally be doing, we have diverted those resources, with a consequential loss in sea hours. I am not happy about that but I strongly defend the decision to do what we did, which was to prioritise resources to save lives.
In the White Paper, and in answering questions on the White Paper, I said that reservists generally, whether in the Army or the Naval Service, may well have a role to play overseas in the future, but it would be in specialist roles such as medical assistance, counselling and support services in humanitarian missions like the one in the Mediterranean. This has been a very demanding mission for the Naval Service. Our best and most experienced crews have been sent and they have done a phenomenal job. We will have to wait and see whether we include reservists in that mission should it continue into next year, which I think is likely. The most important thing is that the ships do an effective job and the crew are safe.
Defence Forces Medicinal Products
Clare Daly
Ceist:5. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Defence if he has followed the recent discussions in the Australian Parliament and in the British Parliament in relation to the impact of lariam on the mental health of defence forces personnel; the action he proposes to take as a result; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34755/15]
This question follows on the earlier question put by Deputy Crowe on Lariam. It is not a question of making a choice between malaria and a debilitating life, and death through suicide. It is about listening to the best medical information that is available. We are joined in the Visitors Gallery by Mark O'Sullivan, who served 18 years in the Defence Forces and is facing medical discharge in approximately three weeks. He has served three times overseas and experienced very bad reactions as a result of Lariam in Liberia.
I totally agree with the Deputy on this. This is about getting the best medical advice, and I also agree with Deputy Crowe. The reason I am a little defensive is that it is not an easy decision. There are some problems with Lariam for some people. I have used Lariam and did not have any side effects, but I am lucky, as other people have experienced side effects. It is about balancing the health concerns of our troops who go abroad to conflict zones where there is malaria. Different strains of malaria require different drugs. Not all of our troops who go abroad are treated with Lariam.
I have tried to be consistent on this and have tried to ensure that the decisions made are informed by the best medical advice in Ireland and abroad, which is why I have asked the working group on Lariam to look at this again and come back to me with a report before the end of the year. I have asked them whether there is updated information on better alternatives to Lariam that we can use, with a lower chance of negative side effects, and whether we can screen our troops more effectively before they depart to reduce the risk from the use of Lariam. All of these things are being considered. I would have no problem with saying we would not use Lariam any more if I felt that was the right decision to take for medical reasons. However, what I do not want to do is just say that and expose Irish Defence Forces personnel to a risk of contracting malaria, which is a killer disease.
I have made it clear within the Department that I want the working group to produce another report and to look again at what is being said abroad and at the medical advice available here at home. We will do all of that. Next year we will be forced into making a decision because Lariam may not be available here. That is fine. However, I cannot and will not send troops into areas abroad if I am not satisfied that we have reduced their risk of exposure to malaria to the maximum possible extent using the best available drugs. There is no perfect drug for malaria and if anybody says there is, I would like to hear about it. This is about minimising risk and taking decisions on the basis of good medical advice. That is the only consideration I have when looking at the issue of Lariam.
There are two problems with the Minister's response. One is that it seems to be taking an incredibly long time for the Department to consider this matter, and there is no indication of any urgency at all. Nobody said that Lariam was the only drug, but the attitude of the Irish Defence Forces has primarily been of that view. Back in 1992, the World Health Organisation warned against the use of Lariam, specifically in regard to troops in Cambodia at that time. We are now in 2015, and the more we delay, the more people like Mark are subjected to Lariam and its potential side effects in that scenario.
The select Defence Committee in Britain is examining this issue in a proactive way, and the Australian Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has launched an inquiry into the use of Lariam. It is not good enough to say we have a working group and hopefully it will provide findings soon or that we will not be able to have this drug next year anyway. We need action to be taken now. Would the Minister be available to meet Mark to discuss this after these questions?
I am not saying "ah sure" anything. I am saying that the working group looked at the issue and came back with the recommendation that on balance we should continue using Lariam. I have asked the group to look at the issue again. That work only started in September and the group will report before the end of the year. This is not a blasé attitude, as the Deputy is suggesting, but quite the opposite.
I will continue to ask for ongoing assessments of whether this is the right policy. People are asking questions, including people like Seán, who I am delighted to see here today and who is very welcome. Obviously, these people are very concerned about the issue. As Minister for Defence, whose primary focus and responsibility is to ensure our troops are safe where they are trying to help protect the safety of others, I try to ensure that they are given the best possible medical treatment we can give them both at home and abroad. As soon as I get an updated report from the working group - there are experts on that group - we will act on that. I cannot be more up-front than that.
I do not know what is the nature of the assessment such that it will take three months to get it. Concerns have been raised about the ability or professional status of those who have reviewed this. Why does the Minister not consider the views of the troops involved and some of the people who have had direct experience and a negative reaction? Why can we not have open hearings similar to those that have been held in Australia on this issue, at which the testimony of those badly affected can be heard? People like Mark have had to spend a fortune on private medical opinion, which gives a very different interpretation of Lariam than the one the Minister has recounted, based on the advice given by his people. The delay on this is not good enough. We have been discussing this for years and, tragically, more people who have been given Lariam will probably have had negative reactions during that time.
Lariam is the subject of inquiries in Britain, Australia and other areas, but I see no urgency on the part of the Minister on this issue. The facts have been presented to his Department but we need more urgency.
Regardless of what I say here, the Deputy will not be satisfied. An ongoing review is taking place which takes into account the experience of Irish troops. That is the point of it. It aims to achieve results that ensure our troops do not get malaria and to assess what side effects there have been for our troops and for people like Mark. I will act, but on the basis of medical advice, as opposed to what Deputy Daly is demanding.
There are differing views in the context of the private sector, as the Deputy termed it. When I used Lariam, it was given to me by my local GP. It was not a public policy issue. There are varying views and no easy solutions to protect our troops from malaria. I believe that putting together an expert group that is not influenced by the politics of this issue but that wants to make a decision based on the medical facts available at home and abroad is the right way to go, and that is what we are going to do.