Defence Forces

97. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Defence if she will provide a study of the health outcomes relating to former Air Corps aircraft maintenance personnel. [77958/26]

I do not have much more to add on this topic, but I intend to keep raising it. It does not make sense to me. I just cannot get my head around it. The Minister keeps saying that she is precluded from acting as a result of litigation. I am not asking about litigation. I am asking the Minister to provide a health assessment for an entire category of people. They were exposed to dangerous chemicals. That is hardly disputed. What might be disputed is the extent of the health implications for them, so let us assess that. I do not think there is anything at all in that which would cut across litigation.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. We have spoken about it many times. The Deputy said that he does not believe his proposal affects anything separate that is happening. However, it is important to state that multiple legal cases are before the courts. These are all based on claims of alleged exposure of people in the Air Corps to hazardous chemicals. I have sought advice on and discussed this matter many times. I am limited in what I can say publicly without potentially prejudicing the litigation that is ongoing. That applies to anybody the Deputy is suggesting may be in similar circumstances or impacted in the same way. I appreciate that the Deputy contends that it is possible to discuss this issue generally without straying into individual legal claims. I am advised, however, that any view I express outside the process could cut across the State’s position in the overall proceedings. The State Claims Agency is independently managing these claims on my behalf, as Minister, under a statutory delegation. It has engaged formally with a number of plaintiffs to see if a mutually agreeable set of terms could be reached to bring their cases to a conclusion. Unfortunately, that process has not yet yielded an agreement. I encourage all sides to engage positively. As I informed the Deputy in a previous update, a number of these claims have been taken under active case management by the courts. This means that a judge can actively compel engagement by the parties, seek papers and testimony, and set binding deadlines, all of which is likely to see the cases progress through the courts more quickly. By way of a further update, I can share a development with the Deputy since this matter was last raised with me in the House. In the event that an agreement cannot be reached between the parties, some of these cases may be listed for hearing in the near future. This is all the more reason I need to be careful in engaging in any public forum about any issues that could cut across or otherwise influence or interfere with the independent role of the courts. Consideration of these matters by the courts through civil proceedings will allow the necessary case-specific analysis of the allegations to be conducted, with the benefit of legal representation for the plaintiffs.

I know that this has been discussed by the Minister and her officials. It is obviously the Department's stance as opposed to the Minister's. A departmental decision has been made to be obtuse about this matter. If I steered any further clear of the litigation, I would be in the Shannon. I have not touched it or gone anywhere near it. There is an entire category of people whose health needs to be assessed, and the appropriate decisions taken on foot of that. It was done in Australia and the Netherlands. The Minister will say that the situation in Australia involved different types of airplanes and chemicals. There was still chemical exposure among aircraft maintenance personnel. I am not saying the exact circumstances were the same. I am saying it is an appropriate process. The State has dealt with whole categories of people in the past. The Magdalen laundries issue is an excellent example. Litigation continued through the courts while these Houses decided to put a package in place. Perfect or imperfect, a package was put in place that was totally separate from and independent of the litigation. There is no reason the Minister could not do that. She should do it because it is the right thing to do. I have not been too confrontational in the past few seconds, but, ultimately, some of these people have very serious health problems.

This is not an attempt to be obtuse. The situation has not changed. That is why what I am saying is not changing. I do not like coming into the House and not being able to discuss things at length. It is very clear, however, that what the Deputy is referring to, while not specific to those current legal cases, relates and is specific to other potential cases he is talking about. Again, the intention is not to evade questions. I am here answering questions, but a process is under way. In the context of that process, I have to be clear and sure. The advice I have is that anything I stray into or discuss could have an impact. An analysis was done by my officials with additional information and consideration from the State Claims Agency. It was provided to me specifically in light of the ongoing legal cases. It was never intended for publication and was not drafted with that in mind. The information contained in it is confidential and legally privileged but on foot of that, as I said to the Deputy and as he just said, I convened a meeting with the Attorney General, senior officials from the State Claims Agency and officials from my Department. We had discussions on this and, again, the advice is that as these cases are ongoing, we have to go through this particular process as it currently stands.

I will leave it at that.