Dáil debates

Wednesday, 18 October 2017

Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed) - Priority Questions

Air Corps

3:25 pm

Photo of Lisa ChambersLisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Do I take it that the Minister of State proposes to take no action on foot of this report? When the Minister of State was asked in this House to conduct a health review of all potentially affected personnel, he said he would await publication of this report before deciding what action to take. What action is he going to take now?

I wish to read out a couple of sections of the aforementioned report, which are quite shocking. The terms of reference of the review were to look into the disclosures made to the Minister of State by three individuals. Mr. O'Toole says the following in his report:

it was my intention to examine compliance by the Air Corps with the relevant law and regulation. I was not in a position to consider the substances in use or any implications for human health arising from such use as these issues are outside my competence.

The Minister of State appointed a lawyer to conduct this review. We all have our limitations in terms of our competences and expertise but surely the Minister of State knew, in advance of this, that this individual was not going to be able to examine the health implications of those particular toxic substances. This review does not actually look into the allegations made by the three whistleblowers. Mr. O'Toole goes on to say, "it is my view that a review of the kind envisaged by the terms of reference set out above is impractical". The Minister of State has not answered the question as to whether Mr. O'Toole flagged this to him in advance of completing his report. If he did, why did the Minister of State not appoint somebody else with the competence to look at the toxic chemicals in question and assess their impact on the health of those soldiers, because that is exactly why we are here talking about this today? Mr. O'Toole goes on to say, "it is not appropriate for me to pass judgement on compliance with legal regime which is a matter for the HSA". He also makes reference to the fact that his is an "informal" review. He suggests that the litigation will no doubt involve the issue of past compliance and that the courts are best placed to examine this matter. The Minister of State has touched on the issue of past compliance and the courts being in a position to analyse this but that does not deal with the toxic substances, the impact on those soldiers' health and what the Minister of State is going to do to address the health implications of what those people went through.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.