As Members know, the Deputy asking the question has 30 seconds in which to make a short introduction; the Minister or the Minister of State has two minutes in which to make a reply, after which there are four minutes for questions and answers.
Priority Questions
Defence Forces Medicinal Products
Lisa Chambers
Ceist:21. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his views on recent developments regarding the use of Lariam; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27240/16]
What is the response of the Minister of State at the Department of Defence to recent developments regarding the use of Lariam? Will he make a statement on the matter?
I thank the Deputy for her question. I note that she is referring to the discontinuation of the sale of Lariam in the Irish market and the recent remarks reported to have been made by a former senior UK military officer. On the first matter, Roche Products (Ireland) Limited informed the director of the Defence Forces medical branch on 7 August 2015 that it was planning a discontinuation of Lariam from the Irish market with effect from 31 July 2016. My colleague and the former Minister for Defence, Deputy Simon Coveney, brought this matter to the attention of the House in an oral parliamentary questions session on 8 October 2015. I understand Roche has indicated that its decision is based on a commercial assessment. I understand it indicated at the time that it was not aware of any withdrawal plan in other countries, particularly the United Kingdom. It was indicated that in some European countries Lariam had, however, been withdrawn in the past due to low demand.
I am advised by the military authorities that drugs are purchased by the Defence Forces under the four-year framework agreement on the supply and pricing of medicines. This agreement is between the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association, IPHA, and the HSE.
On the second matter, I have been made aware of newspaper reports that a former senior UK military officer has apologised to British troops who were given the anti-malarial drug Lariam. The choice of malaria chemoprophylaxis in use by other armed forces is an internal matter for these forces. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the policy and practices of other states in this regard or to engage in discussion on the merits of these policies and practices. The health and welfare of the men and women of the Defence Forces are high priorities for both me and the Defence Forces. Malaria is a serious disease which killed approximately 438,000 people in 2015, with 90% of the deaths occurring in sub-Saharan Africa as reported by the World Health Organization.
The choice of medication for overseas deployment is a medical decision made by Defence Forces medical officers, having regard to the specific circumstances of the mission and the individual member involved. 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. I am advised by the director of the medical branch that this has been the policy since the first involvement of the Defence Forces in overseas service.
Fianna Fáil has believed for some time that the use of the drug Lariam has caused serious problems for the Defence Forces. I have raised the issue with the Minister of State previously. Serious concerns have been raised for many years about the use of Lariam as an anti-malarial drug for troops serving overseas. Last year the British Ministry of Defence acknowledged that 1,000 former service men and women suffered from severe psychiatric and mental health problems as a result of having been prescribed Lariam. These are the only people about whom we know and they are experiencing severe problems. In 2013 it was suggested in an RTE "Prime Time Investigates" programme that Defence Forces personnel who had been prescribed the drug were three to five times more likely to be at risk of suicide. This investigation was conducted in Ireland and we now have a former British army chief who has apologised unreservedly for its use. Does the Minister of State believe either he or any other Minister with responsibility for defence matters will one day have to stand up in the Dáil Chamber and apologise for the prescription of Lariam for our troops?
The medical advice I have been given by the medical corps of the Defence Forces is that Lariam is the most suitable drug for members of the Defence Forces who are going overseas. I hope the Deputy understands it is a fight against malaria, one of the ravaging diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. The Defence Forces have a very good history in malaria prevention. I have spoken to the medical officer and the Defence Forces about this matter and I am satisfied, based on the medical information and evidence I have been given, that this is the best malaria prevention method. All members of the Defence Forces are well screened and all precautions are taken before the drug is prescribed for any member.
To clarify, the Minister of State has spoken about the advice he has been given. Is he willing to provide it for the House? It appears to me that he is ignoring the facts. Across the water, where thousands have been affected, the British Ministry of Defence has acknowledged the negative impact. Should we not be taking this information on board? The Minister of State has said this is the most suitable drug. I point out, however, that Dr. Franz Humer is on record as stating science has advanced considerably since Lariam was first introduced and that there are more effective anti-malarial drugs available with reduced side effects. I ask the Minister of State to take this on board. He has said we have a very good record. There are 50 serving or former members of the Defence Forces who have lodged claims against the State because of the prescription of this drug and legal proceedings have been served against the State in 37 cases. The Minister of State may say the drug has been withdrawn from the market in this country for commercial reasons, but I disagree with him on this point and the buck stops with him.
We could be here in ten or 20 years reflecting on 1,000 former Defence Forces members suffering from a severe psychiatric condition because of this drug. The Minister of State will have to answer for that, as will other former Ministers for Defence. The buck stops with him today. He has information on his desk on negative side effects, but he is hiding behind what he says is expert medical advice which he has not provided for the House. I ask him to provide it.
I will not provide the medical advice because that would almost mean providing advice on every member of the Defence Forces.
That would not be the case.
It relates to their personal health and well-being and the next information the Deputy will look for is the personal details of members of the Defence Forces.
I object to that comment. I will not look for the personal details of any member of the Defence Forces as that would not be appropriate. I asked for the medical advice the Minister of State has received on the drug, Lariam, not on individuals. The Minister of State should be clear about that.
When Roche informed the Defence Forces that it was pulling out of the country, it stated it was a commercial decision. If the Deputy has evidence that it pulled out for any other medical reason, I would appreciate it if she gave it to me.
We have to move on.
I am satisfied that the evidence I have received from the medical corps of the Defence Forces is that Lariam is the most suitable drug for members going abroad.
We are encroaching on the time of other Members.
Defence Forces Medicinal Products
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Ceist:22. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the anti-malaria drug, Lariam, was taken off the market here by its manufacturer in July 2016; that the acknowledged side effects of Lariam include anxiety, depression, paranoia and suicidal behaviour; that 50 serving or former members of the Defence Forces have lodged claims against the State having been given the drug; and if he will instruct the Defence Forces to immediately end the use of this controversial drug. [27230/16]
The reason I raise this issue, similar to the previous question, is I have tabled questions about use of the anti-malaria drug, Lariam, since 2008. Seven Ministers of Defence have taken the same position as the Minister of State, including a number of Fianna Fáil Ministers. It is high time that he instructed the Defence Forces to cease administering the drug to those who are deployed in sub-Saharan Africa.
I am aware that Lariam has now been discontinued in the Irish market. Roche Products (Ireland) Limited informed the Defence Forces director of the medical branch on 7 August 2015 that it was planning a discontinuation of Lariam from the market with effect from 31 July 2016. My colleague and former Minister for Defence, Deputy Simon Coveney, brought the matter to the attention of the House during an oral parliamentary questions session on 8 October 2015.
I understand Roche has indicated that its decision is based on a commercial assessment. I also understand it indicated at the time that it was not aware of any withdrawal plans in other countries, particularly the United Kingdom. It was indicated that in some European countries Lariam had been withdrawn in the past owing to low demand. I am advised by the military authorities that drugs are purchased by the Defence Forces under the four-year framework agreement on the supply and pricing of medicines between the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association, IPHA, and the HSE. The Defence Forces are aware of the range of reported side effects of anti-malarial medications. Significant precautions are taken by 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.
The choice of medication for overseas deployment, including the use of Lariam, is a medical decision made by medical officers in the Defence Forces. They have regard to the specific circumstances of the mission and the individual member of the Defence Forces. The Deputy is correct that a total of 50 claims have been received to date in respect of current or former members of the Defence Forces who allege personal injury as a consequence of their consumption of Lariam. Proceedings have been served in 38 of these cases. The State Claims Agency advises that, for whatever reason, seven individuals did not progress their cases. They were discontinued and are now statute barred. Regarding the remaining five cases, while claims have been received, High Court proceedings have not yet been served. Given that proceedings have been served in a number of these cases, it would be inappropriate to comment further on these matters.
While I understand the Minister of State cannot comment on individual cases or even the 50 cases that have been taken, does he seriously believe Roche when it states it is withdrawing on commercial grounds? There is no way the company would admit it was withdrawing on medical grounds because that would open it up to a huge number of claims not only in Ireland but also throughout the world. It has not sold Lariam in America since 2009. The drug has huge implications which have been exposed in Ireland, Australia, America and elsewhere. Approximately 15 years ago American soldiers were operating in Somalia and Lariam was withdrawn because of the serious effects it was having on those in charge of heavy goods vehicles. There has been a question about the drug for many years, so much so that the Irish Army bulk bought other anti-malarial drugs. We do not know what happened to them because most soldiers seem to have been given Lariam. The Army bought 20,000 Malarone and Doxycycline tablets. What happened to them? Why were they not administered instead of Lariam which is open to question and which has serious side effects that have been documented throughout the world?
I have to believe Roche when it informed the former Minister for Defence that it was pulling out of Ireland for a commercial reason. I have been given no information or evidence to state otherwise. The choice of medication for overseas deployment, including the use of Lariam, is a medical decision made by medical officers in the Defence Forces. The best advice given to me is that Lariam is the most suitable drug to take in sub-Saharan Africa.
We would like to see the advice.
I am not a medical practitioner, but I accept the advice of the Defence Forces medical corps. The choice of medication for a mission is a medical decision based on best advice. I reiterate that the most comprehensive screening is carried out on every member of Defence Forces.
Previous parliamentary questions I have tabled have exposed the fact that there is not comprehensive screening of men and women deployed abroad. I ask the Minister of State to review these replies. Mr. Tony Killeen was Minister for Defence at the time. The Minister of State does not have to believe Roche, but he should believe his own soldiers. Four years ago I sought documentation through a parliamentary question, some of which was not supplied, including a fax that had been sent to Chad to warn that Lariam should be administered for more than four months. The deployment was four months. One had to take Lariam for a month before and after deployment, which gives a total of six months. The Defence Forces have, therefore, issued contradictory advice to their own medical corps in the past. Will the Minister of State review the file to see why one of the faxes sent to Chad was not included in the material supplied to me?
I am not hiding behind any evidence. I believe absolutely that the medical corps of the Defence Forces gave me the best evidence when I questioned it on this issue. It is not giving me false information. I refute one of the Deputy's comments. I have been informed by the Defence Forces that its members are individually screened prior to the administration of Lariam before they go on an overseas mission and I have to believe them. Each individual is medically screened prior to Lariam being used.
It would be quite remarkable for a pharmaceutical company to say it was taking a drug off the shelf because it was bad for people.
Defence Forces Recruitment
Lisa Chambers
Ceist:23. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the status of the 2016 recruitment campaign for the Defence Forces; the reason the whole-time equivalent strength of the Permanent Defence Force had fallen to 9,025 as of 31 July 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27241/16]
The Government is committed to maintaining the stabilised strength of the Permanent Defence Force at 9,500 personnel, comprising 7,520 Army, 886 Air Corps and 1,094 Naval Service as stated in the 2015 White Paper on Defence. I am advised by the military authorities that the strength of the Permanent Defence Force at 31 July 2016, the latest date for which details are available, was 9,025, comprising 7,233 Army, 718 Air Corps and 1,074 Naval Service whole-time equivalent personnel. The manpower requirement of the Defence Forces is monitored on an ongoing basis in accordance with the operational requirements of each of the three services. In line with HR policy, there is significant turnover of personnel in the Permanent Defence Force due to the requirement to maintain a lower age profile. Targeted recruitment has been and is currently taking place so as to maintain the agreed strength levels.
The current general service recruitment campaign which was launched on 13 April 2016 envisages an intake of approximately 600 general service recruits in 2016. The military authorities have advised that 282 general service recruits have been enlisted to date in 2016, with a further 320 recruits to be enlisted by year end. Plans have been put in place to continue this phased general service recruitment in 2017 in a manner designed to reach the established strength figure.
In relation to the officer cadre, a total of 97 cadetships were awarded following the 2016 competition, comprising of 68 Army, 2 equitation school, 12 Air Corps and 15 Naval Service cadetships. The Army cadets commenced training on 26 September in the Defence Forces cadet school. This is the highest cadet intake in the history of the State.
Direct entry competitions are also held as required, from which specialist appointments are filled. An Air Corps apprentice aircraft technician competition was launched on 9 August 2016, from which it is planned to enlist 25 apprentice aircraft technicians. A direct entry competition is also ongoing for suitably qualified applicants.
The Minister says the Government is committed to maintaining a stabilised force and to achieving a number of 9,500 but this is not the first time I have asked him what he is doing to achieve that figure. We are now at 9,025, which is considerably below the figure of 9,500 at which we should be and that is the minimum. The Government launched a recruitment drive back in April but we have not yet seen the fruits of that. Does the Minister not accept that just above 9,000 is way too few for the Permanent Defence Force to maintain its capabilities and to continue to do the fantastic work it does in ensuring we care for our sovereignty and maintain our borders? I see no real movement on these figures. Instead, there seems to be a constant downward trajectory and something radical needs to happen. What the Minister is doing is not enough to get up to the figure at which we need to be.
I agree that the Irish Defence Forces do an absolutely outstanding job and I have been assured by the Chief of Staff that they have the capabilities to carry out any duty or mission that may be required of them. I refute the suggestion that the Government is not committed to bringing people into the Irish Defence Forces. I attended the induction of Army cadets yesterday in the Curragh and, in total, almost 100 cadets will start in the Army, Air Corps and Naval Service this year, the highest number in the history of the State. We have a general intake of privates and enlisted personnel and I believe we will be close to 9,500 at the end of the year.
I am glad the Minister mentioned the officer corps because, according to RACO, the representative body of serving members of the officer corps, there is a mass exodus of officers from our Defence Forces. If this is not addressed, it could seriously affect our operating capabilities. So far this year, 48 applications have been processed for early retirement from the officer corps and there are currently 90 officer vacancies. Last year, 76 officers quit the corps. RACO said that management had disappointingly failed to engage with or constructively respond to issues and concerns raised at its conference. These include the failure to address ongoing retention of personnel and the failure to put in place family-friendly policies. At the moment, we are constantly moving people around and we expect them to stay in our Defence Forces when they cannot possibly maintain a healthy family life. I urge the Minister to facilitate members in having a family-friendly working environment and adequate IT facilities, with hot desks so that they can work from remote locations. I urge him to restore the instructors' allowance, as this encouraged people to stay in our Defence Forces, and I also ask him to restore the Army ranger wing allowance. We need to compete with the private sector but we are not doing that and are losing people because we are not an attractive option for qualified, experienced and excellent personnel. If we do not do something about that, we are in danger of losing very good people whom we will not get back.
The Deputy mentioned family-friendly policies and we have been very active in bringing family-friendly policies to the fore. The fact that male or female participants may spend three months on missions abroad and have an exchange with somebody for the following three months is a welcome addition. I have asked the general officer commanding in each of the brigades if enlisted personnel living near Kilkenny barracks or Cork or Galway barracks can do their training in the nearest barracks to their home, rather than someone from Galway having to travel to Cork or somebody from Cork having to travel to Galway. It can be very difficult to do this at times but we try to facilitate it wherever possible.
I have been on top of this issue and will make sure we retain our numbers at 9,500, or as close to it as possible. That is why this is the biggest cadet class in the history of the State at almost 100 personnel.
Defence Forces Representative Organisations
Brendan Ryan
Ceist:24. Deputy Brendan Ryan asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he will lift the ban on PDFORRA membership of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, its access to the Workplace Relations Commission and its involvement in national pay bargaining arrangements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27314/16]
My question asks the Minister if he will lift the ban on PDFORRA membership of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, its access to the Workplace Relations Commission and its involvement in national pay bargaining arrangements. This has been the view of members of PDFORRA since 1995.
Under the terms of the Defence (Amendment) Act 1990, the Defence Forces representative associations are prohibited from being associated with or affiliated to any trade unions or any other body without the consent of the Minister. Accordingly, the representative association PDFORRA cannot be affiliated to ICTU at present. The basis for the prohibition is that it would be inappropriate to apply the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 to members of the Defence Forces. The taking of any form of industrial action is irreconcilable with military service. This is a long-standing policy position taken by respective Governments since the foundation of the State. The Defence Forces may be called on to contribute to maintaining vital services in times of industrial action. The potential for serious difficulties and conflicts could arise in these circumstances if the Defence Forces representative associations were associated with or affiliated to ICTU, given ICTU rules in relation to such matters.
However, a number of mechanisms have been put in place through the Defence Forces conciliation and arbitration scheme, which provides the representative associations with structures and processes to enable them to make representations and negotiate on behalf of their members. In addition, a framework exists which facilitates the associations engaging with the official side in talks parallel to those taking place between ICTU and the official side at national level. This parallel process was successfully operated in respect of last year's rounds of discussions, facilitated by the Labour Relations Commission, on an extension to the public service agreement 2010–2014, leading to the Haddington Road agreement. I remain satisfied with the present arrangements in place and have no plans to make any changes.
PDFORRA has long held the belief that affiliation to ICTU is imperative for truly effective and equitable negotiations to be undertaken on behalf of its membership. This view has been held by the membership of PDFORRA since 1995 when a vote on the matter was passed unanimously by delegates at its conference. Speaking at that conference in 1995, Peter Cassells, the ICTU general secretary, informed the delegates that while he recognised that the Defence Forces had a special role to play, members should still have a say on pay, taxation, social welfare and health and that this should be conducted through ICTU. Subsequent attempts by PDFORRA to petition various Ministers to grant affiliation status have been rejected.
Two years ago the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, AGSI, made a successful petition to the European Committee of Social Rights, ECSR. PDFORRA reviewed that determination and considered the parallels between the circumstances of PDFORRA and the AGSI and also petitioned the ECSR. PDFORRA believes that the protections enshrined within the European Social Charter should apply to its members also. National pay agreements have been the norm in this country for many years and in the absence of the ability to highlight at central negotiations the matters affecting members of PDFORRA its effectiveness at negotiation is severely hampered. While there is a conciliation and arbitration scheme in existence for members of the Permanent Defence Forces, for many reasons this scheme is limited in scope and power. It is also identical to the scheme enjoyed by An Garda Síochána which was the subject of its complaint to the European Committee of Social Rights.
Finally, it could reasonably be stated that the appropriate benchmarks of a democratic society are that any restrictions placed upon its citizens are proportional, reasonable and necessary. I look forward optimistically to a review of the Minister's position.
PDFORRA has requested on a number of occasions, in 2002, 2009, 2012 and 2014, to become either affiliated to, or to take up associate membership of, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. These requests raise significant challenges from a governmental and societal perspective, including the risk of subverting the military chain of command requiring consideration. Appropriate systems have been put in place to ensure that the concerns of Defence Forces personnel can be dealt with in an appropriate manner through the conciliation and arbitration scheme. This includes access to independent adjudication. The system continues to operate well and I believe that Defence Forces personnel have achieved significant benefits over the years in this process. Personnel are critical resources for the Defence Forces. Consideration of a request to associate members to ICTU requires us to consider the potential conflicts and divided loyalties that may well arise where the Government decides to deploy Defence Forces in a situation of industrial unrest. In such circumstances it is impossible to escape the unique position of the Defence Forces in the State. For this reason, I regret to inform the Deputy that it is not intended to change the long-standing policy on this fundamental matter.
The Minister's initial response was that this matter requires the consent of the Minister. He is the Minister and my question seeks his consent. I ask him to reconsider his position. Perhaps he would agree to meet a delegation from PDFORRA in the near future. Its requests are relatively simple and modest - to affiliate to ICTU, have access to the Workplace Relations Commission and to be involved in national pay bargaining.
To compensate for the prohibition of affiliation, mechanisms have been put in place through the Defence Forces conciliation and arbitration scheme to provide the representative association with structures and processes to enable representations and negotiations to take place on behalf of its members. I met PDFORRA shortly after my appointment and I will meet its representatives again next week at the association's annual conference.
UK Referendum on EU Membership
Lisa Chambers
Ceist:25. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the implications Brexit will have for Irish defence policy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27242/16]
Perhaps the Minister will make a statement on the implications of Brexit for Irish defence policy.
The outcome of the vote of 23 June 2016 in the UK will have implications across all aspects of the business of the European Union. While the vote does not give rise to fundamental strategic issues for Defence Forces operations or for Ireland’s continuing engagement within the EU in the Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, it is expected that Brexit will have an impact on future developments in the defence sphere at EU level.
Within the EU, defence issues are a national competence and any decisions require unanimity. Ireland will continue to have a strong and equal voice on defence issues within the EU institutions. The treaties require that the EU respects the specific and different policies of member states in the area of security and defence, and that will not change. The impact of Brexit may result in a changed dynamic at EU level. However, until the UK has indicated what type of relationship it will seek with the EU and negotiations have been finalised, it is impossible to predict possible outcomes.
We have many long-standing defence connections with the UK, not least in the area of personnel training and information exchanges on capability development, tactics and procedures. These are of a bilateral nature and are reflected in our memorandum of understanding with the UK on defence and security co-operation and will thus be unaffected by the recent referendum result. Meetings take place between senior officials at which issues of mutual interest are discussed.
The Deputy will appreciate that the UK has not yet left the EU and withdrawal negotiations cannot begin until Article 50 has been triggered by the UK. Negotiations will probably take at least two years to complete and all potential consequences of the vote will remain the subject of ongoing consideration in my Department. As the Deputy will be aware, the Government has adopted a contingency framework to deal with all issues arising in respect of the UK vote to leave the EU. Accordingly, any issues arising, including those within the defence area, whether bilateral or in respect of developments in CSDP or regarding our wider international multilateral defence engagements, will be addressed within that framework.
The signs at this point are that Britain might be heading for a hard Brexit, exiting the Single Market and the customs union in doing so. Ending freedom of movement across borders also appears to be a key priority for the new Prime Minister. At the very least we must accept the possibility that there might have to be a hard border in place. It is something we must explore and for which we must prepare. Obviously, we hope not to see this. Nobody wishes to return to those days. However, how does the Department of Defence anticipate this impacting on the Defence Forces? What additional security matters might arise? Has the Minister examined how this would impact on our Defence Forces' resources and capabilities? If he has not done so, why not and when does he propose to do it?
The Deputy will be aware that the Department of the Taoiseach has established a specific departmental committee to deal with Brexit. If the Defence Forces are to be involved in a hard border, that would be a matter of aid to the civil power and it would be a matter for An Garda Síochána to seek assistance from Army personnel or the Defence Forces in that regard. The Deputy might have heard the Taoiseach say earlier that he believes that neither Britain nor Ireland wants a hard border. They do not wish to return to the Border days. We cannot really piece together exactly what Britain will do until it invokes Article 50. However, my Department will give its input to the Department of the Taoiseach and to the group it has set up, with a specific Secretary General, to deal with Brexit. The Taoiseach has already asked each Department to give its input to this group.
I asked the Minister if he has examined how this will impact the Defence Forces' resources and capabilities and I will take it from his reply that he has not yet done that. He is proposing to feed into the Department of the Taoiseach and its overall committee on Brexit.
The Minister's response is quite insufficient. We cannot wait around. I appreciate that we do not know how or when Britain will exit the European Union but we must at least be ready for it. We must be realistic about the possibility of there being a hard border. Whether we like it or not, being a member of the European Union that borders a non-EU country brings with it certain responsibilities. It will not just be up to Ireland to decide how that works. I suggest to the Minister of State that his Department really examine what resources the Defence Forces will need and and how the arrangement may operate. Nobody wants to go there but we have to be prepared to react if what is possible occurs. It is massively insufficient at this point that the Minister has not acted in this regard.
I assure the Deputy that I have had plenty of meetings on Brexit and the outcome of the vote. However, it is way too early to determine exactly the extent, if any, of the role of the Defence Forces. If I were to tell the Deputy today that we are to take on another 3,000 soldiers, I assure her that she would go out the door straightaway to say we are preparing for a hard border. This is absolutely not the case. It is way too early to determine the outcome of any discussion on any border, be it hard or soft. I assure the Deputy that the Government and this side of the House are well prepared for Brexit. The Taoiseach has already had a bilateral discussion with the new UK Prime Minister, Prime Minister May. I have also had conversations with my counterpart in the United Kingdom, Mr. Michael Fallon, during a recent meeting abroad. The matter was raised. Mr. Fallon told me it is way too early to determine exactly the outcome on a hard or soft border, or the implications for the Irish Defence Forces or British Army. It is way too early. Let us-----
It is never too early for planning.
We are encroaching on the time of other Members.
I assure the Deputy that this is a priority for me and my Department. We will be on top of this issue to ensure we do whatever is required. However, I will not jump to any conclusions regarding what will be required in regard to the Defence Forces.