Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I think this is my first opportunity to congratulate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I wish her very well in her post in the years ahead.

I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few points on the Bill. Obviously it is to be welcomed in the sense that, as the Minister said, it deals with some housekeeping matters relating to the operational command issue which makes sense, the extension of courts martial where necessary provided they are looked for within the initial period, and the recruitment of former members to try to deal with the very low numbers we have. As many Members have said on the previous day and today, there are obviously reasons we are losing Naval Service men and women to the Army because of better conditions and terms. We are losing many Army technical personnel to the private sector. We are very good in here at times when appropriate debates come up like this one on the Defence Forces to pay lip service and cash in on the need to say a few words in the Dáil and praise members of our Defence Forces for the great work they do at home and abroad. They are out in all weather and work in all conditions without complaint. Of course, that is what we expect, but they happily do it.

My constituency has Finner Camp and the area has a long tradition of people serving their country in the Fourth Western Brigade which once existed and which I hope will exist again following the independent commission's consideration of the brigade structure. We must acknowledge there are reasons we are not attracting people and there are reasons we cannot keep the people. Clearly, we have national pay agreements and I know the programme for Government very specifically states we do not want to venture outside those pay agreements. It seems obvious to me that the existing pay agreements do not cater adequately for our Defence Forces. There have been previous reviews and White Papers, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle alluded to earlier. I do not know how many reports we need. As so often with programmes for Government, manifestoes, policy documents and so on, we seem to be laying out yet another process where we give a commitment to deal with something once that process is complete. However, some things do not need a report by PwC, KPMG, an international review group or anybody else. Terms, conditions, salaries and so on are not what they should be. The UK has its permanent pay review group for all its armed forces. I do not know why we do not skip the independent commission portion relating to pay and move on to come up with an appropriate structure commensurate with the commitment and work these people have.

Deputy Berry has mentioned in the House previously - I bow to his first-hand experience of military life - that there was a commitment to a 10% increase in allowances across all the military and that did not occur. I know the Minister is very aware of this. Most recently in July he suggested we might need some emergency provisions for fair remuneration commensurate with the work of our Defence Forces members. I hope that is still possible. I agree with his view as articulated then. While I appreciate that the independent commission, according to the programme for Government, is to be set up by the end of the year, we need to move on things with pay much quicker than that and we can do so. All it needs is the political will.

Obviously, we will need to find the money. If resources need to be taken from elsewhere - precious resources - to give our military personnel a fair day's pay for the work they are doing, that is what we should do. I ask the Minister to comment on that. The chronology is that a permanent pay review body is to be established after the independent commission and the independent commission is to take a year. If we had a 1981-82 scenario, we could have three general elections and three governments in that period.

Army families are living in most constituencies, albeit there might not be a base there, and we will hear it at first-hand through our constituency offices from people we know, friends and family of people who are serving the real hardship which, as other Members have pointed out, require social supports to make ends meet.

7 o’clock

The winding down of the 4th Western Brigade means personnel are leaving Carrick-on-Shannon, Leitrim, Sligo town or Lifford and heading to Finner Camp, collecting their gear and then travelling to Dublin to do their duty. It makes no sense. I expect that when the brigade structures are looked at, west of the Shannon at least, there will be political support, across all parties and none, for the re-establishment of the 4th Western Brigade. Given the uncertainty we face as we look to the future, with Brexit and so on, that is something useful we could do.

The recruitment of former members is a very good thing to do. It applies to people who have either served their full term, based on the five-year terms they do at a time, or people who had purchased their way out for €300 or whatever the fee is. Those people would all be eligible for return. I ask that the Department review the status of everybody who was boarded out, in military speak. For the benefit of us civilians, these are people who were forced to retire for health-related reasons, whether physical or mental. I know of people in that situation who have since recovered. They have military expertise, were totally committed to military life and completed many courses and so on which added value to the Defence Forces. There may be people among those who were boarded out who are of the appropriate age and with the appropriate experience and whose reasons for being boarded out have become obsolete. We should examine whether some of them might be capable of doing duties such as communications, training or something else that would not require the physical output expected of new recruits and active soldiers. We may find some numbers of people very willing to come back and who could be a great asset to the State. I ask that such a review be considered.

According to social media reports in the UK, Hilary Meredith, of Hilary Meredith Solicitors, claims to be representing a number of former military personnel in cases she is bringing on their behalf in regard to the use of Lariam, which is the drug that was prescribed to regular or listed soldiers to prevent malaria. As I understand it, this solicitor is saying that the Ministry of Defence in the UK has acknowledged to the people she represents that it provided no choice other than Lariam to soldiers and did not advise them of its side effects. A number of her clients have had offers of settlement, through her, from the Ministry of Defence. While the situation now is that soldiers serving abroad have the opportunity to choose between a number of different medications other than Lariam, that choice did not exist for a significant period of time for many soldiers and some have since complained of side effects and have gone through some misery as a consequence of taking this medication.

Many of us in Army constituencies are familiar with the Irish soldiers who have suffered the same side effects. Is the Government aware of what the Ministry of Defence in the UK has done? Is the Minister considering introducing a redress scheme that would offer the appropriate supports to people who have had side effects and suffered injury and health issues because they took Lariam and were given no other option but to do so? It was a case of this is what one takes if one is serving overseas to protect against malaria. They were not advised of any side effects which they might experience. Does the Minister agree it would be prudent to put such a redress scheme in place rather than waiting until such time, perhaps a number of years down the road, when many hundreds of thousands of euro have been spent in legal fees and there has been a great deal of suffering by the relevant families? If we had such a scheme to cater for those people who have suffered, it would be prudent from an Exchequer perspective but, more than that, it would be the right and fair thing to do for those families who have suffered. It has been reported in the UK - I do not know whether it is true - that officers were not required to take Lariam. They were provided with a different form of antimalarial medication which, it seems, did not expose them to the same side effects as Lariam.

In light of these reports, I ask that the Minister examine the issue. People in his Department can check the details. As I said, a firm called Hilary Meredith Solicitors in the UK is reporting that the Ministry of Defence has accepted the difficulties experienced by the clients it represents as a consequence of taking Lariam. On that basis, it might be helpful to pre-empt further suffering on the part of already long-suffering Defence Forces personnel and save hundreds of thousands of euro in legal fees for both the State and the families concerned by putting together an appropriate redress scheme to cater for those who were unfortunate enough to suffer for following the correct advice. That advice was to take this tablet, there being no other option, and they would not get malaria. Unfortunately, as we know, the medication is alleged to have come with a number of side effects.

I hope the Minister can take some of the issues I have raised on board. I also hope he does not mind me using my time on Second Stage of the Bill to raise a number of issues that are not included in its provisions. I intend to support the Bill as a good housekeeping exercise that needed to be done. I conclude by asking again that a review be undertaken to assess the situation of all of those personnel who were boarded out but who may still have a lot to offer to the Defence Forces.

See this speech in context