Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Newspaper reports yesterday again raised the issue of one of the Air Corps whistleblowers who is now facing discharge from his employment. Recent events have focused the mind on the failure of the State with regard to whistleblowers and the consequences for those in charge who fail to act. I am deeply concerned that a whistleblower in the Air Corps is facing dismissal from his job for what appear to be issues directly relating to the very issue he raised with the Minister of State on which he had to blow the whistle.

The charge against him is "generalised anxiety disorder and work-related industrial dispute resulting in chronic ineffectivity". I have raised this issue with the Minister of State many times and I am not satisfied with his response and his actions to date on the matter. He has not dealt effectively with the health and safety issues relating to chemicals at Casement Aerodrome that have affected the members serving there at that time. The review the Minister of State initiated produced no answers. There have been no actions to date and we are in exactly the same position today as we were when I first raised the issue in the Dáil.

The Minister of State has not ordered a full health review of people affected. He has not engaged effectively with those affected. The review is quite farcical because the person tasked with the reviewing the issue told the Minister of State that he did not have the information or the capability to do what was asked.

The issue stands. The individual in question has been summoned before a Defence Forces medical review board for medical issues he feels the State actually caused. His case against the State and the issue he raised with the Minister of State is that he is incredibly sick because of the failure of the State to provide him with a safe workplace. It is incredible to think that he could now be dismissed from his job because of those health issues.

Given all that has gone on regarding this issue, is the Minister of State satisfied that this person has been summoned to appear before a medical review board and may lose his job over the matter? What engagements has the Minister of State had on the issue? What will he do to address the matter?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In July, I asked the Minister of State the reason the Air Corps was proceeding with attempts to medically dismiss a serving Air Corps health and safety whistleblower, whom the Minister of State had met shortly before, in direct contravention of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. In reply the Minister of State stated:

The Deputy will appreciate that it would be inappropriate of me to comment on individual personnel cases. However, I can assure the Deputy that the Defence Forces and my Department are fully committed to compliance with the requirements of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014, and to the protections contained in that Act.

The articles in the Irish Examineryesterday and today show a clear breach of the spirit and the letter of those protected disclosures. As Deputy Lisa Chambers has outlined, the man in question appeared before a medical hearing this morning in St. Bricin's Military Hospital for the very reason he met the Minister of State - that there was something rotten in the Air Corps in terms of health and safety, as he and other whistleblowers had outlined. His medical condition and others are directly related to mass exposure to highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.

What steps has the Minister of State taken to ensure the Defence Forces as a whole, and therefore those involved in this individual case, understand that they must fully comply with the Protected Disclosures Act 2014?

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for raising this very important issue. I am fully committed to compliance with the requirements of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and to the protections contained in that Act. I have directed that processes are put in place to manage protected disclosures across the defence organisation, on both civil and military sides.

The health and welfare of the men and women of the Defence Forces are a priority to me. To this end, I wish to ensure that all protected disclosures made by members of the Defence Forces are and continue to be dealt with in a thorough, fair and independent manner.

I am assured by the Chief of Staff that the military authorities are fully aware of the protections afforded to their members under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. In order to ensure compliance with this legislation the Defence Forces have implemented general routine order 07/2015, which sets out the policy, procedures and protections afforded to serving personnel on making a protected disclosure. The document was signed and promulgated on 21 August 2015. The Defence Forces are committed to the highest possible standards of compliance with our legal requirements. Their protected disclosures policy is intended to encourage and enable members of the Defence Forces to raise concerns about relevant wrongdoing in the organisation.

The Defence Forces are committed to ensuring that members making a disclosure under the Act will be protected from penalisation or threat of less favourable treatment, subsequent discrimination or disadvantage. The Defence Forces protected disclosures policy gives effect to the obligations and provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and does not replace any legal reporting or disclosure requirements arising under other legislation. The Defence Forces remain cognisant of the requirement to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all its members. The Defence Forces policy on protected disclosures is intended to cover all aspects of Defence Forces activity including operations outside of Ireland.

Regarding the matter raised by the Deputies, life within the Defence Forces, particularly at operational level, can be physically robust and challenging. To ensure that the health and safety of individuals and those of his or her colleagues are safeguarded, the monitoring of medical status is an important safeguard in military life. Defence Forces regulation A12 provides the regulatory framework for medical treatment in the Defence Forces. These regulations provide for the convening of a medical board in specific circumstances. This can lead to a range of outcomes, including individuals being classed as below Defence Forces medical standards. It is important to note that this is not a disciplinary procedure and among other things it provides a mechanism for appropriately managing cases of long-term sick leave.

Issues of confidentiality are of the utmost importance in dealing with matters such as those raised in this Topical Issue. Individuals are entitled to confidentiality regarding their personnel dealings with their employer, their medical dealings and in other areas such as litigation and protected disclosures. Accordingly, I am severely constrained in what I can say here today. While I cannot discuss medical and other personal details of an individual, I can inform the Deputies that in the case referred to, my overarching concern is that the individual’s rights under protected disclosure legislation are fully protected. I have previously written to the Chief of Staff in this regard, highlighting the requirements for full compliance with protected disclosure legislation.

I have recently written to the Chief of Staff restating my position that the individual concerned is afforded the full protection of the Protected Disclosure Act. I have made clear that no action should be taken that would impinge on his rights in accordance with protected disclosure legislation. I assure the Deputies that, if required, I will take whatever actions are available to me in order to ensure that all individuals who make protected disclosures receive the protection of that legislation.

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has said he was constrained by litigation that was ongoing, but this issue is all over the Irish Examinernewspaper. Mr. Joe Logue reports on it on a regular basis and we all know what has been going on. We may as well discuss it in this House where it is appropriate to do so. I accept that the Minister of State has said he is complying fully with the protected disclosures legislation, but, on a human level, the issue concerns an individual whom both he and I have met and who is very ill. However, he is not the only person who is ill. Many others have been affected, some of whom are now deceased. The allegations made against the State are very serious. They are that it caused them to become ill owing to the lack of health and safety standards and exposure to dangerous and hazardous chemicals, from which they were not protected. The very fact that somebody is ill because of the place in which they work and that they are now being dismissed from their employment by their employer - the State - because of that illness is utterly and morally wrong. The Minister of State said that he will take whatever actions are open to him. What actions are open to him? What about conducting a health review? Why is he not reviewing the health of the people concerned to identify who has been affected? Why wait for a very lengthy litigation process to conclude before acting? The Minister of State has the ability to do so now. I believe he is not doing enough on the issue which we will continue to raise in the House.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State's statement on this issue, especially the last two sentences. one of which reads: "I have made [it] clear that no action should be taken that would impinge on his rights in accordance with [the] protected disclosure legislation". He has also said he will act. We will hold him to that commitment in the event that there is further penalisation of the whistleblower in this instance because the person concerned is not the only one who has faced disciplinary procedures or suffered at the hands of officers who seem to be of the same view as a former Garda Commissioner that whistleblowers are disgraceful. That attitude which is held by some within the Defence Forces will have to change, but such a culture has not been changed fully. The Minister of State is right in saying the environment in the Defence Forces is robust and challenging, but that does not excuse the bullying, victimisation or targeting of whistleblowers who have made claims to the benefit of everyone within the Defence Forces. I hope we will not be back here again if the Minister of State takes the required action, if action is needed.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for their comments. I am surprised at Deputy Lisa Chambers, given her professional capacity and legal background, that she does not understand that I cannot discuss confidential information on a whistblower or someone who has made a protected disclosure. As a legal professional, she should know that I cannot discuss it. As a layperson, I understand it, but-----

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is not a layperson.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, but the Deputy should understand, given her professional and legal background, that I cannot discuss confidential information. I am surprised that she is not aware of that fact.

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who decided that it was confidential?

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have listened carefully to the contributions of both Deputies and will conclude by once again giving a commitment to ensure compliance with the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. I have set out that I have been in contact with the Chief of Staff in that regard. Some of the issues raised are personal to an individual, while some are linked with other issues that are the subject of litigation. It would be wholly inappropriate, therefore, for me to comment further on the detail of the case. As a process of litigation had commenced before the protected disclosures were made, the courts are the appropriate forum in which to consider such matters. However, the independent reviewer's report on the protected disclosures made in the Air Corps has been provided for the three individuals who made the disclosures. I asked those who had made the disclosures for their views on the report, which I have recently received from the three individuals concerned. As I have stated, I will consider the next steps to be taken, taking into account the views provided for me by the three individuals in question. Separately and in parallel to the independent review, following an inspection in 2016, the Air Corps has continued to work with the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, to improve the health, safety and well-being of its members. It should be noted that there is a significant overlap between the HSA's recommendations and those of the independent reviewer. I have been advised that, subject to completion of improvements - the HSA's investigation has been closed - it must be noted that health and safety in the Air Corps are subject to ongoing monitoring and supervision. The health, safety and well-being of each member of the Defence Forces are of great concern. If required, I will take whatever action is necessary and open to me to ensure all individuals who make protected disclosures will receive the protection provided by the legislation.