Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Other Question No. 11
To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the further action he plans to take in relation to Air Corps whistle-blowers.
Tag: Irish Army Air Corps
Dáil Éireann – Priority Question 2 – 24th January 2018 – Irish Air Corps – Toxic Chemical Exposure Health Audit
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Priority Question No. 2
To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence his plans to carry out a medical or health audit of serving and former members of the Air Corps similar to that undertaken in Australia in order to identify those that may have been exposed on an ongoing basis to toxic chemicals during their service. [3490/18]
Dáil Éireann Written Answers 16/01/18 – Question on Irish Air Corps usage of PFOS & PFOA disallowed
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if the Air Corps at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, County Dublin has ever used firefighting foams that contained either of the chemical ingredients PFOS, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid or PFOA, perfluorooctanoic acid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54318/17]
Seán Ó Fearghaíl, Ceann Comhairle (South Kildare, Fianna Fail)
I regret that I have had to disallow the following question tabled by you.
“To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if the Air Corps at Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnel, County Dublin has ever used firefighting foams that contained either of the chemical ingredients PFOS, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid or PFOA, perfluorooctanoic acid; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54318/17]”
The question is impinging on the functions of the Courts as per the provisions of Standing Order 59(3) which states: 59(3) a matter shall not be raised in such an overt manner so that it appears to be an attempt by the Dail to encroach on the functions of the Courts or a Judicial Tribunal.
*****
To be very clear there are NO court cases at present pertaining to the use of PFOS or PFOA by the Irish Air Corps at Casement Aerodrome. Furthermore there are no Judicial Tribunals yet established into the use and / or misuse of these chemicals by the Irish Air Corps.
Perhaps the minister could answer a straightforward question without hiding behind Standing Order 59 (3)
DELAY – DENY – DIE
Dáil Éireann Written Answers 12/12/17 – Department of Finance – State Claims Agency – Irish Air Corps
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
QUESTION NO: 128
To ask the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 129 of 14 November 2017, if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the State Claims Agency commissioned a retrospective report covering 1980 to 2007 to be carried out by the formation safety office Air Corps on much of Casement Aerodrome, Baldonnell, which was issued on 6 February 2014; if the State Claims Agency carried out actions on receipt of the report such as issuing findings to the Minister for Defence, the Health and Safety Authority, the chief of staff of the Defence Forces or Casement Aerodrome authorities; and if it withheld it for future use or not as it saw fit in legal proceedings being pursued against the State. [53000/17]
Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
The SCA have informed me that in answering question 129 of 14 November 2017 it interpreted the request to relate to its audit programme carried out by its Risk Unit. They have also informed me that in August 2013 on receiving a claim in which it was alleged that personal injuries were caused by exposure to toxic substances in Baldonnel, the SCA emailed Litigation Branch and Claims Administration asking that a Liaison Officer (L.O.) be appointed to assist the SCA‘s investigations. The SCA also requested that the appointed LO prepare a detailed claims report setting out the background and circumstances of the claim. The SCA, although not privy to the decision, understands that the Formation Safety Officer was tasked with this request. The SCA subsequently received a report, in April 2014, titled “Chemical Exposure Report (1994-2005) (plaintiff name) Case” which was the only report furnished by the Defence Forces and related specifically to the period 1994-2005. As the report was requested by and provided to the SCA in the context of a claim, it is legally and professionally privileged, referring as it does to all the circumstances of the plaintiff’s claim. This report was prepared entirely for the conduct of the legal proceedings and its use was confined accordingly.
*****
Further explanation: Almost 2 years before multiple whistle-blowers made protected disclosures to the Minister for Defence and over two years before the Health & Safety Authority investigated appalling Irish AirCorps chemical health & safety, the State Claims Agency were aware (after interviewing serving personnel in 2013/2014) that there were continuing serious chemical health & safety breaches in Baldonnel causing ongoing unprotected exposure & injury to personnel.
Rather than be responsible, save lives and do the right thing by informing the Health & Safety Authority that there were ongoing breaches of health and safety legislation at Baldonnel. This included the lack of provision of chemical training and the lack of provision of PPE (both recommended by Forbairt in 1997). The State Claims Agency callously and indeed negligently decided to sit on the report.
DELAY – DENY – DIE
Dáil Éireann Written Answers 12/12/17 – Department of Defence – Departmental Reports – Irish Air Corps
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
QUESTION NO: 61
To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the chemical exposure report 1994 to 2005 produced in 2014 by a person (details supplied); if a copy of that report was made available to the independent reviewer to allow them carry out a full assessment of the way in which the Air Corps dealt with recent whistle-blowers’ statements; if not, the reason therefor; and if its publication will be authorised. [52875/17]
Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
I can confirm to the Deputy that my attention has been drawn to the Chemical Exposure Report 1994 to 2005. As I outlined to the Deputy in my reply to Parliamentary Question number 547 of 26 September 2017, the report was undertaken in the context of ongoing legal proceedings. As the report is subject to legal privilege, it was not appropriate to make it available to the independent reviewer. The material used for the purpose of the review by the independent reviewer is listed in an appendix to his report, which is available on my Department’s website.
As the Chemical Exposure Report 1994 to 2005 is subject to legal privilege, it will not be published.
*****
So to paraphrase. An arm of the state withholds an internal legacy health & safety report from a state appointed independent third party investigator, who was appointed to review legacy health & safety of the same arm of the state.
Question : Did Christopher O’Toole know that this document was being withheld and if not why was he not informed. If Christopher O’Toole was informed that this document was being withheld then why did he not state this in his report?
DELAY – DENY – DIE
Enterprise Risk Management Recognition for the Defence Forces
In photo from left to right: Comdt Thomas Farrell (OC Gormanston, Defence Forces), Sgt Gerald O’Gorman (Unit Safety Officer, 30 Inf Bn, Kilkenny, Defence Forces), Fiona Kearns (Senior Enterprise Risk Manager, SCA), Comdt Noel Maher (Defence Force Safety Officer), Cpl Ross Hayden (Unit Safety Officer Air Corps Military Training College), Ciarán Breen (Director, SCA), Brig Gen Peter O’Halloran Assistant Chief Of Staff, Capt Bronagh McMorrow (Unit Safety Officer CIS Group DFTC), Pat Kirwan (Deputy Director, SCA), Comdt Conor Ryan (Formation Safety Officer, DFTC), Paul Burke (Enterprise Risk Manager, SCA)
See State Claims Agency website below…
Delay – Deny – Die
Navy (New Zealand) veteran’s landmark compensation deal has others with Parkinson’s fearing trichloroethylene
Hundreds of New Zealanders may have been affected by a toxic chemical in a wide range of workplaces, a Weekend Herald investigation has found.
The discovery follows a landmark compensation pay-out to a New Zealand navy veteran who proved links between exposure to the solvent during his military service and his Parkinson’s disease.
The Herald reported last month that Veterans Affairs has provided the ex-serviceman with an entitlement to disability compensation for Parkinson’s, a condition attributed to his exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) while degreasing and cleaning electronics on a Royal New Zealand Navy ship during the 1948-1960 Malayan Emergency.
The Weekend Herald has since tracked down other men who fear their handling of TCE in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s could have caused their debilitating diseases and who now want to pursue their own compensation cases.
A former New Zealand Post Office telephone exchange technician, a naval dockyards apprentice and an aircraft engineer have all spoken about using TCE in their workplaces for years, without any health and safety precautions.
None of them used gloves or breathing apparatus while being exposed to the potent halocarbon that was popular across an array of sectors and workplaces in New Zealand, including garages, railway and aircraft workshops, and other depots.
“Trichlo was strong enough to bowl you over,” said 65-year-old Steve Walker, an ex-New Zealand Post Office employee at the Balclutha exchange, who now struggles with Parkinson’s. “It seeped into your skin, into your clothes. It took over you completely.”
Dave Schafer, a 58-year-old who used TCE weekly while cleaning instruments on Navy frigates during a five-year apprenticeship at the Devonport naval base, said: “Holy cow, that stuff was powerful. But as apprentices you kept your mouth shut and did your job, you didn’t rock the boat.”
Parkinson’s New Zealand, the Returned and Services’ Association (RSA), and those spoken to by the Weekend Herald, all believe there will be many more New Zealanders – hundreds if not thousands – who have been exposed to TCE over the years.
“Researchers have suggested there could be a significant lag time between exposure to TCE and the onset of Parkinson’s,” said Parkinson’s New Zealand chief executive Deirdre O’Sullivan.
“As such, we have reason to believe there could be many more serving and/or ex-serving NZDF people in a similar situation to this veteran.”
The potentially precedent-setting Navy veteran’s decision was made on appeal to the independent Veterans’ Entitlements Appeal Board, which considered appeals against decisions made under the War Pensions Act 1954.
It was made possible by ground-breaking international research including a major 2011 study on TCE exposure that concluded it was likely to result in a sixfold increase in the chances of developing Parkinson’s.
Read more on the New Zealand Herald’s website
*****
Interesting that the New Zealand Herald article discusses exposure in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. No mention of the 1990s onwards obviously because the industries there using the chemical copped on in the 1990’s.
Unfortunately the Irish Air Corps was still exposing personnel to Trike, (without protection) in ERF / Avionics in the 1990s and well into the first decade of this century and likely elsewhere in Baldonnel & Gormanston
DELAY – DENY – DIE
Dáil Éireann – Questions from Opposition Leaders or their representatives to the Government – 30th November 2017
Dáil Éireann Written Answers 14/11/17 – Department of Finance – State Claims Agency
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
QUESTION NO: 129
To ask the Minister for Finance the reason the State Claims Agency did not seek assistance from the Health and Safety Authority immediately when it discovered in 2013 and 2014 that serious and ongoing breaches of health and safety legislation, including lack of risk assessments, lack of chemical training and lack of personal protection equipment, were causing ongoing harm to personnel of all Air Corps ranks and none; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48048/17]
Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
The NTMA have advised me that the State Claims Agency did not undertake audits in the Defence Forces in 2013 and 2014.
*****
Mr. O’Snodaigh did not ask about audits in the Defence Forces in this instance.
He asked why the “State Claims Agency did not seek assistance from the Health and Safety Authority immediately when it discovered in 2013 & 2014 that serious and ongoing breaches of health and safety legislation, including lack of risk assessments, lack of chemical training and lack of personal protection equipment, were causing ongoing harm to personnel of all Air Corps ranks and none.”
We wonder is the Minister of Finance also being mislead by the State Claims Agency’s culpability & negligence in this scandal.
DELAY – DENY – DIE
Dáil Éireann Written Answers 14/11/17 – Defence Forces – Air Corps Equipment
Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
QUESTION NO: 531
To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the reason he indicated (details supplied) further to the reply to Parliamentary Question No. 1383 of 7 November 2017, when the question related to the current gloves being used by Air Corps personnel for protection against toxic chemical exposure was found to have been inadequate and if there was an oversight on procurement of health and safety personal protective equipment; and if he now will answer the question posed. [48165/17]
Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
The Deputy will appreciate that it would be wholly inappropriate for me to comment in respect of any matters relating to ongoing litigation and I deemed the wording of his previous question to be such as to potentially encroach into the remit of the Courts in relation to the litigation referred to in my reply.
However, I wish to assure the Deputy that I have been advised by the Military Authorities that Air Corps personnel are provided with protective gloves as part of their Personal Protective Equipment which conform to European standards.
I have also been advised that the Air Corps Formation Safety Office selects and approves all gloves for use by all personnel in the Air Corps.
*****
Minister Kehoe must be reminded of the F1-11 Deseal / Reseal scandal in the Royal Australian Air Force whereby thousands of personnel were injured by chemical exposure.
In this scandal the RAAF personnel did have PPE but it was discovered, well after the fact, to be inadequate and in some instances PPE gave only 4 seconds of protection. We strongly urge that Minister Kehoe is not complacent on this issue and that he ensures that the foundations of further injury to Air Corps personnel are not being currently laid.
Minister Kehoe MUST ensure independent oversight of PPE selection or at the very least competent verification that the PPE chosen is adequate for the task .