An information resource for serving & former members of the Irish Army Air Corps suffering illness due to unprotected toxic chemical exposure in the workplace.
Oliver Mullaney (19) had been in the military for only 20 months at time of his death at Devoy Barracks in Naas
The death of a 19-year-old apprentice at a Defence Forces barracks some 35 years ago is being examined by a tribunal into complaints of abuse within the military.
The Defence Forces tribunal is about to make an order for discovery of all military files relating to the death of Private Oliver Mullaney, an apprentice who died at Devoy Barracks in Naas on June 22nd, 1991.
Mullaney was a trainee motor mechanic who had been in the Defence Forces for only 20 months at the time of his death. He was from Sheffield, a townland just outside Leitrim village that was known as “Sheafield” at the time of his death. His parents were Joseph and Mary Mullaney, and he had three brothers and two sisters.
On the night of Saturday, June 22nd, Mullaney was on sentry duty at Devoy Barracks, which served as the Army apprentice school from the 1950s until it closed in 1998.
At about 9.15pm, three gunshots were heard. Mullaney suffered a head wound and died instantly. The fatal shots came from Mullaney’s own gun, a Steyr 5.56mm assault rifle. Reports in local and national newspapers the next week said the Army was treating his death as accidental.
It was reported at the time that the Army would hold an internal inquiry into the 19-year-old’s death, with an investigation also launched by gardaí at Naas. There is no record of the inquiry’s findings ever being made public.
A spokesman for the Defence Forces said: “Óglaigh na hÉireann is committed in its full support and co-operation with the tribunal of inquiry. However, as this matter is currently before the tribunal, it would be inappropriate to provide a comment.”
Read the full article by Ellen Coyne of the Irish Times below.
New testimony may exonerate commandant found guilty of chest poking his superior
AIR Corps bosses pressured a serving and a former member of the Defence Forces to change crucial evidence and make a complaint against an officer convicted of assault, it is alleged.
The new testimony, contained in written affidavits seen by the Irish Mail on Sunday, forms part of a legal bid by the now retired Commandant Niall Donohoe to clear his name.
In April 2015, Commandant Donohoe was found guilty of assaulting a superior, Lieutenant Colonel John Moloney, poking him in the chest and calling him a ‘piece of sh*t’ during an altercation at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, eight years previously.
However, two of Comdt Donohoe’s former colleagues have alleged that, in the lead-up to the high-profile case, Air Corps superiors pressured them to either make a complaint against him or to change witness evidence.
Their testimony – given in sworn affidavits – has been lodged with the Court of Appeal and the case is due to come before the court in the coming months.
Read the full article by Valerie Hanley of the Mail on Sunday below.
The Taoiseach is to look at proposals to review the healthcare needs of sick former Air Corps personnel.
Photo by Neil Michael
The review, initiated by then defence minister Simon Harris after it was suggested by Sinn Féin Cork South Central TD Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, was set up earlier this year to see how an assessment of needs could work.
Micheál Martin said he was supportive of the initiative when he was asked by the Irish Examiner, saying: “I will have a look at what they are proposing.”
Concerns were raised by Air Corps whistleblower Gavin Tobin more than 10 years ago regarding the issue.
Mr Martin is the third senior Government figure to show interest in a review of former Air Corps personnel’s health needs.
On Tuesday, defence minister Helen McEntee — who succeeded Mr Harris in November — told the Dáil senior officials in her department recently met Mr Ó Laoghaire to discuss the review.
Off the back of what she said was a “constructive” meeting, she told TDs she hoped to have a detailed report on proposals for a review of health needs by next March.
Watch Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire TD, the Sinn Fein Spokesperson for Defence, ask the recently appointed Minister for Defence Helen McEntee her views on past health & safety measures in the Air Corps and the actions she intends to take to support former aircraft maintenance and ancillary personnel.
Transcript
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
Question: 87. asked the Minister for Defence further to recent Dáil debates, her views on past health and safety measures in the Air Corps; the actions she intends to take to support former aircraft maintenance and ancillary personnel; whether she intends to ensure their medical needs are met; and the other supports that can be offered to the category as a whole. [72051/25]
This is probably the Minister’s first time debating this particular matter but the issue of the potential adverse health outcomes for former aircraft maintenance personnel in the Air Corps has been discussed a lot over the years. Many people who served in aircraft maintenance believe many have suffered very severe health outcomes, including untimely deaths, because of exposure to dangerous chemicals. What is the Minister going to do about that in respect of the category generally, not individual cases?
Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
As this is my first time answering a question on this matter as Minister for Defence, I want to take this opportunity to say that the health and well-being of the men and women of Oglaigh na hÉireann is of the utmost importance. In fact, it is paramount and front and centre in everything we do, as it is to the Chief of Staff and Secretary General.
I am very clear in my view as Minister that those who serve the State with such professionalism and integrity should be able to do so in a modern and well-equipped Defence Forces that is also a safe place to work, as all places should be. In that regard, as I mentioned previously, I announced a substantial investment of €1.7 billion in the Defence Forces over the next four years. It is not just about technology and equipment or new naval vessels. There is an investment specifically in the men and women and the equipment they use on a day-to-day basis. It is very important we invest in them directly and ensure they are working in safe spaces.
I acknowledge the Deputy’s ongoing commitment to this issue. I am aware that, further to an offer made to him in this House by my predecessor, the Tánaiste, he availed of an opportunity to meet with some of my senior departmental officials in the past two weeks to share his views on this matter. The meeting, which took place at the end of November, I understand was constructive and I will continue to engage with the Deputy on this matter. It is absolutely essential the health, safety and well-being of the men and women of Oglaigh na hÉireann are front and centre in everything we do.
I received an initial brief from my officials on the matter of health and safety in the Air Corps. I expect to have a detailed report from them in quarter 1 of 2026 regarding the matters the Deputy has brought before the House. This report will take due cognisance of the recent meeting he had with officials, as well as the views of the State Claims Agency, as it manages such litigation claims on my behalf. I also intend to seek the views of other stakeholders on what, if any, options may be open to me to pursue, further to my receipt of the report.
All that being said, and the Deputy is very much aware of this fact, I am limited in what I can say further in this regard in this House. I am the defendant in several litigation cases that are under way and being dealt with in the courts. I say that obviously not to avoid discussing it, but there is litigation and it is important I do not impede or infringe on that at all.
The Deputy will appreciate that it is an extremely complex matter. It requires very serious thought, engagement and deliberation. This is what my officials have been doing and it is something I will focus on and prioritise as well.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
The reality is that this is not an issue that has only arisen in Ireland. We know that in other jurisdictions such as Australia and the Netherlands exposure to very powerful, strong and dangerous chemicals caused adverse health outcomes for personnel in those locations. Australia took a sensible approach. Officials evaluated the situation throughthe study of health outcomes for aircraft maintenance personnel and they offered health supports. That is key to what we do on this. That is the kind of approach that makes sense – evaluate the situation, try to identify the connections between the exposure and health impacts, provide healthcare solutions and find out how it came to pass. This has been examined on a number of occasions in the past, although not all of this is in the public domain. We had the EEA air monitoring report in 1995, Forbairt report in 1997 and HSA report in 2015, but there is other documentation that not public at this point in time. Is the Minister open to doing something in addition to dealing with individual cases as a category?
Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
I appreciate that we might not be on our own and similar issues have arisen in other jurisdictions. It is about going through the appropriate process and making sure that we are responding in the most appropriate way. These matters are currently the subject of active and ongoing litigation, as I have mentioned. The HSA has conducted several inspections in Baldonnel Aerodrome and there is more detail in that regard than has been provided previously. What I want to do now is make sure that I receive the report being conducted in quarter 1. That is the timeline I have been given. I will then be able to make any decision on what future actions can be taken and whether something can be done separate to the individual cases and ongoing litigation at the moment. Ultimately, I want to support the men and women of Óglaigh na hÉireann. We want to make sure that we understand exactly what may or may not have happened here. Once I have that information then we can all decide what are the next appropriate steps and where we will take it from here. I have been given that timeline and I will work closely with my officials to make sure that we achieve it.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
The Minister is right that the men and women of the Defence Forces are its greatest asset. The weight of this needs to be emphasised. The Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors, ACCAS, group has identified what it believes to be 110 untimely deaths. It has used that language advisedly because the link needs to be proven in that regard. However the group has questions and concerns over that many deaths and serious illnesses. That is the concern, and indeed in other jurisdictions there was a connection between the chemical exposure and serious illness. In the Air Corps there were many instances of no protective equipment, no masks and so on being provided.
I appreciate court cases have to happen, and people have an entitlement to that. For the industrial schools and the Magdalen laundries this did not stop an approach that offered redress, support and accountability to the category as a whole concurrently. I encourage the Minister to talk to the Departments in question – indeed she was in one of those Departments herself – about how that was approached. We can have the court cases, which people are entitled to, and we can have a redress system for the category as a whole.
Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
I will treat this with the utmost seriousness. I am working closely with my officials. It is also important to stress these are cases of alleged past exposure to toxic chemicals. I want to be clear that we are talking about issues that may have happened in the past and to reassure people in that regard. In terms of the HSA and the inspection that took place, it advised in a subsequent report in 2024 that the Defence Forces had proactively rolled out training in the use of substances across the relevant personnel and noted the evidence of compliance with the contravention notice, It is important to point out where there have been inspections, where there have been engagements with the Defence Forces and where there have been changes.
As well as the report I mentioned, the tribunal of inquiry is due to start. This will have the power to investigate the response to complaints made regarding the use of hazardous chemicals within the Air Corps headquarters at the Casement Aerodrome. That is part of that as well, so there will be an opportunity within the tribunal to be able to consider adequately any of the complaint processes that have been made in light of the responses received. A number of different things are happening at the moment separate from the litigation and separate from the individual cases, with the review and the report that is being done. Obviously, there is another opportunity here throughout the inquiry for these types of concerns to be raised as well.
*****
Over 7 years ago, when she was Minister for State for European Affairs, Helen McEntee met with an ACCAS representative on the margins of the Fine Gael National Conference in November 2018 in Citywest Convention Centre.
At this brief meeting Minister McEntee was presented with a physical copy of our list of fair demands. So while Minister McEntee may be new to the defence portfolio, she has been previously briefed in person on the Air Corps toxic chemical exposure tragedy.
Can exposure to workplace chemicals such as solvents, isocyanates, organophosphates, hexavalent chromium, lead, gasoline or kerosene increase the chances of developing Type 2 Diabetes.
Answer 1 from Google Gemini AI
Recent scientific research suggests a link between exposure to certain workplace chemicals and an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, although the strength of the evidence varies significantly by chemical.
These substances are often classified as diabetogens—chemicals that may disrupt the body’s ability to produce or use insulin.
The following breakdown details the risk levels associated with the chemicals you listed.
1. High Risk / Strong Evidence
These chemicals have the strongest link to type 2 diabetes in occupational studies.
Organophosphates (Pesticides):
The Link: There is strong evidence linking chronic exposure to organophosphate pesticides with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
Mechanism: These chemicals disrupt key enzymes (like acetylcholinesterase) and induce oxidative stress, which can damage the pancreas’s beta cells (the cells that make insulin) and disrupt glucose metabolism.
At-Risk Occupations: Agricultural workers, exterminators, and pesticide manufacturers.
The Link: Organic solvents, particularly benzene, trichloroethylene (TCE), and their metabolites, have been associated with insulin resistance.
Mechanism: They can cause chronic inflammation and liver dysfunction (fatty liver), which are precursors to type 2 diabetes.
At-Risk Occupations: Painters, dry cleaners, reinforced plastics workers, and shoemakers.
2. Moderate or Suggestive Evidence
For these chemicals, studies show a correlation, but the results can sometimes be mixed or dependent on the level of exposure (heavy vs. light).
Lead:
The Link: Occupational exposure to lead is associated with higher fasting blood glucose levels and insulin resistance.
Mechanism: Lead accumulates in the body (bones) over time and can act as an endocrine disruptor. It interferes with calcium signaling, which is necessary for insulin release.
At-Risk Occupations: Battery manufacturing, smelting, radiator repair, and construction (renovating old buildings).
Gasoline & Kerosene (via Benzene):
The Link: Gasoline and kerosene themselves are mixtures. The diabetes risk is largely attributed to their benzene content (see “Solvents” above). Short-term exposure is unlikely to cause diabetes, but chronic, long-term inhalation of vapors (e.g., at filling stations or refineries) is the primary concern.
At-Risk Occupations: Refinery workers, gas station attendants, and mechanics.
3. Mixed or Limited Evidence
Hexavalent Chromium:
The Nuance: Chromium is confusing because trivalent chromium (Cr3+) is often sold as a supplement to help blood sugar. However, hexavalent chromium (Cr6+)—the industrial toxin—is a known carcinogen.
The Link: While highly toxic and capable of damaging the liver and kidneys (which help regulate blood sugar), the direct link to causing diabetes is not as strongly established in human studies as it is for arsenic or cadmium. However, animal studies suggest it can induce hyperglycaemia and insulin resistance.
At-Risk Occupations: Chrome plating, welding (stainless steel), and pigment manufacturing.
Isocyanates:
The Link: Isocyanates are well-known for causing occupational asthma and severe skin/respiratory sensitization. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to strongly link isocyanates directly to the development of type 2 diabetes. Their primary danger remains respiratory and immune system damage.
At-Risk Occupations: Spray painters, foam manufacturing, and insulation installers.
What You Can Do
If you work with these chemicals and are concerned about your blood sugar:
Review your Safety Data Sheets (SDS): Check if the products you use contain benzene, toluene, or organophosphates.
Protective Gear: Ensure you are using the correct PPE (respirators, chemically resistant gloves) to prevent absorption through the skin and lungs.
Medical Monitoring: When you get your annual check-up, specifically ask for a HbA1c test or fasting glucose test to monitor your blood sugar trends over time.
Question 2 of 2
Explain these risks further in an aviation context, maintenance (engine oils, hydraulic fluids), refueling, exhaust gasses, paint stripping, priming & painting and PR sealants.
Answer 2 from Google Gemini AI
Recent research and occupational health studies have highlighted specific risks in the aviation industry that go beyond immediate physical safety. In the context of type 2 diabetes, the primary driver is chronic inflammation and liver toxicity (hepatotoxicity), which can lead to insulin resistance.
Here is a breakdown of the specific diabetes-related risks for each aviation task you mentioned.
Risk Level: Moderate to High Primary Hazard: Organophosphates
Engine Oils (e.g., Mobil Jet II): Turbine engine oils contain Tricresyl Phosphate (TCP) as an anti-wear additive. TCP is an organophosphate. While historically known for “aerotoxic syndrome” and neurological damage, organophosphates are also metabolic disruptors. They can alter how your liver processes fats (lipids), leading to “fatty liver,” a direct precursor to type 2 diabetes.
Hydraulic Fluids (e.g., Skydrol): These fluids are phosphate ester-based (often Tributyl Phosphate). Like TCP, these chemicals are absorbed rapidly through the skin. They are difficult for the liver to process, placing stress on the organ responsible for regulating your blood sugar.
Note: Standard nitrile gloves often do not provide sufficient protection against phosphate esters (which can degrade them). Butyl rubber or specific chemically resistant gloves are usually required.
2. Refueling & Ground Operations
Risk Level: High Primary Hazard: Ultrafine Particles (UFPs) & Benzene
Refueling (Jet-A1): Jet fuel contains benzene and other aromatics. Chronic inhalation of fuel vapours (especially during “hot” refueling or in enclosed hangars) exposes you to solvents that increase the risk of insulin resistance.
Exhaust Gases (Tarmac/Ramp Work): This is perhaps the most significant, overlooked risk. Jet exhaust emits Ultrafine Particles (UFPs).
The Evidence: A major European study linked living near airports (and thus high UFP exposure) to significantly higher rates of diabetes.
The Mechanism: These particles are so small they pass from your lungs directly into your bloodstream, causing systemic inflammation that blocks insulin receptors. If you work on the ramp or near running APUs without respiratory protection, your exposure is extremely high.
3. Paint Stripping
Risk Level: High Primary Hazard: Methylene Chloride & Phenols
Chemical Strippers: Aviation paint strippers are among the harshest chemicals used in industry. Many contain Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane).
The Diabetes Link: Methylene chloride is a severe metabolic toxin. It causes oxidative stress in the liver. Research indicates that chronic exposure to chlorinated solvents is linked to a higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes because the liver becomes too “busy” detoxifying the solvents to properly manage insulin and glucose levels.
Photo of dichloromethane as stored by Irish Air Corps in 2015. Dichloromethane was banned in the EU in 2012.
Priming (Alodine / Chromates): The yellow/green primers (like zinc chromate or strontium chromate) contain Hexavalent Chromium (Cr6+). While primarily a cancer risk, heavy metal toxicity stresses the kidneys and pancreas.
Painting (Topcoats): Polyurethane topcoats use Isocyanates as hardeners.
Clarification: The primary risk here is sensitization (occupational asthma), not diabetes. However, the solvents used to thin these paints (MEK, Toluene, Xylene) are the metabolic risks.
Diabetes Connection: Solvents like Toluene affect cell membrane signalling, which can make cells “deaf” to insulin’s signal (Insulin Resistance).
The Sealant: The sealant itself (the grey goo) is generally low risk once cured.
The Curing Agents: Be careful with the “hardener” part of the kit. Some two-part sealants use a dichromate cure (contains chromium), which carries the heavy metal toxicity risks mentioned above.
The Solvents: You likely use MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) or MPK to clean surfaces before sealing or to wipe up excess. These solvents are rapidly absorbed by the skin. Frequent, unprotected contact with MEK “degreases” your skin and enters your bloodstream, adding to the total “solvent load” your liver must filter.
Immediate Protective Actions
Respirators for Ramp Work: If you are spending hours on a tarmac with running APUs or engines, a standard dust mask is useless against UFPs. You need P100 filtration or activated carbon layers if vapours are present.
Glove Selection:
Skydrol/Hydraulics: Use Butyl or Neoprene. Nitrile breaks down quickly.
Fuel/Solvents: High-grade Nitrile is usually acceptable, but change them immediately if splashed.
Liver Support: Since the liver is the primary organ fighting these chemicals and regulating blood sugar, reducing other liver stressors (alcohol, processed fructose) is critical for aviation workers.
A toxic mercury spill temporarily shut down one of the Air Corps’ hangars, the Defence Forces have confirmed.
Details of the spill first emerged in an email sent on Monday by a commandant at Air Corps Headquarters in Casement Airbase, Baldonnel. He warned “all personnel” that Hangar No 4 was closed “due to a mercury spillage.”
He informed staff that the Air Corps Health and Safety Section had taken control of the clean-up operation and that the area would remain cordoned off until specialised cleaning equipment arrived.
A Defence Forces spokesperson confirmed the incident occurred at approximately 1.45pm on Monday.
A small quantity — 100 mg — of metallic mercury was accidentally spilled inside the hangar when an avionics device, a manometer, was dropped during transport.
The spokesperson said: “No personnel were exposed, and the affected area was immediately sealed off as a precautionary measure.
Air Corps Headquarters contacted the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) and notified the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The spokesperson added: “There was no risk to personnel health at any time prior to the incident, as the mercury was securely contained and only present in a very small amount.
The spill occurred in the same hangar that recently hosted the Aviation and Aerospace Careers Expo, AvCon 2025.
The annual event showcases aviation careers and technology to more than 8,000 students across primary, secondary, and third-level education.
The Irish Examiner has learned that before the conference, the HSA received a complaint about the storage of turbine engine oils and hydraulic fluids in the hangar.
The Air Corps has been asked why the HSA visited the base and what actions or assurances resulted from the inspection.
Once again the Irish Air Corps play fast & loose with oversight authorities as they only notified the EPA & HSA after the Defence Forces press office was contacted by the journalist.
Watch Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire TD, the Sinn Fein Spokesperson for Defence, ask Tánaiste & Minister for Defence Simon Harris to discuss health and safety measures in the Air Corps for the third time.
Transcript
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
Question:3. . Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence to outline, further to recent Dáil debates, his views on past health and safety measures in the Air Corps, and potential engagements with interested groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31321/25]
This question relates to issues relating to the safety measures, or lack thereof, that potentially existed in terms of Air Corps aircraft maintenance personnel over the course of recent decades. We spoke about two broad areas during our last discussion. One was the court-related issues. I flag that in response to the points the Minister made last time, several people have told me the engagement with the State Claims Agency is not anything like it should be. Even separate to that, there is the need for a policy-oriented response from the Department.
Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
In fairness to the Deputy, he put me on notice that he is going to raise this issue on each and every occasion, quite rightly and understandably considering the seriousness of it. As I set out previously, and as I am obliged to set out every time this question is posed to me, and despite the constructive way in which the question has been put forward, any discussions we might seek to have or any comments I make are necessarily limited in light of the ongoing litigation in respect of this matter currently being before our courts. I have set out this position in the House previously. There is a limit to what I can say in the circumstances to avoid intrusion into the independent role of our courts in respect of these matters.
The issue of alleged exposure to chemicals in the Air Corps is, as the Deputy said, the subject of a number of litigation cases, the management of which has been statutorily delegated to the State Claims Agency. I do, though, wish to advise the Deputy – while remaining faithful to the limitations I have just set out – that at my request and following on from our discussions my officials have started to develop preliminary options and begun a process of the consideration in relation to any possible actions that may inform the general position of those who allege experiencing harm arising from potential chemical exposure. The initial exercise is under way. It is exploratory and arises from my undertaking to the Deputy during previous sessions of oral parliamentary questions. I do not want to go into too many specifics at this point. This is primarily because a considerable portion of the nature and scope of any proposal will need to take account of what can be done without cutting across the current litigation cases and in the context of agreeing these limits and appropriate consultation.
This is not in my prepared answer, but I would be very happy to have a briefing with the Deputy on this matter and to ask my officials to sit down and hear his views and thoughts. As I said, there is a challenge in respect of meeting individual people but perhaps we could have my officials engage with the Deputy concerning some of his thoughts on this matter. I know they are working to try to make progress.
I again draw the Deputy’s attention to the point I made during our previous discussion on this matter, namely, that there is an ongoing process of engagement between the State Claims Agency and current plaintiffs. I did ask that this process be given the time and space. I am interested to know what the Deputy is hearing in respect of that engagement.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
On that point, while I understand there are restrictions on what the Minister can respond to me on, a former personnel member who was a part of aircraft maintenance said there was no current active engagement between the State Claims Agency and litigants despite what the Minister had claimed in the Dáil the previous week. The former personnel member stated that nobody from the State Claims Agency had talked to any survivors since before the recent settlement of a particular case. I ask the Minister to take that information away. I know there are limits on what he can say in response to me, but I ask him to take this information with him and put it to the State Claims Agency that there is not engagement.
Aside from that, I am glad to hear what the Minister said in respect of options being looked at. In terms of what we should be looking at, this seems clear to me. There are things that need to be worked up, but one of the most fundamental things is a health review and analysis of health outcomes. Related to that, it must be ensured that people are not out of pocket as a result of the healthcare situations they have found themselves in.
Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
I will very much take away the point made by the Deputy there in respect of a lack of engagement because my note tells me there is an ongoing process of engagement. Clearly, both cannot be factually true. I will, therefore, personally undertake to clarify this point with the State Claims Agency and I am happy to revert to the Deputy.
As I said, my officials have begun an exploratory process to consider what options may be available to me from a policy perspective to consider this issue further. Without straying too far, my thinking is that there are legal cases and I would like all these resolved insofar as they can be in a constructive manner. Legal cases, however, always require cause and effect and being able to prove cause and effect. Regardless of that threshold, if there are people in our country who have health needs, there are examples in the past of where we have endeavoured to meet those health needs, separate and distinct from any legal process and trying to establish cause and effect, which people have every right to try to do. These are the two separate issues I am trying to grapple with. I do think of times in the past when, without any admissions of liability, the State has taken actions to try to meet the health needs of some of its people. This is something we should explore.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
That is in the area we need to be looking at. There are potentially more things than that, but that is one of the crucial areas. It is not only the case here that other sectors or categories of people have had wrongs inflicted on them and sometimes it is difficult to put them all through the courts for a variety of reasons, but it has also been the case internationally. I have raised previously with the Minister some of the responses in Australia and the Netherlands in the context of aircraft maintenance personnel. The self-same issue has arisen elsewhere and it has been on the healthcare side of things.
Regarding what the Minister said about exploring options, I have two questions. What kind of timescale are we looking at? I would welcome the opportunity to have a briefing with the Minister and some of his officials, but, equally, it would hardly be appropriate if it was simply Members of this House who had that opportunity. There are representative organisations, such as the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors organisation and potentially others. It would be only right that at some stage in this process they would have the opportunity to have an engagement.
Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
When the time is right and the advice to me is that it is appropriate for me to have meetings, I will be very happy to engage. I obviously have the Deputy in a separate and distinct category as the spokesperson on defence for the largest Opposition party. I am happy to engage with him to see if we can constructively make progress. I will ask, and I have already asked, that we look at the examples in the other jurisdictions referred to by the Deputy. I do not have an exact timeline in relation to this matter. I am informed there are significant complexities in this regard. Perhaps at a meeting or a briefing we could tease through some of this issue in a bit more detail and then no doubt return to it at the next session of parliamentary questions as well.
Cases relating to exposure to dangerous chemicals used in aircraft maintenance are due before the courts
The State Claims Agency (SCA) is attempting to reach settlements with Air Corps members who were exposed to dangerous chemicals during their work, Tánaiste Simon Harris has said.
It follows the conclusion of a landmark court case earlier this year in which a former Air Corps technician was awarded €2 million.
In what was seen as a major test case, Gary Coll (51), from Lifford, Co Donegal, alleged his exposure to chemicals in the workshops of Casement Aerodrome caused him severe and lifelong health problems.
On the opening day of the hearing last February the parties agreed a settlement that did not include any admission of responsibility by the State.
Campaigners accused the State of dragging out the legal process for more than a decade.
The case against the Department of Defence was the first of 10 personal injuries cases due before the courts relating to the exposure of Air Corps members to dangerous chemicals and solvents used in aircraft maintenance.
Campaigners say there are many other Air Corps veterans who have died prematurely or suffered severe health problems in connection with their work.
Now, Mr Harris, who is also Minister for Defence, has signalled the State is keen to settle the remaining cases.
“I want to see a resolution in this regard,” Mr Harris told the Dáil this week. “I am advised there is currently active engagement between the State Claims Agency and litigants to determine if mutually agreeable resolutions can be found to their cases.
“I want to see that happen and I encourage the State Claims Agency to continue that approach, as I know it will. Trying to bring this issue to a resolution that works is important.”
The Tánaiste said an engagement process with former Air Corps personnel is “now genuinely under way” and that it should be allowed proceed “to a point where there is an achievable outcome that is acceptable to all parties”.
Gavin Tobin, a former Air Corps technician, estimates there have been nearly 100 deaths that may have involved exposure to dangerous chemicals.
He rejected Mr Harris’s claim that the State is engaging with veterans and accused it of only coming to an agreement in Mr Coll’s case at the 11th hour.
“A haggle on the corridors of the High Court where the State Claims Agency attempts to destroy reputations by calling injured personnel liars is not engagement,” said Mr Tobin who has been campaigning for years on the issue and who also suffers serious health issues.
He accused the Government of “using the might of the State to threaten financial ruin” on plaintiffs if they reject settlement offers.
“Threatening bankruptcy unless we accept settlement is not an engagement process,” he said. “Nobody is engaging with us.”
Watch Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire TD, the Sinn Fein Spokesperson for Defence, ask Tánaiste & Minister for Defence Simon Harris to discuss health and safety measures in the Air Corps for the second time.
Transcript
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
Question:154. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Defence to outline, further to recent Dáil debates, his views on past health and safety measures in the Air Corps, and potential engagements with interested groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18076/25]
Over the course of many years, it seems many Air Corps personnel, primarily young working-class people who took jobs in the maintenance department of the Air Corps, were exposed to very hazardous and dangerous conditions with very few, or effectively no, safety precautions, certainly nothing by way of masks, adequate ventilation and so on. There are huge concerns about the health implications this has for those former personnel, and I will detail that later. I want to specifically ask the Minister if he has engaged with any of those affected or their representative groups and how he intends to ensure their health is safeguarded and supported.
Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
I thank the Deputy for raising the matter and for constructively discussing it with me at the last parliamentary questions session on defence matters. I have had engagement with my officials to try to tease through some of this since we last discussed this. As I set out on the last occasion this was raised in the House, and I feel obliged to repeat now, any discussion we have or certainly any comments that I make are necessarily restricted by the existence of ongoing litigation that is active before the courts. I want to see a resolution in this regard. I am advised there is currently active engagement between the State Claims Agency and litigants to determine if mutually agreeable resolutions can be found to their cases. I want to see that happen and I encourage the State Claims Agency to continue that approach, as I know it will. Trying to bring this issue to a resolution that works is important.
The ultimate priority for me and for the Defence Forces is the protection of the health and well-being of members of the Defence Forces in carrying out its essential service to the State. It is also important to me that, where possible, litigation of this nature can be concluded on reasonable terms agreeable to all parties to spare people having to take other routes. In the event that this cannot be achieved, the matter will fall to be determined by the courts but, again, I need to remain fully cognisant of my own position in that litigation.
It would be valuable in the engagement process that is now genuinely under way that it be allowed the opportunity to proceed without prejudice, and to see if we can get to a point where there is an achievable outcome that is acceptable to all parties. The question of alleged or potential historic exposure to chemicals in the Air Corps is a matter of considerable importance to me and I maintain an open mind in terms of future discussions and engagement. I have made the point that, in the past, there have been other areas where even if the State did not accept liability, people did try to meet the health needs of those impacted. I have asked that my officials continue to give thought to that issue and to keep me updated on the progress in relation to the State Claims Agency engagement and those further questions that I have asked it. I am saying in the Dáil today that I would like time to be given to that process of engagement that I genuinely believe is now under way.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
I do not accept that for one second. Over many years, this House has dealt with many issues that have been proceeding through the courts and the State rightly did not intervene as between the two different parties or try to disturb the process of the courts. However, that is totally separate from whether the State itself identifies that there is a policy issue and a need for a policy response in relation to a category of people without interfering in the court process. That has happened numerous times, for example, with regard to the Magdalen laundries and different things like that where schemes were set up. There is nothing at this moment in time to prevent the Minister, without interfering in court cases, from engaging with representatives of those who were affected to ask what the State can do in terms of an examination of the health outcomes.
The best example, although it may not be perfect, is the one I gave from Australia, the Study of Health Outcomes in Aircraft Maintenance Personnel, SHOAMP, which identified the implications because personnel were facing serious issues.
Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Maybe I was not clear but I thought I was saying something similar. There is a process ongoing in relation to the State Claims Agency trying to see if the legal cases can be resolved in a way that is to the satisfaction of both parties. In addition to that, I have also asked my officials, on the basis of the last exchange we had, to give consideration to other actions we may be able to take to try to meet the health needs of people. That is the point I am making. There is an engagement process under way now between the State Claims Agency, which has a delegated function from me, so it acts on behalf of the State and the Government, to see if we can get this to a position where those who have been impacted are satisfied and the State is satisfied too. All I am suggesting today, and I am constraining myself in not wanting to say anything unhelpful or that cuts across that process, is that I want to give it a little bit of time. I am happy to engage constructively on it and I have asked my officials to continue to think further on some of the points I have made to them, many of which have been influenced by the points made to me by the Deputy in this House some six weeks ago.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
I put the Tánaiste on notice that I will be bringing this up again in six weeks and six weeks after that too. I am going to continue to pursue this. I would like it if we could bracket the State Claims Agency part and put that to one side because that is not what I am talking about. That needs to proceed and I hope it works out well, or as well as possible, for those affected.
One of the key points is that not everybody can afford to take the State to court. One of the organisations representing people is the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors, ACCAS.
It does not comprise clinicians, and I am not a clinician, but it has identified 97 untimely deaths, and I believe it has used that phrase deliberately and carefully. It will take a health study to identify what can be connected or what is connected to chemical exposure but it seems to me, given that a direct connection was found in Australia and the Netherlands, these men, as it is almost exclusively men, perhaps with one or two women, were exposed to very dangerous chemicals. A lot of them are really sick. Many of them have died, and their families and friends believe they did so prematurely. This is very serious. I encourage the Tánaiste to engage with the ACCAS and any other relevant people to try to find a policy solution, aside from the courts solution.
Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
I thank Deputy Ó Laoghaire. The differentiation he has made between the two processes is useful. The point he is making to me is that a number of people are not involved in legal proceedings, and they never wish to be involved in legal proceedings for whatever reason, but there are health issues that either have impacted them or are impacting them and their families have concerns about this, and there is a need to examine the health cause and effect, for want of a phrase, and to examine what other jurisdictions have done. This is something I will undertake to do, and I will come back to Deputy Ó Laoghaire on it. I expect he will be asking me about this again.
*****
In his response, the Minister stated that there is an “engagement process that is now genuinely under way.” This is the first time Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors have heard of any such process, casting serious doubt on its legitimacy or transparency.
The State Claims Agency (SCA) appears to be actively engaged in a cover-up aimed at ensuring none of these cases reach court, thereby preventing critical evidence from being examined. The SCA has a vested interest in the Air Corps toxic chemical exposure scandal, having overseen Health & Safety audits of the Air Corps for a decade, audits which ultimately led to the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) threatening legal action due to serious deficiencies.
What is truly underway are legal proceedings, court cases that the SCA is vigorously trying to suppress. Their objective appears to be shielding both the Defence Forces and themselves from accountability for past negligence and fraudulent Health & Safety oversight.
To achieve this, the SCA has employed tactics such as issuing Calderbank Offers, an unusual legal mechanism used to intimidate Air Corps veterans with the threat of financial ruin. This allows the State to leverage its vast resources to deter legal challenges, even when those challenges are meritorious.
It is particularly galling that personnel within the SCA and the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) received performance-related bonuses for supposed improvements in Air Corps Health & Safety between 2006 and 2015, a period during which members were being actively exposed to toxic substances.
By claiming that a genuine engagement process is underway, the Minister is either being misled or is deliberately misleading the Oireachtas.
A former Air Corps pilot has taken a High Court action over alleged gender discrimination and victimisation.
Amelia McKeown, a qualified pilot and former officer of the Defence Forces, claimed that she was suspended after complaining that she was being treated less favourably than her male colleagues.
Judge Rory Mulcahy said she had been based at Casement Aerodrome in Dublin.
He said she had resigned from her position in June 2015 and that at the time of her resignation she had been suspended from flying duties.
Judge Mulcahy added: ‘The circumstances surrounding that suspension are at the heart of these proceedings.’
He continued: ‘In very brief terms, it appears that the plaintiff had raised an issue with her superior officer in respect of being treated less favourably than her male colleagues.
At that time, it seems, she was the only female Air Corps pilot. Her suspension followed shortly after she raised this issue, and the plaintiff claims that the suspension amounted to gender discrimination and victimisation.
Judge Mulcahy also said that Ms McKeown sought a declaration that the suspension was not valid and that the decision to suspend her from flying duties was arbitrary, beyond the defendants’ legal powers, void and of no effect.
She has claimed that the existence of the suspension on her record has continuing impacts on her ability to earn a living as a pilot.
Ms McKeown alleged that the decision to suspend her from flying duties amounted to victimisation contrary to section 74 of the Employment Equality Act.
She has claimed damages for breaches of her contractual right to equal treatment and for gender discrimination and/ or victimisation.
The judge said the defendants in the case – the Minister for Defence and the State – had denied all her claims.
They said her suspension, or ‘withdrawal’, from flying duties was not motivated by gender or in response to her previous complaint.
The case came before Judge Mulcahy for a pretrial issue to be resolved and no further background concerning Ms McKeown’s suspension was given in his ruling.
He said the defendants asserted the case should have been taken to the Workplace Relations Commission or the Circuit Court, rather than the High Court.
The defendants also sought a preliminary ruling concerning issues relating to her contract of employment and whether it included an implied right to gender equality, he said.
They questioned whether European law gave rise to an independent cause of action against them, for damages for breach of an alleged implied contractual right to gender equality.
They also queried whether her claim, which was initiated in July 2019, was statute barred for having been taken too late, according to the terms of the Employment Equality Act.
Ms McKeown alleged that the preliminary hearing was intended to delay the main proceedings, a claim that the defendants vehemently denied. She said she had consented in October 2024 to the preliminary hearing but only in an attempt to expedite the case.
Judge Mulcahy said it was understandable that Ms McKeown had done so in her anxiety to progress the case.
However, in this case, he said it was unfortunate, as had the preliminary hearing application been contested, it would have been refused by a court.
‘It has not, and never could have, resulted in a saving of time and costs. On the contrary, both have almost certainly been increased,’ he said. ‘The effect of this application has been to delay from coming to trial proceedings which relate to events which happened a decade and more ago’.
The death of a 19-year-old apprentice at a Defence Forces barracks some 35 years ago is being examined by a tribunal into complaints of abuse within the military.
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)
Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
