Dáil Public Accounts Committee 14/05/26 – Director of State Claims Agency, Mr Ciarán Breen, misleads the PAC on Air Corps Toxic Chemical Scandal

Watch the Director of the State Claims Agency, Mr Ciarán Breen, give misleading evidence to the Dáil Public Accounts Committee 14/05/26.

Minister for Defence Helen McEntee mislead the Dáil a week previously on the same matter.

Transcript

(3 excerpts from full PAC meeting)

Aidan Farrelly (Kildare North, Social Democrats)

Sure. I thank Mr. Breen. I will ask specifically with regard to current and serving and also former Air Corps members. How many outstanding cases are open within the State Claims Agency regarding current or former Air Corps members?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

Originally, we had 11 of those claims. We settled one claim. Following that claim, we received 13 more. Therefore, we have 24 cases now.

Aidan Farrelly (Kildare North, Social Democrats)

Are they at various stages of process? When would the earliest of those 20 have been opened?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

In the case we settled, for example, my recollection is that proceedings were served in 2014 and the case was settled in 2025. The other cases are at different levels of engagement and readiness and so on.

Aidan Farrelly (Kildare North, Social Democrats)

Would there be others from that 2014 era?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

I guess many of them would probably date back to that date and maybe dates after that.

Aidan Farrelly (Kildare North, Social Democrats)

In Mr. Breen’s expertise, why would a case to be ongoing that long?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

When I answer this, I am not being critical at all of, obviously, when I say this but sometimes a plaintiff is in a very complex action like that because we are dealing with exposure to chemicals and generally an environment that alleges toxicity. Therefore, there are complex issues of liability and causation for both sides. If we add in discovery to that as well, we can see why we would get delays of, certainly, a good number of years. In the particular case that we settled, there were periods of relative inactivity. When I say that, I just mean legally. I am quite sure there was a lot of work being done in the background.

Aidan Farrelly (Kildare North, Social Democrats)

Maybe it is not as simple as asking in whose court the ball lies for those cases, but does Mr. Breen think that would be with the State Claims Agency right now or would it be with the plaintiffs?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

When a plaintiff sues, really, the ball lies largely with the plaintiff, but we do not rely on that. What we try to do, wherever we can, if we acknowledge that the State has a liability, is try to make an approach ourselves and ask, if both sides are ready, whether we can settle this case on terms that are acceptable to both parties.

*****

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

I welcome everybody here today. Following on from Deputy Neville’s questioning on wages and staffing, it seems to be a fantastic place to work when there are so many staff on such high salaries. Would I be correct in saying the salaries the witnesses are paid are much higher than civil servants in most other parts of Government?

Frank O’Connor (Chief Executive NTMA)

Looking at the data, the NTMA was set up 35 years ago and was designed to be a market-based private sector model to get people in to manage the asset liabilities of the State, so, yes, you would say that.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

Does Mr. O’Connor think that is fair?

Frank O’Connor (Chief Executive NTMA)

I do, and the reason is other people set up the agency on that basis. When you look at the scale of what is managed in the NTMA, in going to the market, funding that over €200 billion, doing it in a prudent way and managing the assets of the State, you need the talent in the room. When you are talking to asset and fund managers, you need to have people on both sides of the table who know what they are doing.

We have people doing payments – and we failed on this one payment – and we have people doing derivative transactions who need to know which side of the button to press on the FX, which currency we are trading in and all those different aspects. We need to have people of the appropriate skill and experience to do those jobs. The second thing is to get those people who are competing against the banks, law firms and engineering firms, etc., so, yes, I do.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

It sounds like a very good salary to me. In that regard, there were 270 personnel within the company who also received €2.5 million last year in State-related bonuses. Am I correct in saying that is all coming from Government funding?

Frank O’Connor (Chief Executive NTMA)

Absolutely. Regarding performance-related pay, again, that is another aspect of the pay models and other tools. It is non-pensionable performance-related pay and is common in the marketplace. We are probably a little different in that we publish the amounts and, generally, the average would be about €9,000 or €10,000 to about a third of the staff.

The one thing is we tend to disperse to more staff because all parts – the front and middle office – are important. Rather than pay large amounts to some people who might appear big, as the industry does, because it might incentivise the wrong risk-taking behaviour, we tend to disperse to between 30% and 40% of staff.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

I am interested in the State Claims Agency and the duty of care to those who have been wounded by Government policy, such as thalidomide sufferers, those with hepatitis C and now the Air Corps.

Is it the policy that staff get pay-related bonuses to help ensure that the State Claims Agency fights these cases every single step of the way and to try to break down plaintiffs and get them to withdraw their claims?

Frank O’Connor (Chief Executive NTMA)

Before I ask Ciarán to comment on the cases and the management of claims, to be very clear, performance-related pay is set on an agency-wide basis. It is not set for one business unit over another. The approach would never be to pay performance-related pay for a specific item to incentivise somebody to do a particular…..

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

What do they get the pay-related bonus for?

Frank O’Connor (Chief Executive NTMA)

The pay-related bonus depends on the performance of the individual in their overall duties and the performance of their business area in the wider NTMA.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

Is Mr. O’Connor telling me it has nothing to do with claims?

Frank O’Connor (Chief Executive NTMA)

People in the State Claims Agency are one cohort, who also get…..

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

They are getting pay-related bonuses for ensuring claims do not go through. Is that not the case?

Frank O’Connor (Chief Executive NTMA)

No, not that. It is for the performance of their duty overall to fulfil their mandate. They are not incentivised to do one specific thing over another. They must always do the job to the best of their ability.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

The State Claims Agency failed to spot chemical exposure of Air Corps personnel, even though it did health and safety audits from 2006 until 2026. Am I correct in saying that? It failed to see that, and that there was no adequate PPE.

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

Maybe I can answer that because I am the director of the State Claims Agency. Our risk management team, comprising scientists, engineers and people qualified in environmental and fire safety, did carry out audits in Baldonnel in 2006 and 2007…..

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

They failed to see, however, that the staff were not wearing PPE.

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

I ask the Deputy to just bear with me for a minute as I want to explain. The particular area that is the impugned area was called the old engine repair flight workshop. By the time we carried out our audits in Baldonnel, that had been demolished or it was disused. I think it was disused in 2006 and demolished in 2007 so it was never, in fact, inspected by our risk management people. They could not have been aware of any issues with that particular workshop at the time.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

Were there no certificates of compliance from 2006?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

I might just explain to the Deputy what we do. Our risk management is to advise and assist State authorities. One of the things that we are most conscious about doing is to ensure that somewhere like the Air Corps, Navy or Army – just looking at them as a group – has in place safety performance management. That is what we do. We do some audits.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

When the team investigated this, however, was there safety performance management in place?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

Yes

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

It was in place.

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

Yes, when we went there in 2006 and 2007, we absolutely made sure that such performance management systems were in place, and they were. By the way, we did carry out spot audits of various parts of Baldonnel. Very often we commented negatively on things that we found.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

Did the team spot at that time that there was a failure to store carcinogenic and highly corrosive chemicals on the property? Did it see that?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

As I said, that flight workshop was gone when we did the audit. Generally, in terms of chemicals management, we have found that the Air Corps is adhering to proper practice.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

How many cases are there? Was it 24?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

We had 11 originally and 13 very recently.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Féin)

I have also been told that 65 Air Corps personnel died due to the health implications of what happened there. Where are those cases?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

We only deal with cases when we have claims in front of us. That is confined to the 24 that we have.

*****

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

…..I want to return to the issue of the Air Corps. When was the first case lodged or taken?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

The earliest cases were probably lodged around 2013-2014.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

Again, for the record, why did it take so long for the case to be settled last year in 2025?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

It is obviously difficult for me to talk about any individual case because you will understand that we have to respect the confidentiality of any plaintiff. I can say this to you definitely; during that period of the time, from the time that the summons was originally served, there were delays following that in terms of how the file was progressed, not at our end.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

Were the delays on the other side?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

They were not on our end.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

It was not on the State Claims Agency’s end.

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

I am not saying that in any critical way, but there were delays until we finally got to settlement.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

Were there any disclosure actions taken against that discovery?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

Yes, there were. The discovery was not actually in the case that was settled. The discovery was in respect of the lead case, which actually was not the case that was first settled. The Chair will probably be aware that in that particular case both the High Court and Court of Appeal upheld our discovery applications to limit discovery, and the Supreme Court overturned that finally.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

The State Claims Agency fully complied with that? Was the State Claims Agency found to have been in breach of the Supreme Court?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

There had been a breach by the Air Corps in that it had not made proper discovery. It was ordered to make proper discovery, which it ultimately did.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

This ultimately prolonged the case…..

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

Yes, that did prolong it.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

…..so Mr. Breen’s prior statement that the delays were on the plaintiff’s side…..

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

Sorry, I was not impugning the plaintiff at all. I said that there were delays there…..

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

There were delays.

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

…..and I agree with you that one of them was the breach in relation to the discovery. That did delay it.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

In relation to Baldonnel, I think the State Claims Agency portrayed the issue as solely down to the engine room. Is that where predominantly the chemical exposures took place? Am I right?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

Certainly based on the claims as pleaded, the references are to the exposure over a period of time relative to that particular locus.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

When was the engine room demolished?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

I think it was in 2007.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

Mr. Breen said it was in 2006 earlier on.

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

No. I said that I think it was disused in 2006 and ultimately demolished in 2007.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

Was the engine room still in use up to September 2007?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

I am not sure. I honestly cannot tell you emphatically, but certainly what I recollect is that it had been taken out of use and then was finally demolished in 2007.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

I have an image in front of me from Google Maps from 2009 that clearly shows the engine room still fully intact. The image is dated May 2009. Is Mr. Breen correct with the information he gave that it was demolished in that timeframe?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

Sorry, I obviously was not there. I do not know when it was exactly. What I was told was that it was demolished in 2007.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

The evidence I have is that it was still fully intact in 2009. If the engine room was still in use up until September 2007, and this is the information I have, when did inspections of the engine room commence?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

We did not ever inspect that engine room on the State Claims Agency side, precisely for the reason that it was not actually in use.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

When did the avionic building on the right-hand side of the engine room cease being used?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

I do not know. I do not have that information.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

That ceased being used as a classroom in 2008-2009 and that was used by the Air Corps College. It has been reported that 14 persons prematurely died from that building. The information I have is that while there is an attempt to portray it solely as an issue around the engine room, 102 people are reported to have prematurely died as a result of chemical exposure and other serious failures throughout the rest of the airbase. Would…..

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

I have just seen those stories in the media but I cannot comment on that. I do not know any causal link between those deaths and Baldonnel as an employer.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Féin)

There are serious concerns that chemical exposure was rampant throughout Baldonnel. In Mr. Breen’s view, is that something that has been established?

Ciarán Breen (Director State Claims Agency)

In relation to the work that we carried out, and you can imagine that Baldonnel is a very big campus and it has many different parts to it, our audits were carried out in different parts of Baldonnel. Certainly in relation to our examination, the management of chemical hazards was in accordance with best standards in terms of all of the safety performance management paperwork we saw.

*****

A full transcript of the complete Public Accounts Committee meeting on Thursday the 14th of May 2026 can be viewed below.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/committee_of_public_accounts/2026-05-14/3/

*****

In this startling exchange before the Dáil Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on May 14, 2026, the Director of the State Claims Agency (SCA), Ciarán Breen, provides demonstrably misleading testimony regarding the Irish Air Corps toxic chemical exposure scandal.

During the hearing, Mr. Breen attempts to excuse the SCA’s negligent Health and Safety audits of Casement Aerodrome, which incredibly awarded the Defence Forces “best practice” compliance certificates in early 2007 while personnel were actively being poisoned without PPE. To defend these catastrophic oversight failures, Breen claims that the old Engine Repair Flight (ERF) workshop was “disused in 2006 and demolished in 2007,” and therefore was never inspected by his risk management team.

This is factually false. As highlighted by Deputy John Brady, the Engine Shop remained in use up to September 2007. Furthermore, it was not demolished in 2007; the building is clearly visible and fully intact in Google satellite images dating to May 2009. Official tender documents for the “Demolition of Old Engineering Workshops” at Casement Aerodrome prove that the tendering process only closed on July 15, 2009. Adding to the severity of this oversight, the right-hand side of the Engine Shop, the Avionics building, was actively used as a classroom by the Air Corps College throughout 2008 and 2009.

Breen’s testimony also reveals a calculated strategy by the State to geographically contain the scandal. He attempts to concentrate the chemical exposure allegations solely on the Engine Shop, claiming the legal cases are relative only to “that particular locus”.

The tragic reality is that chemical misuse was rampant everywhere in Baldonnel. While 14 individuals have tragically died prematurely from the Engine Shop / Avionics building, a staggering 102 personnel have died prematurely from the rest of the airbase. This means that 88% of the 116 recorded premature deaths occurred among men and women who served in units *outside* of the Engine Shop.

Without a doubt, Mr. Breen has misled the PAC in an attempt to rewrite history, downplay the profound incompetence of the SCA’s safety audits between 2006 and 2016, and minimize the State’s sweeping liability. It is yet another chapter in the State’s cruel playbook of “Delay, Deny, Die.”

To learn more about the campaign for truth, justice, and healthcare for exposed personnel, visit the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors (ACCAS) website: www.accas.info

Delay – Deny – DLie

Dáil Éireann Priority Questions 07/05/26 – Air Corps – Minister rejects health supports for Air Corps victims

Watch Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire TD, the Sinn Fein Spokesperson for Defence, ask the recently appointed Minister for Defence Helen McEntee for an update on medical supports for exposed Air Corps personnel and watch her gaslight survivors & downplay their experience while ignoring and the issue of medical supports.

Transcript

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)

Question: 67. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence further to recent Dáil Éireann 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 affected as a whole. [33426/26]

Since our last engagement on this issue, we have had the “RTÉ Investigates” documentary, considerable reporting by Neil Michael from the Irish Examiner, and many disturbing and worrying disclosures and descriptions of what was going on. It is clear that Air Corps personnel were exposed to unsafe working conditions and to dangerous chemicals and there seems to be a strong correlation to very serious illness and bad health outcomes. These are people who served the State. They should get support. What does the Minister intend to do about it and how does she intend to ensure that they are looked after?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)

I thank the Deputy for raising this. I acknowledge the Deputy’s engagement around the issue. I welcome the opportunity to set out the position as it stands. As there are multiple ongoing cases before the courts, as I have stated previously, I am limited in terms of what I can say so that I do not prejudice any of the ongoing litigation. The Deputy has said previously that it is possible to discuss both but I always want to be careful in that regard.

The advice available to me is that any view I have here needs to be carefully expressed so that we do not undermine the current process. Each claim has to receive the necessary case-specific analysis and consideration because what is clear is that each individual case is different to a certain extent.

I had a number of briefs from my officials on this. I then requested further detailed analysis from them. I have received that and carefully considered it. I convened a meeting with the Attorney General, representatives from the State Claims Agency and officials from my Department to discuss the matter further, having sought various different advices.

There are accusations that the State is prolonging legal proceedings as a deliberate tactic but that is not the case. It is important to stress that at every step of the way, the engagement that we have had, be it through the State Claims Agency working with individuals, has been to try to find a resolution and to work constructively with them.

The State Claims Agency has confirmed to me that it has made representations to the legal representatives of the litigants to explore the possibility of mediation to find a resolution to this issue. This is the way we want to move forward – that we can mediate and find a way forward – but those approaches have been rejected pending the cases having been set down for hearing.

I would encourage all those involved. We want to find a way forward. We do not want this to have to go to a court setting. There is an offer there from the State Claims Agency to work with it and with its legal representatives. We all want to find a mutually agreeable resolution, taking into consider what people have gone through and the current individual situation for those involved in this overall. I would encourage them to take up that offer and to engage more broadly with us.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)

To be honest, that is a frustrating response because the Minister is well aware that I have outlined the point in the past. I would say there are issues in relation to the handling of the State Claims Agency of these cases. It is not appropriate for us to get into individual cases. I have never asked the Minister to do so. I have never tried to discuss individual cases in this Chamber, with the Minister or her predecessor. The issue here is in relation to a category of people who were acting in the service of the State. They were supporting the Defence Forces in terms of maintenance of aircraft. As the Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors group outlined, there have been 130 potential premature deaths. Clearly, we need to get to the bottom of that.

I am not asking for an update on the legal side, although I think there are issues in relation to the State Claims Agency’s approach. What I am asking for is what the Minister proposes to do, and which we discussed previously, in terms of the whole category, a potential package of health supports and health safeguarding, including forms of screening, and an accountability mechanism. There has to be an accountability mechanism as well.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)

There are 22 active cases before the courts, which we are trying to engage with. Like the Deputy, I want to understand whether this is something that is happening on a wider scale but at the same time, we have to identify whether or not there is a consistent pattern here. Work has been done within the Department to see whether this is something that has been happening on a broader scale and whether there is a consistent pattern beyond the 22 people the Deputy is talking about here, and even within those cases where there is not a consistent pattern in terms of health implications or issues that have come to the fore. I am not for a second disputing the fact that the people who we are engaging with have health concerns and have had health concerns. There has never been a dispute that there needed to be better measures in place in terms of health and safety, whether it was gloves or handling. Whether the exposure had the overall effect, as has been set out by the individuals in the 22 active cases, is what is being discussed and engaged with at present. I would encourage all those to engage further in a mediation process that we have been actively trying to pursue because I think this the best route to be able to come to a conclusion for all of the individuals concerned.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)

If there is a pattern, we are not going to find that out in the High Court. That will be found out through a process the Department seems to be considering. A memo was due to be brought to the Minister in the first quarter but we are past the first quarter now. That is what I recall the Minister saying. Has the Minister considered this memo in relation to a whole-category approach?

I ask the Minister to not go back into the legal cases. The clear example is in relation to Australia where the Australian air force saw that there was an issue, it engaged with the group and the people retained their right to take cases as they saw fit but there was health screening, an accountability mechanism and health supports. There is nothing preventing the Minister from doing that. When will she make a decision as to whether the Government will put in place a process such as there was in Australia – a study of health outcomes, identifying whether there is causation and ensuring support for people who are very sick? Among these people, there have been heart conditions, colorectal cancer and suicides.

Clearly there is a need for things like routine cardiac screening. These are all things that can be done without any reference to the court cases. When will the Minister make a decision on a solution for the whole category?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)

The Deputy referenced Australia. The case in Australia involved de-seal and reseal programmes. The maintenance workers were quite literally required to physically climb into fuel tanks of F111 fighter jets. They worked in extremely cramped conditions for extended periods with chronic confined exposure to concentrated hazardous substances. Nobody has suggested at any point that this is in any way aligned with the conditions in the Air Corps.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)

No, but it still goes on.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)

We have said very clearly that there need to be better health and safety standards. That is something that has been made very clear and those changes have been made. As the Deputy has outlined, we have a significant number of different conditions that have come to the fore with the litigants who have been mentioned. However, it has not yet been identified whether this was specific to the exposure.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)

We should find out.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)

I told the Deputy that there was a body of work being done initially to see if there is a connection. Is there an increased level of particular types of health complications? Was there an increased level within the Air Corps during that time because of that exposure?

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)

When will we find out?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)

That body of work is still under way at the moment. I do not think we can say this is the same as Australia.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Féin)

I hear the Minister saying that but when will we find out?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)

That work is under way and I will bring that to the Dáil and to the Deputy’s attention when I can. If people have been harmed here, I want to make sure we know about it. I also want to make sure that those involved in the process can engage with us and come to a conclusion on that process.

*****

During her appearance in Dáil Éireann on May 7, 2026, Minister for Defence Helen McEntee prefaced her remarks by claiming she had to limit her comments “so that I do not prejudice any of the ongoing litigation”. She informed the Dáil that she had been advised to speak cautiously to avoid undermining the judicial process, arguing that “each claim has to receive the necessary case-specific analysis and consideration because what is clear is that each individual case is different to a certain extent”.

However, despite this stated commitment to avoiding prejudice, she immediately went on the public record to make several assertions directly related to the core disputes of the active cases:

- - Disputing Causation: While she conceded that “there has never been a dispute that there needed to be better measures in place in terms of health and safety,” she used her platform to publicly question whether the toxic chemical exposure was directly responsible for the victims’ illnesses. She stated that “whether the exposure had the overall effect, as has been set out by the individuals in the 22 active cases, is what is being discussed and engaged with at present”. She compounded this by claiming that “it has not yet been identified whether this was specific to the exposure”.
  - Commenting on Legal Strategy and Avoiding Accountability: She publicly discussed ongoing legal negotiations, announcing that the State Claims Agency had offered mediation to find a resolution, but that “those approaches have been rejected” by the plaintiffs who are waiting for their cases to be set down for a hearing. In an attempt to present the State as eager to resolve the matter amicably, she remarked: “I would encourage all those involved. We want to find a way forward. We do not want this to have to go to a court setting”. As noted by advocates, this statement is a calculated attempt to victim-blame the plaintiffs for decade-long legal delays. More importantly, by aggressively pushing for confidential mediation and working to keep all cases out of a court setting, the State is actively denying the victims true justice. Settling out of court ensures that no legal precedent will ever be set, thereby allowing the State, the Department of Defence, and the State Claims Agency to entirely avoid public and legal accountability for their roles in this scandal.
  - Downplaying the Severity of the Exposure: The Minister also publicly dismissed comparisons between the toxic exposure in the Irish Air Corps and the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Deseal/Reseal scandal. She downplayed the Irish working environment by arguing that the Australian personnel operated in “extremely cramped conditions” inside fuel tanks and claimed that “nobody has suggested at any point that this is in any way aligned with the conditions in the Air Corps”.

Minister McEntee effectively used the excuse of ongoing litigation as a shield to avoid committing to proactive healthcare interventions for the survivors. Yet, in the exact same exchange, she felt comfortable enough to publicly cast doubt on the victims’ claims of causation, minimize the severity of their working conditions, and criticize their rejection of mediation—all while executing a strategy designed to keep the facts out of a courtroom and shield the State from accountability.

*****

It should be noted that the Minister actively refuses to hear the other side of the story. Minister McEntee is only engaging with the perpetrators and the State Claims Agency whose personnel have profited from this scandal through performance relate gratuities. Minister McEntee has refused to talk to victims as have her immediate predecessors.

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

Witness ‘pressured’ by Air Corps bosses to change his account of ‘officer assault’

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.

https://extra.ie/2026/01/18/news/air-corps-niall-donohoe

Dáil Éireann Priority Questions 16/12/25 – Air Corps – Health Issues Due to Hazardous Chemicals

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.

Delay – Deny – Die

Dáil Éireann Parliamentary Questions 12/06/25 – Air Corps – Health Issues Due to Hazardous Chemicals

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.

*****

Delay – Deny – Die

Trichloroethylene used to clean the floors in Irish Air Corps cookhouse!

Every now and again when investigating poor health & untimely deaths of colleagues in the Irish Air Corps at Casement Aerodrome we come across a cluster of unexplained deaths or illness in particular work locations.

Exposures are briefly explained by location below those in RED were unexplained until personnel came forward to highlight misuse of chemicals in these locations.

Apprentice Hostel

Exposure to asbestos was the main problem in the apprentice hostel and it does not appear to have been fully removed until the mid 1990s although some efforts were made to remove the bulk of it in the late 1980s. The 1990s effort used a professional removal service while the late 1980s effort used apprentices without any PPE whatsoever. Persistent black marks on lino or floor tiles would be dealt with by calling to the nearest hangar or workshop to borrow some MEK or Trike

Avionics, ERF & Parachute Shop

Illness & untimely deaths in Avionics Squadron and Engine Repair Flight (Engine Shop) can be explained by unprotected exposure to the chemicals used in both locations and by their exposure to exhaust fumes from the Spray Paint Facility. The Parachute Shop which was part of ERF establishment also used toxic glues and exposed personnel to fumes from PU coated drysuits.

Basic Flight Training School

Illness & untimely deaths in BFTS can be explained by the IRAN inspections where DCM/Phenol paint strippers were used without PPE and the extensive use (like in heli) of corrosion inhibitors like Mastinox. Of course the fuel for the Marchettis was leaded gasoline with its own issues.

Battery Shop

Illness in the battery shop can be explained by exposure to battery electrolytes & charging fumes. The personnel walking around here with holes in their jumper, trousers and shirts from sulphuric acid was almost comical if it wasn’t such a serious risk to their health.

Cookhouse / NCOs Mess

Until now we had not been able to satisfactorily explain the unusual body count & illnesses of personnel who served in the old cookhouse kitchen, new cookhouse kitchen and NCOs Mess kitchen.

Recently we were made aware of a practice in the old cookhouse as far back as the mid 1970s whereby personnel who worked there procured solvent degreaser from up camp. We believe this degreaser again to be trichloroethylene.

This solvent was provided sometimes in 25 litre drums and sometimes in gallon containers where it was usually decanted into smaller vessels like milk bottles or coke bottles to be spread on the floor and then mopped and squeegeed until the floor was spotless.

And it turns out that this practice continued in the new cookhouse and technicians from ERF who dropped down 25 litre drums of Trike were rewarded with a wrap up of some food like steaks.

We believe this floor degreasing practice occurred in the NCOS Mess kitchen but we have no evidence yet that it occurred in the Officers Mess Kitchen but given the fluidity of personnel movements between the various catering locations it is a distinct possibility.

For some information on Illnesses caused by trichloroethylene click here.

Engineering Wing Hangar & Workshops

Illness & untimely deaths in Engineering Wing Hanagar can be explained by unprotected exposure to Paint Shop chemicals including isocyanates & thinners, Hydraulic Shop chemicals, Sheet Metal Shop chemicals, wood dust from the Carpentry Shop, welding fumes from the Welding Shop as well as paint stripper fumes and mastinox fumes from Marchetti IRANs or Alouette equivalent teardowns.

Fire Crew

Members of the fire crew would have had exposure to exhaust gasses of idling aircraft engines and would have also had exposure to fuel fumes and burning fumes from training exercises. The Fire Crew also used PFAS based fire fighting foams.

Heli Wing

Illness & untimely deaths in Heli Wing are easily explained by unprotected exposure to the chemicals used maintaining helicopters, by exposure to fuel vapours from gravity refueling, exposure to exhaust gasses from gas turbine engines and the immune sensitisation capabilities of polyurethane coated immersion suits. Toxic tubbing in Heli was also a thing.

Light Strike Squadron

Similarly illness & untimely deaths in Light Strike Squadron can be explained by unprotected exposure to refueling fumes, exhaust gasses and other lubricants, greases, hydraulic fluids and sealants used to maintain the Fougas. Toxic tubbing in LSS was also a thing.

Main Block

Illness & untimely deaths in the Main block can be explained by unprotected exposure to photographic film & printing chemicals. These photographic chemicals used in photo section drove death, illness & harm to offspring in personnel throughout the main block

Chemicals in use by workshops in Air Sp Coy Signals further exposed personnel in the mainblock to chemicals they would not have expected to be exposed to like trichloroethane etc.

Units exposed in the main block would include

Admin Wing HQ
AE Section
Drawing Office
Air Corps INT
Medical Aid Post
Sgt Majors Office
Signals Bottom Workshop
Signals Top Workshop
Signals COMCEN
Signals Orderly Room & CO’s Office
Signals PC Maintenance Workshop
Signals Stores
Station Commanders Office

Main Tech Stores

Illness & untimely deaths in Main Technical stores can be explained by the fact that the building is sited on the old Camp Stables where hundreds if not thousands of litres of toxic chemicals such as Ardrox 666 were dumped into the ground. Complaints were made by civilian & military personnel about poor air quality in MTS and studies were carried out but the reports have disappeared. There is also evidence that used chemical drums containing isocyanates were stored in MTS in an open state.

Photo Section

When photo section moved out of the Main Block to the old cookhouse in the early 1990s they brought their dangerous chemicals to this new locations. This new location was better equipped than the expellair in the main block. But faulty equipment and lack of chemical health & safety training meant illness & death continued.

Photographers who flew regularly exposure to refueling fumes, exhaust gasses from gas turbine engines and the immune sensitisation capabilities of polyurethane coated immersion suits.

Refuelers

Obviously refuelers were exposed on an ongoing basis to high amounts of refueling fumes and aircraft exhaust gasses but also to other dangerous additives like FSII.

Training Depot

On at least two occasions that we are aware of there was catastrophic damage caused to floors and walls by misuse of chemicals in ACTD.

On the first occasion in the late 1980s we are aware of a recruit using what we suspect to be a large quantity of MEK on twine backed traditional lino the last room on the left of the depot. The use of the chemical on this occasion melted the lino through to the twine backing.

On the second occasion in the mid 1990s at least 25 litres of trichloroethylene was used to clean the floor of some of the demonstration rooms that had been recently redecorated. The Trike was spread on the floor using mops and squeegees making the apprentices carrying out the job high. The next morning it was discovered that all the floor tiles had shriveled up and that all the paint on the walls up to about 1m had dissolved and flowed down the walls to the floor.

For some information on Illnesses caused by MEK click here.

*****

The physical layout of Baldonne means that the prevailing wind blows the exhaust gasses from idling aircraft over the whole camp.

There does not appear to have been any initiative whatsoever to reduce camp personnel exposure to exhaust gasses and in many cases aircraft exhaust into hangars due to the prevailing wind.

We have little information on chemical exposures at Gormanston except for tubbing and the use of JetA1 powered heaters inside hangars. We would welcome any information in this regards.

First year anniversary of formally asking Cathal Berry TD for assistance seeking medical intervention for injured Irish Air Corps chemical exposure survivors? Still NO response!

10th June 2021

Still awaiting a response from Cathal Berry TD exactly a year to the day from writing to him.

Apparently he is not so #CredibleCompetentCaring after all.

10th January 2021

Dear Deputy Berry,

Exactly six months ago on the 10th of June 2020, I wrote a registered letter to you asking for your assistance obtaining medical interventions for chronically ill Irish Air Corps personnel in an effort to reduce unnecessary suffering & untimely deaths.

I am disappointed that after six months I have had absolutely no response or follow up to this letter, not even an basic acknowledgement of receipt.

As a former Defence Forces officer and as a medical doctor I hoped that you were best placed to both understand & champion in the Oireachtas the best interests of those suffering a multitude of health effects from decades of unprotected toxic chemical exposure in what HSA inspectors told me was “the worst case of chemical misuse in the history of the state”.

As I have not heard from you I can only assume that I was wrong and that you either simply do not believe there are any health problems suffered by serving & former Air Corps personnel due workplace chemical exposure, or worse still, you acknowledge personnel have been injured but have no interest in helping them.

I would be grateful if you could please reply publicly to this open letter and while doing so could please answer the following.

Do you believe Irish Air Corps survivors when they tell you that the Health & Safety Authority found serious non compliance with the Safety, Health & Welfare At Work Act 2005 in relation to basic chemical health & safety at Casement Aerodrome and that the same HSA threatened prosecution if their “advice” was not complied with?
Do you accept that the Safety, Health and Welfare At Work Acts 1989 & 2005 were enacted by the state to protect workers from injuries and if an organisation failed to implement these same Acts for decades after they were enacted then the likelihood of injury to personnel is increased?
If you do accept that the Irish Air Corps was not in compliance with the Safety, Health and Welfare At Work Acts 1989 & 2005 and if you do accept that health and safety legislation is enacted to protect workers can you please explain why you have done nothing publically to raise awareness of the Irish Air Corps chemical exposure tragedy since you were elected to Dáil Eireann almost 1 year ago and why you have not mentioned it even once in your numerous chamber utterances or press releases.

I look forward to your response, if any.

Yours sincerely,

Gavin Tobin
Spokesperson
Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors

Please find linked below a copy of my original letter to you and also a copy of the Health & Safety letter to the Air Corps dated October 2016 outlining urgent steps to be taken threatening legal action if they are ignored. The HSA letter was obtained under FOI.

An open letter to Deputy Cathal Berry TD asking why he did not respond to requests for assistance seeking medical help for injured Irish Air Corps chemical exposure survivors?

10th January 2021

Dear Deputy Berry,

I am disappointed that after six months I have had absolutely no response or follow up to this letter, not even an basic acknowledgement of receipt.

I would be grateful if you could please reply publicly to this open letter and while doing so could please answer the following.

Do you believe Irish Air Corps survivors when they tell you that the Health & Safety Authority found serious non compliance with the Safety, Health & Welfare At Work Act 2005 in relation to basic chemical health & safety at Casement Aerodrome and that the same HSA threatened prosecution if their “advice” was not complied with?
Do you accept that the Safety, Health and Welfare At Work Acts 1989 & 2005 were enacted by the state to protect workers from injuries and if an organisation failed to implement these same Acts for decades after they were enacted then the likelihood of injury to personnel is increased?
If you do accept that the Irish Air Corps was not in compliance with the Safety, Health and Welfare At Work Acts 1989 & 2005 and if you do accept that health and safety legislation is enacted to protect workers can you please explain why you have done nothing publically to raise awareness of the Irish Air Corps chemical exposure tragedy since you were elected to Dáil Eireann almost 1 year ago and why you have not mentioned it even once in your numerous chamber utterances or press releases.

I look forward to your response, if any.

Yours sincerely,

Gavin Tobin
Spokesperson
Air Corps Chemical Abuse Survivors

Dáil Éireann Leader’s Questions 30/11/17 – Irish Air Corps

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

In addition to his other duties the Taoiseach has retained for himself the role of Minister for Defence. It is not clear to me that he takes any real responsibility for the area of Defence. It is not acceptable for a Cabinet Minister to simply delegate the entire responsibility for a Government Department to a Minister of State. The Taoiseach does not answer parliamentary questions on the matter. I do not know if he attends monthly management meetings of the leadership team of the Department of Defence or if he regularly attends meetings with the Secretary General or other senior officials of the Department.

He seems to be sidestepping personal responsibility for his Department. Very serious issues are arising. The wives and partners of Defence Forces personnel are outside the gates of Leinster House this morning to continue to highlight some of these issues, in particular the clear fact that many members are leaving because they cannot live on current earnings. The Tánaiste will tell the House that the matter is being examined by a public sector pay commission, but the Government was happy to act unilaterally in respect of the new Garda Commissioner and the highly paid academics we needed to attract. I believe genuinely that the Government would find consensus in the House for a bespoke pay review for the Defence Forces, which is warranted and urgently required. I cannot understand why it is willing to recognise the Garda associations in pay negotiations but will not do the same for the representative associations of Defence Forces’ personnel.

Reports this week have made it clear that an Air Corps whistleblower faces discharge from the Defence Forces. That a serving member of the Defence Forces can face disciplinary action for chronic inactivity, as it was stated, following a work-related industrial dispute is disconcerting, in particular when it is reported that he has told the Minister of State that he was targeted for raising safety concerns. Mr. Christopher O’Toole has been appointed to examine protected disclosures on the working environment at Casement Aerodrome. It is reported that the terms of reference he was given were impractical. This is all the more concerning now that we know the State Claims Agency carried out a number of health and safety management audits of the Defence Forces and that the Defence Forces can only offer speculative explanations for why prior inspection reports from Casement Aerodrome have gone missing. That is unsatisfactory, especially in the light of the fact that copies of these documents are in circulation among politicians and the media. Efforts to establish whether the documents were deliberately destroyed have amounted to asking the Defence Forces to investigate themselves.

What action will the Government take to ensure every member of the Defence Forces will earn at least a living wage? Will it commit to recognising Defence Forces’ associations in pay negotiations? Is it satisfied that the Defence Forces’ members who met the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, to discuss these concerns are receiving the full protection warranted under the Protected Disclosures Act? Has it considered the establishment of a commission of investigation to establish whether the health and safety management regime at Casement Aerodrome meets the standards of the day and whether the allegations have any credibility?

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

The Deputy has asked a lot of questions. If I do not get to all of them on the floor of the House, I will respond having spoken to the Minister of State with responsibility for defence matters. I am personally familiar with some of the cases referred to and previous whistleblowers in relation to issues at Casement Aerodrome. I commit to coming back to the Deputy in detail on these issues.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

That is appreciated.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

The Government may have to make decisions on future actions there and we await recommendations from the Minister of State in that regard. It is something in which I have taken a personal interest and of which I have some knowledge, but I cannot go into the detail on the floor of the Dáil.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

It needs to happen on the floor of the Dáil.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary,Labour)

Look at what happened in the last week.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

There will be answers to these questions.

On the wives and partners of Defence Forces’ personnel who are making a point today, I note that successful negotiations with the Permanent Defence Force representative associations have led to significant pay increases under the Lansdowne Road agreement for Defence Forces’ personnel. The public service stability agreement for the period 2018 to 2020 provides for a series of further pay increases in the next three years. Given the ministerial offices Deputy Brendan Howlin has held, he will know of the difficulty in separating one sector from all others for special treatment in public sector pay, but that is what he is asking us to do. There are other issues about what the Department of Defence can do about other supports available to Defence Forces’ personnel. There have been reviews in that regard. There are many sectors in the economy and society that can make a very valid case for improved pay and working conditions. I understand that, of course, the Defence Forces will make that case for themselves through the representative organisations and, in this case, private family members. Of course, the Government will listen. However, we have to operate within a certain pay structure across the public sector. If we were to start to dismantle it for individual sectors, the Deputy knows of the chaos it would cause.

As a former Minister for Defence, I record the Government’s strong appreciation of the role the Defence Forces play. I have visited many peacekeeping missions around the world and had the privilege to spend time with families who have lost loved ones in the service of the country in the Defence Forces. They are valued. We are building personnel numbers in the Defence Forces and the recruitment campaign is a success. We are adding substantially more personnel to the Defence Forces than we are losing and will continue to see that trend develop into 2018.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I appreciate the Tánaiste’s reply and understand he cannot give me a comprehensive response on the Casement Aerodrome issues. I look forward to either a direct briefing or a written response in due course. I have full knowledge of pay issues in dealing with the public service as a whole, but there is a compelling case to be made for separating out the Defence Forces for a bespoke review. I say this in the full knowledge of how difficult it would be. The shockingly low pay levels across the sector are having an impact on retention in key skills areas. When these difficulties arose in the health sector, we managed to formulate a way to deal with them. For example, we had a formula for skilled nurses. We need to recognise what is happening. The fact that the people concerned are not allowed to manifest their voices publicly does not mean that they should be ignored. As such, I ask whether consideration will be given to a unique pay review within the Defence Forces and outside the Public Sector Pay Commission.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

The Minister of State with responsibility for defence matters tells me that this is happening in the context of having special skill sets within the Defence Forces. It is important to note, having regard to the broader arrangements in place, that combined increases in recent months for new recruits have ranged from 8% to 24%, depending on the point on which they are on the pay scales. We are seeing an economy which can afford to pay the public sector more. The bodies which represent members of the Defence Forces have bought into and want to be part of negotiations and their members are starting to benefit, but that is not to suggest there is no frustration in the Defence Forces. However, across the public sector, including within the Defence Forces, deals negotiated with representative bodies mean that we will see continuous improvements in pay into the future, which is positive.

On the Air Corps, the Minister of State has only recently received observations and replies from the three individuals who made protected disclosures on the independent review report which he had commissioned and forwarded to them. Having received responses on the report from the three individuals, the Minister of State will have to make recommendations to the Government. We will make decisions on whether further action is required.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary,Labour)

The Taoiseach is the Minister.

*****