I am glad the Tánaiste acknowledged the risks taken by members of our Defence Forces. Last week the State settled the first Lariam damages case by a member of the Defence Forces member. It is a very significant event in the Action Lariam campaign, which has been ongoing for several years. The plaintiff, Mr. Anthony Cole, stated he was delighted, giving an indication of the substantial damages that the State had to pay. This was a case where the State put up no defence of the indefensible, called no witnesses and adduced no evidence to defend the case. Instead, in an approach that would make the Garda Commissioner's legal team blush, the State launched a vicious attack on the plaintiff and his witnesses. His honesty was questioned and he was accused of perjury. The State's whole case was based on the argument that he was lying about the symptoms he suffered while in Chad. I know the Tánaiste knows from his time as Minister for Defence that some Defence Forces members who have taken Lariam have experienced very devastating consequences.

They include nightmares, anxiety, hallucinations, depression, mood swings, mania and psychosis. Their experience of such utterly devastating effects is a medical fact, yet, knowing this, the State's entire case was that this individual was lying. We had ten days of hearings over five months, involving two senior counsel and two junior counsel, which caused huge stress for the plaintiff and at enormous cost to the State. Despite the finding in this case and the vote that took place in this House, Defence Forces policy remains the same. Lariam is the first choice anti-malarial drug for members serving in sub-Saharan Africa, including Mali. Saying "No" to Lariam is saying "No" to overseas duty. Admitting that one has a mental health problem means an end to one's Defence Forces career. It is an absolute disgrace. As we have seen time and again, the State will adopt an adversarial approach in medical injuries cases, which has resulted in long and unnecessary court processes. By the end of 2016, outstanding liabilities on the State for damages in cases in the areas of health, justice and defence were €2 billion, a staggering figure. The winners in all of this are the lawyers, to whom €24 million was paid out last year by the State Claims Agency, together with €41 million in plaintiff fees. In view of the massive costs involved and the fact that the State did not even bother to defend itself during this case, I have two questions for the Tánaiste. First, will the Government heed the outcome of the case and the motion passed in this House last summer by immediately issuing instructions to the Defence Forces to cease all use of Lariam? Second, will the Government take urgent steps to establish a redress or compensation scheme for members of the Defence Forces who were harmed by the taking of this terrible neuro-toxic drug and, in so doing, save the State a fortune in unnecessary and costly legal challenges?

I remember having this debate with the Deputy when I was in the line Department. I said at the time that it was not for politicians to decide the medications prescribed in the Defence Forces or anywhere else because we were not qualified to do so. The Department of Defence and the Defence Forces have consistently sought to ensure responsible decisions are made, on the back of the best available medical advice, on the medication to be offered to personnel serving overseas. We have an obligation to protect members of the Defence Forces against malaria and ensure they are offered appropriate options. We have an obligation, too, to recognise that Lariam does have adverse effects on certain individuals. As such, it is important to have a clear screening process in place to identify individuals who may be adversely affected by the drug. These persons will be offered alternative medication or may choose not to participate in a mission to a part of the world where malaria is relevant. All of that is happening in the Defence Forces.

I am not familiar with the legal case to which the Deputy referred and, as such, it would be dangerous for me to comment on it. I will, of course, ask the Minister of State to come back to her on whether that case sets a precedent. As I do not know the circumstances surrounding it, it would be wrong to offer any advice in that regard. I have met several families who have a member affected by Lariam and feel very strongly about the drug. We must handle this issue responsibly. We cannot, however, make decisions that are contrary to the best medical advice available to us. There is no simple answer when it comes to protecting our troops against malaria. We must take appropriate decisions based on medical advice and that is what we will continue to do.

The best medical and practical advice the Government could take is to recognise that the State has just agreed to pay out substantial damages to a member of the Defence Forces who has been harmed by the use of Lariam. Against a backdrop where 42 members were prescribed the medication last year, why in God's name are we continuing to do this when there are other viable anti-malarial drugs on the market? It does not add up.

The Tánaiste spoke about responsible decision making. I do not expect him to know the details of the case to which I referred, but I assure him they are relevant to the 60 other Lariam damage cases in the pipeline, with the likelihood that many others will join that list in the light of the Cole case which concluded last week. When the Tánaiste has examined the case and concluded that it does affect a broader group, will he then consider it reasonable to abandon the policy of pursuing adversarial court proceedings and instead take responsibility in this matter by agreeing to establish a redress or compensation scheme? Such schemes are in place in Australia and the United Kingdom. While neither is perfect, they both go some way towards dealing with the damage done by Lariam. The Government must intervene with the Defence Forces to prevent more people from potentially joining the numbers who will have to seek redress in the future.

For many people who have used Lariam, including me, it has been very successful. There are individuals who are vulnerable to the drug, but not every case against the State is the same. The Department and the Defence Forces must make a decision on whether there is a precedent that needs to be adhered to following the settling of a particular case. It is unreasonable of the Deputy to ask me to comment on that case until I have seen the detail of it. In fairness to her, she has acknowledged this. It is a matter for the Minister of State at the Department of Defence to decide whether any particular action is necessary in this matter.