Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 26 February 2019
29. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the reason he did not provide assurances that the Air Corps whistleblower would not be penalised or prejudiced for having made a protected disclosure, as recommended by a military investigating officer. [9441/19]
Amharc ar fhreagraThis question is to ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the reason he did not provide assurances that the Air Corps whistleblower would not be penalised or prejudiced for having made a protected disclosure, as recommended by the military investigating officer. As Minister of State with responsibility for defence, part of his job is to ensure that those under his watch are not bullied, singled out for special attention or skipped over for promotion or continuance of service. It is more his duty to protect those who are serving members and, in this case, the Air Corps, which made protected disclosures of wrongdoing, incompetence and breaches of health and safety regulations. These vindictive actions included false statements, counter-allegations and denials of appeals, and no responses have been issued.
The Deputy is no doubt aware that section 16 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 sets out confidentiality requirements regarding the protection of the identify of a discloser. It is, therefore, not possible for me to go into detail regarding any actions being taken on foot of any individual disclosure to ensure that such individual's confidentiality is not breached.
However, as I have previously stated in the House, the health and welfare of the men and women of the Defence Forces are a priority for me and the general staff and I am fully committed to compliance with the requirements of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and to the protections contained in that Act. To this end, I want to ensure that those making protected disclosures are reassured that where such disclosures are made in accordance with the legislation they will continue to be dealt with in a thorough and fair manner. I have made it very clear to my Department and the Defence Forces that the protections of the Act must be afforded to those who make qualifying disclosures under the Act.
To assist in ensuring a uniform approach to protected disclosures across the Defence organisation, I established a single civil-military protected disclosures office in the Department in which all protected disclosures are initially assessed.
I take very seriously any complaint of penalisation or threatened penalisation of a member of the Defence Forces for having made a protected disclosure and I note that a statutory mechanism for investigation is available to the complainant. The mechanism is the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces as provided for in section 20 of the Act.
Accordingly, any member of the Defence Forces who brings any concern to myself or the civil/military protected disclosures office regarding a feeling that they were penalised or were threatened with penalisation for having made a protected disclosure is advised, as a matter of course, that they should bring the matter to the attention of the independent ombudsman. I assure the Deputy that each and every case of alleged penalisation is being dealt with in a thorough way.
I thank the Minister of State for the reply. He mentioned bringing the matter to the attention of the independent Ombudsman for the Defence Forces. No action was taken on foot of a letter dated 28 November 2018 appealing for the Minister of State's intervention and asking what protection he was giving to this serving member at the time. What actions were taken on foot of the original protected disclosure? What actions did the Minister of State take on receiving the letter dated 28 November 2018? It appears he has failed to protect the ordinary serving member of the Defence Forces in this matter. We need clarity on that and I would be grateful if he could come back on that. Will he clarify his position and state that no whistleblower will be prejudiced or penalised for making a protected disclosure? Will he clearly outline this position to the Defence Forces because from what I have seen that is not happening? What action will be taken if it is found that any whistleblower was penalised or prejudiced in respect of that section of the Act?
The Deputy can be absolutely sure that I will not stand over any person being penalised for making a protected disclosure. That is stated clearly in the Act. As I stated in my original reply, if any person believes he or she is being penalised because he or she has made a protected disclosure, there are avenues he or she can take. If this person has not gone to the ombudsman, I would encourage the person to do that. As he always does, the ombudsman will rule clearly on it in an independent fashion and he will make a recommendation to me, as Minister of State with responsibility for defence. It is up to the individual to go to the ombudsman. I reiterate that I would encourage anyone to go to the ombudsman if they have not done so.
This person has approached the Minister of State as he has responsibility for defence. Unfortunately, this person has left the service because of the way he has been treated. He believes he has been let down. He has served his country with distinction. He thought he was doing the right thing by disclosing what was going on but he is now in a position where he cannot keep his job, which will affect him in many other ways. I appreciate the Minister of State mentioning that there are certain avenues he can take. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating in terms of the letter dated 28 November 2018, which explained everything that happened regarding the misinformation and where the bullying was being perpetrated, yet he relied on the last line of defence, if the Minister of State will pardon the pun, which is that he is the Minister with responsibility for defence. The buck stops with the him yet this person has been left out on a limb and we are now being told that he has to go to another department. That is disingenuous in terms of this individual because if this problem is systemic in the Air Corps, I can see is arising in the Army and the Naval Service and it will continue.
As I said, a range of mechanisms is available to members of the Defence Forces if they believe they have been penalised or wronged because they have made a protected disclosure. I will not stand over anybody being wronged. I encourage the person to whom the Deputy is referring to go to the Defence Forces ombudsman. He or she may have done so but I assure the Deputy that that case will be dealt with in an independent and fair way. The ombudsman provides that facility in an independent way.
The ombudsman will view the case in a very objective way. Therefore, I will leave this in the hands of the Ombudsman. I would encourage that person to go the ombudsman if he or she has not done so, to make sure that his or her case is heard and that he or she has a fair hearing.
