Vol. 596 No. 1
94 Mr. English asked the Minister for Defence if he has received a report from the members of the Defence Forces working with the UN joint logistical co-ordination centre in Sri Lanka; if he will report on their findings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1534/05]
117 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence the details of the proposed deployment of Irish troops to Sri Lanka to assist in the humanitarian operation there following the St. Stephen’s Day 2004 tsunami; the number of troops that will be sent to Sri Lanka; the type of activities they will be involved in; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1495/05]
123 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on participation by members of the Defence Forces in the humanitarian assistance effort in Sri Lanka; if the Defence Forces may be sent to other areas in Asia affected by the tsunami; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1522/05]
136 Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Defence if he will report on the findings of the military officials on the Government technical team that visited the tsunami-affected region, and on the present and future role of the IDF in the tsunami humanitarian relief effort. [1515/05]
1268 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Defence if troops and back-up services will be supplied to the victims of the tsunami crisis under the guidance of the UN. [34583/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 94, 117, 123, 136 and 1268 together.
As I stated in response to an earlier question on this issue, the Government is strongly committed to providing whatever support it can within available resources and capabilities, including the provision of Defence Forces personnel, to the humanitarian relief operation in south-east Asia following the recent tsunami disaster. As soon as the scale of the disaster became clear, the Department of Foreign Affairs deployed a high-level technical assessment team, which included a member of the Defence Forces, to examine the situation on the ground and to identify the assistance Ireland could offer to the affected region. Arising from its initial assessment, the team advised the Department of Foreign Affairs of an immediate requirement to attach two logistics planning experts and two engineers to the United Nations joint logistics centre.
After I consulted with my colleagues, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Finance, I agreed to the secondment, with effect from 18 January 2005, of four officers of the Permanent Defence Force on a volunteer basis to the United Nations joint logistics centre in Colombo in Sri Lanka. As the officers have just been deployed to the area, no detailed reports have been received to date, other than a situational report of their arrival and operational arrangements. It is important to note that the officers' primary role is not to report on further areas in which Ireland can be of assistance, but to report to the joint logistics centre, following a detailed analysis of key priorities within their fields of expertise.
The role of the logistics officers will be to evaluate, on behalf of the United Nations joint logistics centre, the current and future transport requirements in the affected areas for the delivery of humanitarian aid and to recommend solutions to overcome identified shortfalls. The role of the engineers will be to examine the road infrastructure in the affected areas, to specify the rehabilitation and repair requirements and to establish repair priorities, thereby restoring a functioning transport network in the area. It is expected that the officers will have completed their work in six to eight weeks.
The technical assessment team has only just returned. Preliminary field reports were received from the team and it is now examining in detail the needs in the affected areas in terms of an overall humanitarian assistance and development programme. Once it has completed its analysis and submitted its formal report and recommendations, the latter will be examined by the Government to determine further and ongoing responses to the situation in the region.
It is not possible at this stage to state whether further troops will be deployed to the region. The assessment team has advised that a request for a further small number of logistics planners may be pending. However, I have received no further formal requests for Defence Forces assistance. As Deputies will appreciate, this is an evolving situation and, as such, I am not in a position to advise as to what requests may arise over the coming weeks and months.
I assure Deputies that the Government is very positively disposed towards supporting the relief effort in the affected areas to the greatest possible extent. In the event that the Defence Forces have the capacity and resources to offer further required assistance in the region in specified roles, this will be examined on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the requirements and the situation on the ground.
Does the Minister know if the Government intends to increase the funding it has allocated to the disaster area?
To the best of my knowledge, the funding has been increased at least twice. The Minister for Finance has advised us that there is still capacity to increase the emergency fund that is used in such circumstances. No decision has been made on this as yet but we will examine the question when the technical assessment group issues its final report to us.
Referring to Question No. 117, will the Minister provide the House with details on the proposed deployment of Irish troops to Sri Lanka to assist in the humanitarian operation in the wake of the tsunami that occurred on St. Stephen's Day 2004? If troops are deployed, what will be the nature of their involvement?
The reply was contained in my response to Deputy Timmins. We are dealing with the sovereign governments of three countries in the region, not just a single unit. We have deployed the military personnel that were requested of us. It has been indicated to us by the team of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that a small number of further logistics experts of the same type may be required. If so, the Government will consider any request in this regard very positively. As yet, we have had no request to supply ground troops or specialist troops.
95 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Defence the reason for the anomalous situation whereby almost half of all inspections carried out by the Naval Service under the EU’s system of monitoring fishing vessels are of Irish vessels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1507/05]
The State's fishery protection capability, as provided by my Department, is delivered by the Naval Service and the Air Corps. The main day-to-day role of the Naval Service, which is equipped with a total of eight vessels comprising one helicopter-carrying vessel, five offshore patrol vessels and two coastal patrol vessels, is to provide a fishery protection service in accordance with the State's obligations as a member of the European Union. The service is tasked with patrolling all Irish waters from the shoreline to the outer limits of the exclusive fishery limit, which covers an area of 132,000 square miles. These patrols are carried out on a regular and frequent basis and are directed to all areas of Irish waters as necessary.
Fishery protection patrols are complemented by assistance provided by the Air Corps in the form of aerial surveillance by the two Casa maritime patrol aircraft. Fishery protection activity accounts for over 90% of all Naval Service patrol time and more or less all of the maritime squadron's output.
The operational targeting of the protection effort is co-ordinated with the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in accordance with procedures set down in the service level agreement between that Department and the Department of Defence. Such targeting takes account of previous history of fishing, infringements, sightings, fishing zones, closed areas and species and allocated quotas, among other things. A comprehensive process is in place to identify and agree patrol plans and inspection targets. The objective in all cases is the protection of the fishing assets of the State. The Naval Service does not concentrate unduly on fishery control in respect of the Irish fishing effort within Irish territorial waters. In numerical terms, the Naval Service inspects more Irish than non-Irish vessels because more Irish vessels are present in our patrol area.
The statistics show, however, that over the past three years, the percentage of non-Irish vessels in the patrol area that the Naval Service has boarded and inspected is greater than the percentage of Irish vessels so inspected. In the 11 months to November 2004 Irish vessels accounted for 49% of vessels sighted in the patrol area but only 44% of boardings and inspections.
Why does the Naval Service operate to different regulations than the naval service in other EU member states in terms of inspection of fishing vessels? Do the statistics not show that Irish fishing vessels are being inspected at a much higher rate than those in other countries? According to the Official Report, the Naval Service reported that of the 27 detentions recorded in EU waters in 2003, some 75% related to Irish-registered vessels.
In response to the Deputy's first question I am not aware of the detail of how navies operate in other countries. We have an obligation to protect Irish assets, namely, the exclusive Irish fishery area. I have outlined the measures we are taking and the resources we are deploying to do that. It is not true to say now, whatever might have been so in the past, that the greater percentage of vessels boarded are Irish. Statistics for the last three years indicate a slightly higher percentage of foreign vessels than Irish ones boarded and inspected.
While it may not be politically popular to say so, the statistics do not indicate that foreign vessels are more likely to be in breach of fisheries legislation. The opposite tends to be the case. Irish vessels have proportionately been subject to more warnings and detention arising from Naval Service inspections than their numbers should warrant.
Does the Minister plan to raise this issue at European level? If, following consultation with the Naval Service, he finds there are flaws in the system, will he ask at European level how they have arisen?
I would have no difficulty raising this matter at European level but it is a national issue. In 1998 the Government instigated a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers on Naval Service output and how this could be increased. As a result, the naval output in patrolling activity has increased by approximately 35% in the last four years. Even last year it had increased over the previous year. Given the resources we are putting into it and the resulting increased output, the service is doing a good job. If Deputy Sherlock wishes to send me a note setting out what he would like me to raise, and with whom, in consultations at European level, I will consider it in a positive light.
Will the Minister confirm that he said that, statistically speaking, Irish fishermen are less law abiding than their European counterparts?
That is the question.
I suspected that Deputy Timmins might want to emphasise and highlight that point on the basis that the public is entitled to know. Obviously there are more Irish vessels to be found in the Irish patrol area and unfortunately statistics show that they are boarded proportionately more often than should be indicated by their numbers. That is an unfortunate statistical fact.
That is not the question I asked. It is not the issue.
96 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Defence if he intends to permit the Air Corps to be involved in search and rescue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1403/05]
The Irish Coastguard has overall responsibility for the provision of maritime search and rescue services within the Irish search and rescue region. The Air Corps had been providing search and rescue services off the north-west coast but withdrew in October 2004 following a handover of this role to CHCI, a private operator, which also provides the service at the country's other search and rescue bases in Dublin, Shannon and Waterford.
I understand from my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, that CHCI will provide continuity of SAR service to the coastal, island and sea-faring communities in the north west. The changeover from the Air Corps to CHCI will not in any way downgrade or diminish the level of service provided to mariners or to our island communities. I understand that the mission list for the coastguard's service includes air ambulance, island relief, medevac etc.
The decision to withdraw the Air Corps from search and rescue services was only made following a considered assessment of the capacity of the Air Corps to return to and maintain a full 24-hour service in the north west. The decision was taken against what has always been the overriding concern of this and previous Governments and the Air Corps, namely, the safety of mariners and anyone who gets into difficulty where search and rescue can respond. The Air Corps was not in a position to provide the level of service that was required. There is no plan to reconsider the decision to withdraw from the maritime search and rescue service. However, the Air Corps will continue to provide non-maritime search and rescue response and the specification for the new helicopters being acquired for the Air Corps have this capability.
Does the Minister agree that losing the search and rescue service in the north west was a morale blow to the Air Corps? This service it provided was akin to what the overseas service is to the Army. It may be more difficult to get pilots to remain in the Air Corps when they are not involved in operational activities and are only involved in training. Has he had representations from the GOC or the commanding officer of the Air Corps to examine other areas outside its military remit, for example, the air ambulance service, whereby it could assist the public?
The answer to the last part of the Deputy's question is "no". I have not had any such representations. I emphasise to the Deputy that in regard to emergencies on land, including those that require the air ambulance service, the Air Corps will continue to be available.
In regard to what happened in the north west, there are four search and rescue bases in the country, namely, Dublin, Shannon, Waterford and the north west. The private operator to which we are referring and which can give a guaranteed 24 hour service was operating in three of those bases. The Air Corps was handling the service in the north west. We changed that situation because it became clear in October 2004, for various reasons which I need not go into, that the Air Corps could not guarantee that there would be 24-hour service available in the north west. The people who depend on this service in the region should not be disadvantaged vis-à-vis people in other parts of the country. It was on that basis alone that the decision was taken.
I emphasise and reiterate that I visited the Air Corps on two occasions in the past fortnight in conjunction with the purchase of new equipment, and morale among the staff is extremely high. I received a great reception. I also emphasise that the Air Corps will continue in its traditional role in search and rescue missions in regard to on-land, inshore rescue.
The Minister said that the search and rescue service provided by the Air Corps in the north west was discontinued because the Air Corps did not have the necessary capacity to deliver a 24-hour service. Am I correct in that?
No, I did not mention its capacity.
The Minister said he would not reconsider the withdrawal of that service from the Air Corps, yet we have increased its capacity with the provision of four new utility helicopters. Does he agree that handing over the role of the delivery of this service to a private operator incurs a greater cost on the State? Would it not be better to increase the capacity of the Air Corps to deliver this service?
Cost is certainly a factor, but the primary factor is guaranteeing safety and a 24-hour service.
For the information of the House my predecessor, the former Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, outlined to the House on a number of occasions that his decision to change the position in regard to the north west was taken following a considered assessment of the capacity of the Air Corps to return to and maintain a full 24-hour service in the north west. The service had been restricted following on from an unusually high incidence of sick leave among the winch crews. The decision to withdraw the Air Corps was taken to allow the coastguard put in place a service, which is resilient and can provide a continuity of service to the coastal island and sea-faring communities of the north west. We can never lose sight of the fact that search and rescue is an emergency life-saving exercise on which seafarers must be able to rely in all circumstances. This must be the priority.
What accounted for the unusually high absenteeism?
This happened before I came to the Department but I understand it was due to bad industrial relations. There was disagreement between management and staff, as I understand it, and this is the way that staff choose to express their disagreement.
Did members of our armed services behave in that way?
It arose from a dispute between management and staff. There was an unusually high incidence of sick leave. Perhaps it was coincidental that those people all happened to be sick at the same time.
These are members of the armed forces. That is not normal.
It may have been a coincidence.
97 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Defence if the report into Irish involvement in defence of Jadotville (details supplied) has been completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1407/05]
129 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Defence the details of the report carried out by his Department into a group of Irish soldiers who were falsely accused of cowardice in a battle in the Congo more than 40 years ago while on service with the United Nations; if the men have been exonerated in this report; if he has plans to commemorate the actions of these men; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1501/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 97 and 129 together.
As I previously explained to the House, the Chief of Staff received a submission from a retired Army officer, who served at Jadotville, seeking a review of the events of September 1961. The Chief of Staff arranged for the submission to be examined by a board of officers and a report was subsequently prepared and forwarded to me late last year. I have examined the report in some detail.
It is important that all Members of the House recognise the sensitivity of the clear and deeply held views of all those involved in the event, both in B company and among members of the 35th battalion as a whole, even after the passage of so many years. It is fair to say that the events in Jadotville raise very deeply held emotions among all those involved in the events there. There is certainly a sense among the members of B company that, while there was no official action against any of them nor any official criticism of their actions, their stand in Jadotville was not appropriately recognised by the Defence Forces and there is a definite sense of grievance on the part of those involved arising because of that. Moreover, while there was no formal criticism, it has been suggested that those involved in Jadotville may have been subjected to adverse comments in some quarters. It would seem to be the case that the lack of formal recognition of the events at Jadotville, which were no doubt extremely trying for the personnel involved, served to reinforce this sense of grievance and criticism for what happened there.
Whatever the perception may have been, I can inform the House that the report fully exonerates the actions of B company. At the time they surrendered, nothing would have been served by fighting on, except further and unnecessary bloodshed. It is clear from the report that the company and its commanding officer acted appropriately given all the circumstances. Detailed consideration is being given to the most appropriate form of commemoration for those involved in the events in Jadotville and I hope to make an announcement in this regard soon.
I join the Minister in pointing out that the grievance of personnel of this company of the 35th battalion was well founded because for a number of years question marks — more anecdotal than anything else and founded on no great basis — evolved around them. I welcome that the Minister pointed out that he will take a measure to recognise appropriately the efforts of those people, many of whom, including the commanding officer of the company and the commander at that time, are now deceased. I realise this is a very sensitive issue for their families. I am delighted that after so many years they will be appropriately recognised for the excellent job they did in extremely difficult circumstances.
I went through the report in some detail but did not get any sense from it that there was a concerted effort at the time not to commemorate or recognise the events at Jadotville. I could not find any criticism of the behaviour of the men in question. However, there are no formal records to indicate that this was the case or, in other words, that they should have been free of criticism and that they acted appropriately. I am glad we have a report, which confirms this. We are considering some way of commemorating their bravery and heroism and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on that within the next couple of weeks.
98 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Defence the number of complaints received from members of the armed forces since the bullying in the workplace initiative was introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1520/05]
102 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Defence if there are current investigations into bullying in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1405/05]
103 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Defence if his attention has been drawn to the growing public concern at levels of bullying within the Defence Forces; if his attention has further been drawn to the accusations that those who complain of bullying within the Defence Forces may be victimised for making such complaints; the efforts he is making to stamp out bullying once and for all in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1494/05]
1294 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Defence the mechanisms in place in the Naval Service to investigate allegations of bullying of junior officers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2013/05]
1296 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Defence if he will take allegations of bullying in the Naval Service seriously; the number of such allegations that have been made each year for the past three years; the results of such allegations and investigations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2016/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 98, 102, 103, 1294 and 1296 together.
In March 2002, Dr. Eileen Doyle and the external advisory committee presented their report, The Challenge of a Workplace, commonly referred to as the Doyle report, to my predecessor. The contents and recommendations of the Doyle report were accepted in full. Action to implement the recommendations of the report has been one of the highest priorities for the Defence Forces and my Department since its publication. An unprecedented level of time and commitment has been given by the Chief of Staff personally and by senior civil and military management to address the issues raised in the Doyle report. The Chief of Staff has repeatedly emphasised his acceptance of the problems clearly indicated by the Doyle report.
The follow-up action to the Doyle report was driven by the independent monitoring group established in May 2002 to oversee the implementation of the recommendations arising from the report. This group met regularly to oversee the implementation of the report's recommendations. The group's progress report, Response to the Challenge of a Workplace, was launched by my predecessor as Minister, Deputy Michael Smith, on Friday, 24 September 2004. This report describes the progress achieved since the publication of the original Doyle report in 2002.
The monitoring group has overseen the conduct of a major educational awareness programme throughout the Defence Forces. Considerable progress has been made in the past two years. Firm guiding principles had already been set out in the Defence Forces' dignity in the workplace charter. A new administrative instruction on interpersonal relationships was introduced in March 2003 and a user's guide was distributed to every member of the Defence Forces.
The military authorities advise that since March 2003 a total of six complaints of unacceptable behaviour have been formally investigated and concluded in the Defence Forces as a whole. With specific reference to the information sought on the Naval Service, I am advised that there were no such complaints in 2002 and 2003, but one complaint in 2004. The complainant requested an apology, which was duly given and which concluded the matter. There is currently one military police investigation ongoing in regard to allegations of bullying. I cannot comment on this further at this stage as the investigation has not concluded.
Some 200 trained designated contact persons are being put in place throughout the organisation to facilitate the operation of these procedures. Approximately 177 of these designated contact persons have already been trained and a strategic plan is in place to develop the numbers up to 200. An independent and external confidential freefone helpline and counselling service has been set up by expert consultants from Northern Ireland, Staff Care Services. Each serving member of the Permanent Defence Force was informed of this new 24-hour service, which was widely publicised throughout the Defence Forces when initiated. A pilot project to record the experiences and views of outgoing members of the Defence Forces was conducted by the Dublin Institute of Technology research centre. This project, which involved confidential interviews and questionnaires, proved very valuable.
The particular challenges of the military training environment were identified in the initial Doyle report. This area has been given particular attention in the course of the past two years, especially as regards the key pivotal roles of NCOs in leadership and training within brigade formations.
The monitoring group has made a series of important recommendations concerning the ranking, selection, training and reward systems for officer and NCO instructors in the cadet school. An immediate change in the training regime for cadets will have a vital demonstration effect. Therefore, the process of introducing these changes began with the 2004 cadet intake. Some of the changes will take longer to implement and will be addressed through the conciliation and arbitration process or the overall review of the Defence Forces organisation.
The Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004 completed its passage through the Oireachtas in November 2004. The provision of a statutory ombudsman for the Defence Forces will provide a further significant impetus in support of the major transformation in culture and practice which has been initiated and which is now well under way.
The Defence Forces are in the process of developing an active and strategic human resource management model of personnel management, development and leadership under the new integrated personnel management system. This is an important step that will facilitate and hasten the achievement and consolidation of our shared objectives.
The monitoring group explicitly recommended that a further independent review and audit of progress within the Defence Forces be carried out no later than 2007 and that the results should be made public. Since the publication of Response to the Challenge of a Workplace, the following action has been taken. First, a steering group has been established to oversee the implementation of the proposals that were contained in the original report. Second, a programme of briefings commenced on 16 November 2004 to ensure that every member of the Permanent Defence Force receives a comprehensive briefing on the report, Response to the Challenge of a Workplace, from awareness teams in each brigade and formation. Both representative associations, PDFORRA and RACO, will have members on the awareness teams. Members of the PDF in all barracks and posts were to be briefed before the end of 2004, with briefings of the Reserve Defence Force to follow.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. He may be aware that the Doyle report stated that over 50% of bullying incidents were associated with training. Is it not the problem that it is difficult to define bullying in an Army context, where training and exchanges between NCOs and soldiers can sometimes be robust? For example, would shouting be regarded as bullying? These are the issues that must be addressed in the context of Army training.
While the Minister stated that he cannot go into detail, an allegation of bullying was made by a soldier who claimed he was locked in a locker and ordered to eat food off the floor. We know from considering armies throughout the world that this sort of ritual punishment is often meted out if soldiers are deemed not up to scratch. In the context of Army training, does the Minister agree it is difficult to define whether this constitutes bullying? Will the Minister tell the House how he defines bullying in an Army context?
I agree with Deputy Gormley that we are dealing with a particular environment and context. All relationships within the military environment are predicated on the fundamental principle that all lawful orders must be obeyed. We have tried to ensure that superiors in their treatment of subordinates will adopt such methods as will ensure respect for authority while at the same time engendering feelings of self-respect and personal honour, which are essential to military efficiency.
Deputy Gormley is correct in regard to the incident to which he refers but as that incident is the subject of a complaint and is being investigated, I would not like to comment on it. However, I agree with the Deputy a certain environment and atmosphere exists which must be taken into account.
I do not have to define bullying. It is judged on a case by case basis. However, a new instruction, regulation A7, on interpersonal relationships within the Army sets out a number of circumstances and states how an officer should treat a subordinate in each case. Designated contact persons have been put in place, the role of whom will be to advise and assist. We have notified all members of the Defence Forces on the terms of regulation A7 and a confidential free telephone line has been introduced. In addition, to assist us in the further reforms necessary following the last report, Response to the Challenge of a Workplace, the experience of retiring members of the Defence Forces is being recorded.
Much has been done since Dr. Doyle's committee reported in 2002. Specific recommendations were made as to further improvements which must take place over the next two years or so, because it is the decision of the Government to accept the recommendation of the Response to the Challenge of a Workplace report that a further report be drawn up in early 2007 to monitor progress. The situation is far from perfect and there is a certain environment which one must take into account.
The Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Act 2004 establishes an ombudsman's office for complaints by members of the military. That is something the representative associations have been seeking for many years. I was delighted to be Minister when the legislation finally went through both Houses of the Oireachtas. It certainly has the capacity to make a great difference.
A steering group has been established to implement the recommendations of the 2004 report. On 16 November 2004, a series of briefings commenced for all members of the Defence Forces to inform them of their rights, what was being done as per the 2004 report's recommendations and views on what more needed to be done to combat bullying and harassment within the Defence Forces.
There is concern about the levels of bullying in the Defence Forces. Is the Minister aware that those who make accusations and complain about bullying within the Defence Forces may be victimised? Has this fact been drawn to the Minister's attention? There has been a clear statement that this happens and it is creating much concern. As regards the point made by Deputy Gormley, that case was mentioned publicly. It is rather surprising that to this day, the Minister does not have an up-to-date report on what action was taken concerning the recruit who was bullied and said he was forced to eat off the floor. In view of the efforts being made against bullying, it is disappointing that to this day the Minister does not appear to have received a report on that matter.
Is the Minister aware of how many of the armed forces have availed of the counselling service that is available?
Off the top of my head, I do not know how many but I will obtain that information and will communicate it to Deputy Gormley.
As regards Deputy Sherlock's point about information concerning some complaint that has been made by a member of the military, all I can say is that the matter is being investigated by the military. I do not interfere in internal military investigations of complaints. When the complaints process comes to an end and the military reaches a conclusion, I have no doubt the result will be publicised. It will certainly come into the public domain.
As regards the Deputy's query about victimising people who want to make complaints, I am happy to inform him that the new regulation I mentioned to Deputy Gormley, instruction A7, contains a provision which penalises and makes it an offence for somebody to victimise or retaliate in any way simply because they have made a complaint. That is a matter which will now be subject to disciplinary action. It is firmly spelt out, so there is a whistleblower's charter written in to the new regulations. We have dealt with that matter which is specifically provided for.
