Dáil debates
Wednesday, 18 October 2017
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed) - Priority Questions
Air Corps
3:25 pm
Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
28. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the action he plans to take on foot of the recent review (details supplied) of Air Corps whistleblower claims; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44189/17]
Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I wish to ask the Minister the action he plans to take on foot of the recent review of the Air Corps whistleblower claims. I ask him to outline to the House what exactly was the purpose of that exercise, given that we now know Mr. O'Toole, who conducted that review, was not in a position actually to carry out the review as per the terms of reference. I further ask the Minister to confirm that Mr. O'Toole flagged that fact with him.
Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Deputy Chambers for her question.
The health and welfare of the men and women of the Defence Forces are priorities for me which is why I ensured that protected disclosures alleging exposure to chemical and toxic substances were investigated by an independent third party. The reviewer’s report has indicated that he felt that given the breadth of the remit of the terms of reference, he could only comment in general terms on the Defence Force's safety regime.
It must be remembered that prior to the receipt of the disclosures, litigation had first been initiated in relation to the subject matter of the disclosures. This complicated the approach to be taken in developing any parallel process. Notwithstanding this significant challenge, I put in place just such a parallel process. In light of the legally complex situation, I believe it was appropriate that an experienced legal professional was appointed.
It was the view of the independent reviewer that the courts are best placed to examine issues in relation to allegations which were already subject to litigation. This is particularly so given the historic nature of the complaints and the fact that they potentially affect the reputation and good name of individuals. What the report shows is the difficulty in putting a parallel process to the courts in place. The report also notes that the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, is the appropriate statutory body to deal with such allegations. I have furnished the report to those who made the protected disclosures and, before considering any further steps, I will await their views.
Separately and in parallel to the independent review, following an inspection in 2016, the Air Corps has continued to work with the HSA to improve its health and safety regime. I have been informed by the military authorities that the HSA has formally noted the considerable progress made to date by the Defence Forces towards implementation of a safety management system for the control of hazardous substances. Subject to completion of the improvement plan the HSA investigation is closed. However, it must be noted that in the Air Corps health and safety is a matter of ongoing monitoring, supervision and adjustment.
Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is Question No. 28 grouped with Question No. 29, because Deputy Ó Snodaigh has tabled a similar question?
Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I believe I must take them separately because they are Priority Questions. That is my understanding, at least.
Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
That is fine, although they can be grouped.
Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am happy to group them if that is not a problem.
Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am happy to have the questions dealt with separately, if that is okay with Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will deal with them separately.
Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.
Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I must repeat that these issues were before the courts before the protected disclosures were made to my Department. When I was appointed as Minister of State in May 2016, I was briefed on the protected disclosures issue. I felt that the best way forward was to appoint a reviewer to look at those protected disclosures. The reviewer furnished his report to me, which I then forwarded to the military for comment. I also sought legal advice on the issue. Once I received that legal advice and received the comments back from the military, I then sent the report to the people who made the protected disclosures. I also put a copy of the reviewer's report on my Department's website for everybody to see. I am hiding nothing here and am being very straight up with the people. Once I receive back the comments of the people who made the protected disclosures, I will then decide on what further action to take.
Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The Minister of State has still not answered a very basic question. Did Mr. O'Toole tell him that, given the terms of reference, he was not in a position to examine the protected disclosures as requested? Did he flag this in advance of completing his report, because it strikes me as quite improbable that he did not? The Minister asked whether we can proceed to look at the toxic chemicals and the effect on the health of those soldiers while litigation is ongoing. There may well be litigation in train but that does not preclude us from investigating the toxic chemicals to which they were exposed and the likely impact on their health of that exposure.
Will the Minister of State authorise an independent and comprehensive health assessment of the informants' claims and of the Defence Forces' health and safety record in dealing with hazardous chemicals over the past 25 years? Ultimately, we must ensure that this inquiry takes place and that we look into the real impact on the lives of the individuals that were affected. As I have stated previously in this House, if the State is in some way responsible for a negative impact on the health of serving and former members of the Defence Forces, then we need to stand up, take ownership of that, not hide behind the litigation and put in place a proper health package for those people. Will the Minister of State do that?
Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I assure the Deputy that I will not be hiding behind anything, anybody or any document.
I will be very straight with the people who made the protected disclosures and I will give them the opportunity to meet me. Two of them have already taken up that offer. I met them and gave them ample opportunities to raise these. Parallel to the actions of the independent reviewer, the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, also visited the Air Corps and issued a list of instructions and procedures. The Defence Forces have been in constant contact with the HSA and are carrying out all of these required actions. One thing I was not going to do was to limit the reviewer's terms of reference which I set out to be as broad as possible so that he would be able to investigate all aspects of any allegations made.