Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for accepting this issue. According to media reports yesterday, a study on the use of the controversial anti-malarial drug, Lariam, received by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Shatter, whom I welcome in the Chamber, is legally privileged and will not be published. The use of Lariam has been a topic of concern for some time, and not only under the current Government. It is vital that we answer these concerns.

Yesterday The Irish Times carried a story stating that the administration of the drug to Defence Forces personnel travelling to malarial countries will continue, notwithstanding revised safety information from the manufacturer Roche, stating that the drug can cause serious neuro-psychiatric disorders. Roche states that possible side effects include insomnia, anxiety and depression. The company also mentions that hallucinations, psychosis, suicide, suicidal thoughts and self-endangering behaviour have been reported. It states that adverse reactions can persist for several months after discontinuation of the drug.

It seems that soldiers on a mission to Chad in 2009 were told that if they failed to take Lariam and caught malaria through their own fault the Defence Forces would not be liable. It is also reported they were required to take the drug under supervision, were warned not to take any other anti-malarial medicine and were told that only Lariam is effective in Chad. Other drugs such as Malarone and Coartem are used by other countries, including the United States. Alternative anti-malarial drugs found in the possession of any soldier would be considered contraband and soldiers were told they could face disciplinary action if found with such drugs.

Some serving and former members of the Defence Forces have begun legal action against the State, complaining of side effects including depression and suicidal ideation. The report of the working group on malarial chemoprophylaxis, set up in 2009, examined the use of Lariam. The group reported to the Minister during the summer. A statement from the Department of Defence notes that the report was produced in the context of current and potential litigation, is legally privileged and would not be published.

I am astonished by this attitude. Surely the report should be published as a matter of course. Is it not in any case subject to discovery by any lawyers taking action in this matter? Does the fact it is not being published not give the impression there is something to hide on the part of the Department of Defence? Should a Government that claims to cherish transparency, which pats itself on the back on a regular basis about improvements in the Freedom of Information Act and other areas, not publish this report?

This particular controversy will not go away. The momentum demanding action and either an exposé or an explanation on the part of the Department is growing by the day. Whatever may have been said by different Ministers in the past, including those of my party who adopted a particular view on the matter, we cannot ignore the growing controversy. Apart from that controversy, the growing body of evidence seems to suggest that at least there are questions to answer. When we look at this drug as not only one of three possible medications that could be used, but also one in respect of which its own manufacturer has raised real and meaningful concerns, it is incumbent on he Department of Defence to address those concerns. In this instance, where I understand the Minister has a report, he should at least publish it.

See this speech in context