Protected Disclosures Inquiry: Motion [Private Members]

I move: That Dáil Éireann: notes that: — concerns were raised regarding the safety, suitability and serviceability of certain Garda firearm holsters through protected disclosures, internal reports and training personnel prior to the fatal shooting of a member of An Garda Síochána in June 2020; — firearms instructors and other personnel are reported to have raised concerns about holster performance and equipment safety during training exercises; — evidence arising from training exercises and a firearms-related incident involving a Garda member shortly before the fatal shooting is said to have raised additional questions regarding holster safety and associated forensic findings; — questions remain as to whether the equipment worn by the Garda member at the time of his death was subjected to a comprehensive and independent technical examination; — a quality-assurance review completed in 2024 identified concerns regarding the investigation of protected disclosures relating to firearms equipment, including issues relating to technical expertise, forensic evidence, procurement processes and investigative methodology; — in 2025, concerns were raised by those involved in the protected disclosures process that significant questions remained unresolved and that further enquiries were required before certain disclosures could be closed; — responsibility for the disclosures were subsequently reassigned, and closed shortly thereafter, notwithstanding the existence of unresolved issues identified by those previously examining them; — further concerns have been raised regarding the engagement and withdrawal of independent technical expertise, the reliance on internal assessments, and the adequacy and independence of technical reports prepared during the course of the investigations; — allegations have been made that individuals who raised concerns through protected disclosures, or who challenged aspects of the investigative process, experienced adverse professional consequences; — questions have also been raised regarding the treatment of personnel involved in the administration and oversight of protected disclosures, and whether sufficient safeguards existed to protect them from adverse treatment; and — concerns have been expressed regarding the handling of disclosures involving allegations against senior office holders and whether existing arrangements provide sufficient independence, transparency and accountability; recognises that: — Detective Garda Horkan was much loved by his family and friends, was a pillar of his community and was a dedicated member of An Garda Síochána, and his murder was a desperate loss to all who knew him; — the Horkan family have called for an independent public inquiry; and — ongoing criminal or inquest proceedings must be protected, but they should not become an indefinite reason for withholding independent scrutiny of distinct administrative and public-safety failures; has concerns that extend to: — defective ammunition, and the reported disposal of approximately 500,000 rounds; — firearms storage, recording and accountability; — procurement irregularities and alleged supplier favouritism; — inappropriate servicing or repair of privately owned firearms; — alleged misuse of Garda resources, fraud and financial wrongdoing; — ammunition procurement and testing; — staffing, training and specialist promotions within the Garda National Technical Bureau; and — potential consequences for public safety and the integrity of criminal investigations; and calls on the Government to constitute a full independent public inquiry that: — is genuinely independent of An Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration; — has effective powers to secure documents, electronic records and testimony; — can examine the knowledge, actions and omissions of senior Garda management, including the former Garda Commissioner Drew Harris, where relevant; — can independently test the disputed forensic examinations and the technical evidence concerning holster safety; — can examine the original procurement competition, the weighting of cost against quality, mandatory safety specifications, technical testing and the role of independent expertise; — can examine interference allegations, expert selection and the premature closure of protected disclosures; — can investigate allegations of penalisation and failures to protect reporting persons; — can review the accuracy of information supplied to Ministers, the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Horkan family; — can refer evidence of suspected criminal wrongdoing to the competent authorities; — can examine whether other protected disclosures involving public safety were inadequately investigated or closed without proper resolution; — can examine why the files were closed, and how two serious disclosures were closed on 23rd June, 2025, after the Protected Disclosures Manager had expressly stated that material questions remained unanswered; — can examine why cost was given greater weight than quality, who authorised 500 marks for cost and 400 for quality in the procurement of firearm holsters, what mandatory technical safety standards applied, and who independently verified compliance before the contract was awarded and the equipment issued; — can examine who was accountable, who authorised the reassignment, and the closure decisions and the representations subsequently made to the Ministers and the public; — can examine why were whistleblowers penalised; — can examine what statutory authority permitted the former Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, to intervene in the handling of a report that the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner had already transmitted to a designated statutory recipient under Section 10D of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014; — can examine why the former Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, sent a Protected Disclosure to the then Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, given that it was expressly identified as a separate Protected Disclosure in its own right; — can examine why on 21st December, 2023, a protected disclosure was redirected to An Garda Síochána following a direction by the former Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, and why identifying information appeared in the titles of attachments transmitted by the Department of Justice to senior Garda management, including to an individual implicated in the very allegations; — can examine why extremely serious allegations concerning the former Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, did not meet the threshold for an investigation under Section 102B of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, what evidence was considered; and — who undertook that assessment and why was further information not sought through the designated statutory process before that conclusion was reached. First, I pay tribute to Detective Garda Colm Horkan, who was murdered in the line of duty in June 2020. He was a much-loved individual by his family and friends. He was a pillar of his community and a dedicated member of An Garda Síochána. His murder was a desperate loss to all who knew him. From what I understand of Colm, he was a quiet individual and probably would not like his name to be used in a location such as this but he was also a man who fought for justice and truth, and that is important. I also pay tribute to the gardaí who have stood up and made protected disclosures at great cost to themselves in recent years. Some of those gardaí are in the Public Gallery with us here today, and I thank them for that. I pay tribute to some of the many journalists who have looked into this issue over the past few years - people like John Lee, Mick Clifford and others, who have made sure this information has come to light. While this issue is a complex one and has many different elements to it, at the heart of it is an incredible crisis at a senior level in An Garda Síochána and a lack of ministerial oversight and, in some cases, Ministers breaking the law on what they are supposed to do in upholding the protected disclosures legislation. Remember the words "protected disclosure". The whole idea of a protected disclosure is that good people who see wrongdoing in a location can raise that wrongdoing, have it investigated and be protected in the manner in which they do that. What we see here is the opposite of that. We have seen very good gardaí raise issues and be punished significantly for the actions they have taken. There is a serious result in that which is that in the future, good people will shut up. Good people will say nothing, will keep quiet, will keep their heads down or will leave. If that happens, a dysfunction will be created at the head and senior levels of An Garda Síochána - a dysfunction that will be detrimental to people's lives and one that will put gardaí lives at risk. It will also hit the civilians they are supposed to serve hard. At the heart of these particular allegations, it is alleged the gardaí were given materials that were unsafe. In this case, they were given holsters that did not retain the loaded guns they were carrying, and this could have possibly led to the serious injury of one particular garda and the murder of Detective Garda Colm Horkan. A garda raised this issue about these holsters in 2019, in advance of the murder of Detective Garda Colm Horkan. Firearms trainers within the gardaí also raised these concerns. Video footage reportedly recorded during live firearms training in May 2020 demonstrated potential equipment safety problems. On 11 June 2020, a detective was involved in an accidental discharge associated with a firearm and that holster, subsequently giving rise to serious injury and forensic concerns. Serious questions arise from the fact this information was ignored, and we know these concerns were brought to senior gardaí before Colm's murder. Who received the warnings and the video evidence? Why did the equipment remain in use, and who is responsible for assessing and managing that risk? An Garda Síochána has publicly asserted that Colm's holster was examined by Forensic Science Ireland and a GNTB ballistic expert gave evidence at Stephen Silver's trial. It is seriously disputed whether those examinations adequately addressed the particular holster safety defects identified through the protected disclosure. Relevant safety defects have never been subject to an adequate technical examination. The McMenamin investigation recorded a visual inspection on Colm's holster on 7 February 2024, approximately three years and seven months after his murder. Serious questions remain concerning the qualifications and independence of the examiners, the testing undertaken and the scientific foundation for reassuring the conclusions. Who actually examined Colm's holster? What precise tests were undertaken? Where were the specific defects identified by the whistleblowers and were they tested? Where are the original reports, photographs, laboratory records and exhibit continuity documents? These are all questions that have not been answered. The procurement of leather pistol holsters raises questions about tendering, restructuring, supplier relationships, conflicts of interest and product quality, and the priority assigned to operational safety. The McMenamin report recorded an evaluation allocating a maximum of a thousand marks - 500 marks to cost, 400 marks to quality and 100 marks to delivery. That is incredibly serious. We have more marks afforded to the cost of a holster than to the quality of that particular product. Why was cost allocated more than quality in the procurement of a product that held a loaded firearm carried by a Garda member? A Garda firearm holster is not an ordinary piece of equipment or clothing; it is essential in retaining and securing a loaded firearm and protecting that member, their colleagues and the public from accidental discharge, unauthorised access or equipment failure. Public procurement principles permit this situation to arise. Who allowed for that public procurement principle to be put in place, and why has it not been changed? A tender arrangement in which a lower-price product could overcome materially inferior safety performance raises fundamental questions as to the design of that competition. The McMenamin report also had concerns around the serviceability and evidence-questioning claims that the selected holsters were superior to earlier Cobra holsters. Who approved the tender evaluation, and who allocated the 500 marks to cost but only 400 to quality for this? Who exposed gardaí to this potentially fatal danger? Who determined the weighting? These are all questions that have not been answered on this. Were experienced firearms trainers, ballisticians, armourers and independent technician specialists consulted before these contracts were awarded? What product testing happened for this, including testing under realistic operational conditions following prolonged use? What role did the supplier take in the tenders and their structures? Were there conflicts of interest at play here? The second element of our motion today looks at what happened to the gardaí who were involved in trying to bring this information to light, which is incredible. The information I and many others have received here is unprecedented in the history of An Garda Síochána. On July 2024, protected disclosure manager, Rose Sweeney, and facilitator, Dr. Donal Corcoran, prepared a detailed 108-page quality assurance review. The McMenamin investigation into PD 2020/04 raised specific questions around the holster safety, contradictory forensic evidence, suitability of technical experts, procurement and investigation deficiency. On 9 June 2026, Rose Sweeney informed Commissioner Drew Harris that critical questions remained unanswered and further inquiries could affect the outcome. On 17 June 2025, Rose Sweeney expressly stated that she was not in a position to close the disclosure. On Friday, 20 June 2025, responsibility was assigned to the new manager. On Monday, 23 June 2025, the next working day, PD 2020/04 and PD 2022/15 were closed. That is an extraordinary situation to happen. Individuals tasked and paid at the most senior level to investigate serious allegations of wrongdoing in An Garda Síochána were moved, documents were closed, and there was no further investigation. On 8 July 2025, Rose Sweeney continued to challenge the closure and the unanswered questions, and no substantive answer to that challenge is known to have been received. This is outrageous at any level. Who directed that reassignment? What changed over the weekend? Where are the answers to the 108-page review? Are there any answers to that? Does the Minister know what is asked in that review? Does he know the answers in that review? On what evidentiary basis were the investigations into firearms safety risks closed? That is a cliffhanger of lack of information that exists around serious threats to life and limb. Lieutenant Colonel Raymond Lane was selected to provide independent specialist expertise on firearms-related disclosures. His proposed involvement did not proceed as originally envisaged. Serious questions arise considering interventions by senior Garda management, including the former Commissioner Drew Harris in relation to this. Who intervened in the independent expert arrangements? Why was Raymond Lane not permitted to complete the work proposed? Who selected the alternative examiners? Why did the proposed independent policing expertise not materialise? Serious questions then arise concerning statements made by senior Garda management about the holster-safety forensic examinations. This is important. Brian O'Reilly disputes aspects of information supplied to the Horkan family, including the description of forensic examination of Colm's holster. Statements made by the former Commissioner Drew Harris and other senior Garda officers to Oireachtas committees must be compared with documentary records available at the time. We are not just talking about this one specific issue. There is a whole range of firearms questions at the heart of this. We have defective ammunition and the reported disposal of approximately 500,000 rounds of defective ammunition, firearms storage, recording and accountability, procurement irregularities, alleged supplier favouritism, inappropriate servicing or repair of privately-owned firearms, alleged misuse of Garda resources, fraud and financial wrongdoing, ammunition procurement and testing, potential consequences for public safety and the integrity of criminal investigations. How many of these matters has the Minister investigated that he knows about? How many were administratively closed, and what corrective actions were taken, and can the Minister demonstrate that they were done? This was the other element of the protected disclosures issue. These are the questions in relation to those who raised the alarm. Remember, the whole idea of the protected disclosure is to protect the whistleblower. Brian O'Reilly alleges adverse professional consequences following his protected disclosure, including decisions affecting his responsibilities at the GNTB and the firearms stores. Serious questions also arise concerning the treatment of persons within the protected disclosures office, such as Donal Corcoran, who challenged investigative deficiencies. Alleged penalisation may involve the removal of duties, exclusion, reputational undermining, and confidentiality breaches that have a cumulative professional or financial detriment. All of these elements appear to have happened to these individuals. What happened to the protected disclosures office is quite incredible. It ceased, a new one was created, and the individuals who worked in that office were then reassigned to other responsibilities. These are serious questions and there are questions for the Minister for justice as well. There is a report in the Irish Examiner today about gardaí and firearms procurement for a private gun club in 2018. It is reported that there have been no prosecutions. The then Minister for justice seemingly unwittingly signed the licence for that procurement. Are we talking about "Fawlty Towers" here in relation to firearms? There are serious questions about the competence of the former Minister, Deputy McEntee, and about whether she broke the law. She has not explained on what statutory authority, as former Minister for justice, she intervened in the handling of reports of the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner that had already been transmitted to a designated statutory recipient under section 10(D) of the Protected Disclosures Act. Why on 21 December 2023 was a protected disclosure redirected to An Garda Síochána following a direction from the then Minister, Deputy McEntee? Why did she identify information in the titles of those attachments transmitted to the Department and senior Garda management that allowed for the knowledge about the individual to be made known? These questions have not been answered. The Minister's amendment does not significantly address them, and he has to change it.

Independent Ireland will be supporting this motion. First and foremost, we remember Detective Garda Colm Horkan who was murdered in Castlerea in June 2020 while serving his community. Our thoughts remain with his family, colleagues, and all those who continue to feel that loss today. Nothing said in this debate should take away from one fundamental fact. The individual responsible for Detective Garda Horkan's murder was convicted by the courts and bears responsibility for that crime but there is a separate question before us today. That question is whether serious concerns relating to Garda equipment, procurement processes and protected disclosures were properly examined when they were raised. We know concerns were raised about the firearm holsters issued to Garda members. We know questions have been raised about testing procurement decisions and whether warnings from experienced Garda personnel received the attention they deserved. The Horkan family have consistently called for an independent public inquiry. That request deserves to be treated with respect and seriousness. Every garda who goes on duty has a right to expect that the equipment issued to them is safe, properly tested and fit for purpose. Safety-critical equipment cannot be judged primarily on cost. The protection of front-line gardaí must always come first. We must also look carefully at the handling of protected disclosures. The whole purpose of the whistleblower legislation is to ensure that people can raise concerns about public safety, potential wrongdoing or failures within organisations without fear of retaliation or damage to their careers. When somebody comes forward with legitimate a concern, the priority should be to investigate the warnings, not the person raising them. I want to put direct questions to the Minister. Will the Minister confirm whether any warnings, reports or concerns about the safety of these firearm holsters were received before Detective Garda Horkan's death, and what action was taken in response? Was the actual holster worn by Detective Garda Horkan independently examined and by whom? Will the findings be made available? Were protected disclosures relating to these matters closed in June 2025 and were all outstanding issues fully addressed before that decision was taken? Who approved the procurement criteria for the holster, including the weighting given to cost and quality, and what mandatory safety testing was required before they were issued to Garda members? Will the Minister now commit to establishing an independent statutory inquiry with the power to compel documents and witnesses, so that these questions can finally be answered?

Today is about a wrongdoing, a wrong investigation into something at the cost of a member of An Garda Síochána's life. Detective Garda Colm Horkan lost his life over a faulty holster, which was raised by other Garda members. I see the Minister shaking his head. He has no qualification to even look at this. The people in the Gallery have the qualifications to look at holsters and they were not given a proper opportunity because it was covered up and the investigation was not done properly. We are trying to encourage people to join An Garda Síochána to uphold the law. When we look at the history over the past eight years, and at the eight gardaí, it took five years to come to a conclusion where they were found innocent. Who was at the head of this investigation? It was Drew Harris who has single-handedly destroyed An Garda Síochána. Why? It is because he was brought up in a policing model that is not in Ireland. It is An Garda Síochána - the guardians of our State and not the state he wanted us to go to. The people who stood up here - Brian O'Reilly, Raymond Lane and Donal Corcoran - put themselves on the line to get justice and right a wrong. What did they do? They turned everything back on them. What does that say about the type of An Garda Síochána Drew Harris wanted, using his power in that position and putting pressure on other senior people to make sure this stayed quiet? There needs to be investigations into the person who caused this and not only this. Remember the eight gardaí who were taken off Garda duties and found innocent. Nothing was done about that either.

I move: To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following: "notes that: — there are robust structures, policies and procedures in place across the criminal justice sector, including in An Garda Síochána, to ensure the effective management of protected disclosures and to provide support to people who make disclosures under the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022; and — the Government will not publicly discuss the merits or detail of any protected disclosure, since it is not for any Minister to reach conclusions on the veracity or legitimacy of any disclosure, as that is a function for the prescribed investigating bodies; recognises that: — Detective Garda Colm Horkan was much loved by his family and friends and was a highly respected and dedicated member of An Garda Síochána, and his murder was an appalling crime and is a tremendous loss to his family, friends and the Garda family; — the murder of Detective Garda Horkan epitomises the risk and sacrifice that has been made by many members of An Garda Síochána; and — concerns have been raised about the safety and suitability of the firearm holster used by Detective Garda Horkan at the time of the incident in which he was fatally shot; further notes that: — having regard to the importance of ensuring that equipment issued to members of An Garda Síochána is safe, the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration has requested, under section 205(2) of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024, that Fiosrú, the Office of the Police Ombudsman, investigate questions concerning the safety and suitability of the holster Detective Garda Horkan was using at the time of his murder; and — the purpose of such a referral is to establish, through an independent external investigation, whether the holster gave rise to any operational or safety concerns; further recognises that: — a number of measures have been taken to strengthen protected disclosure mechanisms within An Garda Síochána; — a new and strengthened Protected Disclosures Unit was established in January 2025, within the Garda Office of the Assistant Commissioner for Governance and Accountability, which also has responsibility for the Garda Anti-Corruption Unit and the Professional Standards Unit, the office was assigned additional and dedicated staff who have the requisite training and qualifications to undertake their role; — extensive training has also been provided to managers across An Garda Síochána and, in addition, all personnel who make protected disclosures are advised of support services; — the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024, established the Garda Board, the Policing and Community Safety Authority (replacing the Policing Authority and Garda Síochána Inspectorate) and Fiosrú; — the Act was designed to enhance governance, oversight and accountability in relation to the delivery of policing and security services by An Garda Síochána; — An Garda Síochána have emphasised that they encourage and support employees in disclosing wrongdoing and that all allegations made under the Protected Disclosures Acts to An Garda Síochána are treated seriously, and examined for any potential disciplinary or criminal matters that may arise; and — a review of the operation of the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act is due to take place in the coming year; furthermore, notes that: — the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act requires Ministers to transmit reports of wrongdoing to the Protected Disclosures Commissioner; — the relevant legislation was adhered to in transmitting such reports; and — it is not appropriate to comment or draw assumptions from partial information that relates to a process that, by its design, includes legislative provisions that protect the confidentiality of the discloser, and the details relating to the disclosure; and furthermore, recognises that: — there are robust structures, policies and procedures in place that ensure the effective management of protected disclosures in An Garda Síochána, and to provide support to those who make disclosures under the Act; — there are multiple independent avenues for Garda personnel to make disclosures to ensure that disclosures are treated with the appropriate level of independent consideration, and the Government is satisfied that there are robust procedures and protections for those who make disclosures; and — several ongoing legal processes and investigations should be allowed to progress and conclude and so consequently, a public inquiry is not under consideration at this time.". The family of Detective Garda Colm Horkan suffered a devastating loss when he was murdered while on duty in Castlerea in 2020. I believe I speak for everyone in this House when I say that Colm’s murder shocked us all. Colm lost his life doing a job that he loved - protecting the community and serving An Garda Síochána and the State with duty and distinction. His murder again reminded us of the risks the brave men and women of An Garda Síochána take every day to protect our communities and the burden all Garda families carry in supporting them and in mourning the loss of the fallen. I have met with the Horkan family on a number of occasions, most recently last Thursday, and I am aware of its call for a public inquiry into Colm’s death. It should be noted that the only person responsible for Colm’s murder is the individual who has been convicted of his murder. I am conscious that an appeal judgment is awaited from the Court of Appeal in respect of that conviction. It is important to allow for the conclusion of criminal proceedings that are ongoing and the outcome of the coroner’s inquest, which will be held in public, and other matters I will outline now before considering if there is a need for a public inquiry. I would like to inform the House of a recent decision I took in relation to this matter. Questions have been raised in this House, particularly by Deputy Kelly, and elsewhere by the Horkan family and others concerning the operation of the holster he was using at the time of his murder, including its firearm-retention characteristics and its suitability for operational policing. I am of the view that these are matters of public interest that require independent examination by Fiosrú. Colm’s family is entitled to know if his holster contributed in any way to his murder and the public is entitled to expect that our brave gardaí are equipped with equipment that is fit for purpose and does not add to the risk they face day in, day out as they go about their business keeping the people of Ireland safe. In light of the ongoing controversy surrounding the holster Colm was using and the public interest in getting to the truth as to its role or otherwise in his murder, this week, I wrote to Fiosrú - the Police Ombudsman - invoking the provisions of section 205(2) of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 to request that it undertake an investigation in the public interest into matters concerning the safety and suitability of the firearm holster used by Garda Horkan at the time he was murdered. This is not the first time I have written to Fiosrú seeking an investigation into issues raised surrounding the use of the holster. On 27 February 2025, in my first month as Minister, I invoked section 102(5) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and referred the issues raised by Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly to GSOC. I referred the issues raised by him to GSOC because I believed it was in the public interest for his complaints to be investigated. In referring this matter to GSOC, I also assumed, based on the commentary and correspondence I have seen and heard, that this would meet with his approval. He had expressly requested that his complaints be investigated by GSOC. Therefore, I was disappointed when I was informed by Fiosrú, which has now replaced GSOC, in a letter to the Department dated 28 May 2026 that "in the absence of further engagement from the reporting person Fiosrú’s investigation of this matter has been discontinued in accordance with section 93(1)(c) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005." On a positive note, however, Fiosrú did state that it had advised Detective Superintendent O’Reilly that he was entitled to engage directly with that office at any time in the future. I wrote to Detective Superintendent O’Reilly on 1 October 2026 asking him to re-engage with Fiosrú, so that it can complete the investigation of his complaints. Again, I ask him to re-engage. Fiosrú is the appropriate statutory body to investigate his complaints. I am satisfied that Fiosrú has all the powers needed to fully investigate this matter, particularly since the enactment of the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024. Fiosrú is fully independent in the exercise of its functions and I have every confidence in its capacity to investigate this issue without fear or favour. For my part, I am only interested in the truth of the matter. Colm’s family deserves it and so does the public. I have advised the Garda Commissioner of my decision to refer the case to Fiosrú and he has assured me of the full co-operation of An Garda Síochána with the investigation. I should add that I have also directed my officials to write to the Roscommon coroner and offer the Department’s practical support to ensure that the coronial investigation process is advanced in a timely manner. Insofar as the question of a public inquiry is concerned, my position is this: there are criminal proceedings before the courts and a coronial process to be undertaken. The Fiosrú investigation will take its course and reach conclusions on the matters. Once these processes have concluded, I will consider if there are any outstanding matters that need further inquiry or investigation and if so, the nature of any such inquiry or investigation. Turning to the matter of protected disclosures more generally, I would like to place on record that as Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, I take extremely seriously any protected disclosures that are made within the justice sector. To facilitate those reporting a protected disclosure, a member of An Garda Síochána or Garda staff has a number of options. In the first instance, he or she can make the protected disclosure to the protected disclosures unit within An Garda Síochána, go to Fiosrú, go to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner or go to a Minister. The protected disclosures Act is designed to enable a discloser to make a protected disclosure without his or her identity being publicised except for the proposes of the investigation itself. In updating the legislation in 2022, the Oireachtas made several important amendments to the 2014 Act. Most notably, it created the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner and it removed Ministers from the follow-up and investigation of protected disclosures. Specifically, section 8(3) of the Act, as amended, requires Ministers to transmit reports of wrongdoing to the Protected Disclosures Commissioner without having considered the report, the information or any allegation. As the House will be aware, the Garda Commissioner is responsible for the management and administration of Garda business, including the organisation's obligations under the Protected Disclosures Act. I know that An Garda Síochána considers the handling of protected disclosures to be of the utmost importance and is committed to ensuring the integrity of the structure and process for making and investigating all such reports. I am assured by the Garda Commissioner that all protected disclosures made to An Garda Síochána are treated seriously. Furthermore, the Commissioner has taken a number of measures to strengthen the protected disclosure mechanisms and structures within An Garda Síochána. A new protected disclosures unit was established in January 2025 within the office of the assistant commissioner for governance and accountability, which also has responsibility for the Garda anti-corruption unit and the professional standards unit. The office was assigned additional and dedicated staff who have the requisite training and qualifications to undertake their role. In addition, Transparency International Ireland has provided training to the protected disclosures unit and senior Garda managers and provides support and confidential advice to any member of An Garda Síochána who may be considering making a protected disclosure. Extensive training has also been provided to Garda managers across An Garda Síochána. All personnel who make protected disclosures are advised of support services that are available to them. The Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 established the Garda Board, the Policing and Community Safety Authority and Fiosrú-the Office of the Police Ombudsman. These changes enhance governance, oversight and accountability in relation to the delivery of policing and security services by An Garda Síochána. Where protected disclosures are made internally within An Garda Síochána, the 2024 Act gives the Garda Board and the audit committee important oversight roles in relation to the operation of the protected disclosures system in An Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána has emphasised that it encourages and supports employees in disclosing wrongdoing and that all allegations made under protected disclosures are treated seriously and examined for any potential disciplinary or criminal matters that may arise. Having regard to these changes and the substantial programme of Garda reform that has been undertaken over the last decade, I am satisfied that there is a robust system in place to deal with and oversee the handling of protected disclosures in An Garda Síochána. As I have outlined today, there are a number of legal processes and investigations ongoing relating to protected disclosures, which, directly or indirectly, are linked to the question of the suitability of the holster used by detective garda Colm Horkan. I am confident that the referral by me of this issue to Fiosrú for investigation can provide the Horkan family and the public with the answers they deserve but if there are still outstanding issues, I will consider what further inquiry or investigation is needed. I commend the countermotion to the House.

I want to make clear that Aontú will not support the Government's amendment to the motion. The Garda whistleblower scandal is extremely serious. I have never seen anything of this scale in my lifetime. My eyes have been opened to the level of corruption happening before our eyes. It is incomprehensible that there has been so little debate, and no debate in this Chamber, following the “RTÉ Investigates” programme. I cannot understand how the former Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, who decided that her Department would not investigate the protected disclosures about gun holsters still holds a Cabinet position. This is an extremely complicated issue but at the heart of it we know detective garda Colm Horkan was working in Castlerea and was murdered on 17 June 2020. He was shot after he approached a man named Stephen Silver. Silver managed to disarm detective Horkan from the holster and fired 15 rounds of ammunition, 11 of which wounded detective Horkan. Colm Horkan was a native of Charlestown. In recent days, weeks and months, Garda whistleblowers have come forward with very serious allegations and questions about the gun holster that Colm Horkan was wearing that night. We know that six days prior to the murder of Colm Horkan detective garda Eddie Connell was working in Dublin when he suffered injuries after the gun he was holding in the same holster worn by Colm Horkan was triggered in the holster. The whistleblowers are alleging that safety concerns about the holster were ignored by senior members of An Garda Síochána. They allege it was brought to the attention of senior members of the force over a year before that fateful night of 17 June 2020. They allege that the Garda Commissioner at the time, Drew Harris, effectively blocked safety reviews for this particular holster. When senior officers blew the whistle on the scandal and made a protected disclosure to the then Minister for Justice, she refused to have her Department investigate the matter despite the fact that the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner directed her Department to investigate it. Instead of doing so and following protocol and the law, she had that disclosure returned to An Garda Síochána and the Garda Commissioner. In so doing, she leaked the accuser’s name to the person against whom the allegation was made. The man making the disclosure was detective superintendent Brian O’Reilly, a former head of the Garda Technical Bureau. His disclosure was sent back to An Garda Síochána to investigate because the Minister refused to do so. That is a very serious thing to happen. When the internal Garda unit responsible for investigating the protected disclosures tried to investigate the issues that had been raised, and there were many issues of serious allegations of wrongdoing in the force, Garda management tried to block those investigations and interfered with the protected disclosure process. Eventually the protected disclosure unit itself was effectively dismantled. The individuals involved in the unit, Dr. Donal Corcoran and Rose Sweeney, were so frustrated with the process they themselves made protected disclosures.

Like most people in this country I have huge respect for the rank and file members of An Garda Síochána, who are decent hard-working people who put their safety on the line every single day and do not get paid enough, but as this motion highlights we are looking at an ongoing systemic failure within the higher procurement and management structures of the force. Let us look at the facts. We had an administrative system that prioritised financial savings over human lives. How on earth does anyone think it is acceptable for a police force to award 500 marks for cost and only 400 marks for quality and safety specifications when buying standard issue firearm holsters? It does not make sense. It is a farce. What happens when you cut corners on safety standards? You get defective equipment issued to front-line officers leading directly to life-altering accidents and tragedy. We see the ultimate price paid in the horrific murder of detective garda Colm Horkan and injuries to garda Connell. It gets worse, however, because when people internally tried to raise flags about these issues and used the statutory protected disclosures process to say, “Gabh mo leithscéal, there is an issue with the holsters. There is an issue with half a million rounds of defective ammunition being dumped”, the system failed them and actively turned on the whistleblowers who were professionally penalised, sidelined and basically run out of their careers by senior management. This has happened before and we should have learned those lessons already. The independent protected disclosures manager explicitly stated in June 2025 that major public safety questions remained unresolved. What did the powers that be do? They stripped the files away and closed them down anyway. That goes to the issue of political accountability in relation to the former Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, for example. The Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner gave an independent statutory direction for the Secretary General of the Department of justice to investigate the serious allegations against senior management, but instead of letting that happen the former Minister chose to invoke section 102B of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. The Government can say she had to follow that route but independent legal scholars like Dr. Lauren Kierans BL, cofounder of the European Whistleblowing Institute, have looked at the framework and said that the additional steps in the process are frustrating transparency. She is right because the extra steps did not find the truth; they acted as a screen. Former Attorney General and now Senator, Michael McDowell, has also questioned the reliance on this legislation and has basically called it a non-binding choice. We have to ask what advice was given to the Minister to take this non-binding decision. This was a decision that left her exposed to multiple accusations because under section 102B a formal investigation into the Commissioner requires the explicit approval of the Government. It states the ombudsman commission may at the request of the Minister or of its own motion but "subject to the consent of the Minister given with the approval of the Government, investigate any matter that gives rise to a concern that the Garda Commissioner may have (a) committed an offence, or (b) behaved in a manner that would constitute serious misconduct." The Government did not recommend an investigation into the former Commissioner, Drew Harris. It decided the high bar was not met and that it was not legally required to activate or pursue the route at all - it was completely optional. If the Minister did not recommend a GSOC investigation, what statutory authority did she or her colleagues have to take a protected disclosure away from her Secretary General and send it straight to An Garda Síochána? Section 102B gives her the power to request an Ombudsman probe. It does not give her a blank cheque to act as a delivery service for confidential files to be sent to senior management who may be the subject of an investigation or at least about whom questions may be asked. The consequence of that choice was a severe data breach in which the whistleblower's sensitive identifying details were sent directly, via email attachment, to senior gardaí, who were the very people being complained about, as the recent RTÉ documentary covered in detail. It makes an absolute mockery of whistleblower confidentiality. We cannot keep allowing the State apparatus to self-police and attack the whistleblower rather than deal with the message. I support this motion. We need a full public inquiry and actions to ensure that these types of wrongs, when called out by whistleblowers in the future, are dealt with and reported properly. We do not have faith in the system as it stands and we need to renew that faith.

Tacaíonn Sinn Féin leis an rún seo agus fáiltim roimh an deis labhairt faoi na ceisteanna seo inniu. Sinn Féin has consistently called for transparency, accountability and independent scrutiny when serious issues raised by Garda whistleblowers have come before us, as well as the need for accountability in the overall effectiveness of the protected disclosures mechanisms in An Garda Síochána. It has to be said and the Minister needs to recognise that there is virtually no confidence that the protected disclosures regime in An Garda Síochána is functioning and that has serious implications. I join others in paying tribute to Colm Horkan, but we need to be incredibly mindful in this House that the Horkan family has taken a significant and unprecedented step. The family of a garda killed in action has called for a public inquiry into the circumstances leading up to his death and that has to be taken seriously. That is why it is disappointing to see the Minister's amendment today, which essentially boils down to rejecting that call. I join the Minister and others in saying that Stephen Silver is the person responsible for garda Colm Horkan's death. He was rightly convicted, but his family is also entitled to know whether the tragedy could have been prevented and whether concerns raised in advance through protected disclosures regarding Garda equipment were properly acted on. The family has set out a series of specific questions, which it made public, regarding procurement of gun holsters, the handling of complaints and protected disclosures, and the actions taken by Garda management and relevant authorities when concerns were first raised. The family has said, and I agree, that the questions can only be properly examined by an independent inquiry. I am a little taken aback that the Minister has passed this on to Fiosrú and told the House that it is the forum that will resolve this issue. He knows, and we have heard countless pieces of evidence, that GSOC, throughout its existence, was seen not as an avenue for families to get truth or for the public to get answers, but as a delaying model. For example, we are both well aware of the case of Shane O'Farrell. The Minister knows that his predecessor in 2014 asked GSOC to carry out a public interest inquiry, exactly the same type of inquiry the Minister is suggesting is warranted in this case. He will know that inquiry was completed in 2018 and that today, in 2026, the family of Shane O'Farrell is before the courts trying to get access to the report of that public interest inquiry. The Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, the committee that has responsibility for this, has sought from Fiosrú the report of that public interest inquiry and Fiosrú has refused to provide it even to an Oireachtas committee. To suggest Fiosrú is a vehicle that will get answers is entirely disingenuous when all the evidence suggests it is a delaying tactic that will frustrate rather than facilitate the route to answers. There are serious questions, which have been raised here and elsewhere, regarding the procurement of the holsters and how a particular saddlery received the contract. We and the public need to know whether procurement decisions were based on appropriate and objective assessment criteria. There is a key question regarding the handling of safety concerns raised about the holsters and whether the warnings raised through the protected disclosures system were properly acted on. These questions need to be answered. We also need answers to questions about those who made the protected disclosures and how they were treated. Were the lessons we were told were learned after the treatment of Maurice McCabe actually learned? What is the current situation? We have been told that those who made protected disclosures have faced serious consequences for their jobs, careers and livelihoods. The issues they raised relate to public safety, the safety of members of An Garda Síochána, Garda equipment, firearms storage, procurement practices and oversight. In other words, they are serious issues. The State promised that whistleblowers would never again experience the treatment suffered by Maurice McCabe and the question we have to ask is whether things have changed. Serious questions also remain regarding the handling by the former Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, of the protected disclosure and her role in this debacle. The House needs and deserves answers about what the Minister knew and when she knew it, what disclosures were brought to her attention, what actions she took, why concerns involving senior Garda figures were handed back to An Garda Síochána, what her role was in upholding the independence of the protected disclosures process and what measures, if any, she took to protect the disclosure. She has to come before the House to answer questions. We had the laughable situation yesterday of the Tánaiste, Deputy Harris, saying a Member should come before the House and make a statement in respect of his role in a charity. That Member has requested time to do that but at the same time the Tánaiste is standing in the way of a current Minister coming here, despite repeated requests, to answer questions about the safety of members of An Garda Síochána, what she did and when information was brought to her attention. That position is untenable and the fact the Minister has told me that he would do what she did if the situation were to occur again says to me that, far from lessons having been learned, we are back to square one. We have a serious, fundamental issue in our public system, particularly in terms of An Garda Síochána, when people, at huge cost to themselves, decide to make a protected disclosure. The role of protected disclosures is to inform management, the Government and the public about potential risks in a system. They did that. They deserve to be commended for doing it and we collectively have an obligation to act upon it. There cannot be any more hiding. There cannot be hiding for the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in her role. She has to come before the House and answer the questions before us because, above all, the public and members of An Garda Síochána need answers and the Horkan family deserves answers. We are six years on. Questions have been raised on multiple occasions in this House. They deserve to be answered and the Minister cannot hide behind Fiosrú or anyone else. He has a responsibility to ensure those questions are answered.

I thank Aontú for bringing forward this motion on whistleblowers. Its primary focus is on whistleblowers in An Garda Síochána, but we have a bad history in this State in other departments with how we treat whistleblowers. In 2022, I raised the matter of a whistleblower in the south Kerry child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, Dr. Ankur Sharma, whose concerns about the over-medication and misdiagnosis of children were vindicated by the Maskey report. Dr. Sharma highlighted that children were prescribed dangerous amounts of medication by a junior doctor who was not being supervised. This led to the Maskey report, which showed that 227 children received risky care from a barely supervised junior doctor. The treatment of 13 other children by other doctors was also found to be risky with proof of significant harm to another 46 children. Dr. Sharma was ostracised in the HSE resulting in him leaving his post. When the HSE struggled to recruit a consultant psychiatrist for Kerry, Dr. Sharma went back to the HSE and offered to fill the post of consultant psychiatrist in Kerry, only to be ignored. It is a measure of the man, which is why I am raising this again today, that despite his mistreatment by the HSE he was willing to return to help. He should have been commended and not ignored. In relation to today's motion, there was meant to have been a turning point on how protected disclosures were dealt with within the Garda after Maurice McCabe. However, we have seen recently that Garda members who were connected to the protected disclosures unit have alleged they were forced out of office for protecting whistleblowers. These are the people who tried to raise serious concerns from inside An Garda Síochána. They have given decades of service and tried to fulfil their duty in challenging wrongdoing. Instead, they were sidelined, obstructed and penalised. Even when gardaí raised concerns about firearms equipment, these were not properly investigated. Shortly afterwards, detective garda Colm Horkan was fatally shot because his murderer was able to get the gun from his holster, despite these concerns having been raised. The Horkan family has called for an independent public inquiry into detective garda Colm Horkan's death and the Government must listen to them. Such a tragedy cannot be allowed to happen again and the family has to be listened to. If everything were rosy in the garden with the Garda, there would be no whistleblowers. However, we have seen reports this week that gardaí have been flagged for disciplinary referrals for making comments to the media nine times in the last year and a half. The GRA is extremely concerned that its elected members could be silenced by the threats of discipline and I have to agree with it. As the Minister knows, we had some really robust engagement with the GRA at the justice committee in relation to the ability of gardaí to pursue dangerous drivers, including cars, scramblers, scooters and e-bikes. We heard that as it stands, not one garda in this State is trained in pursuit, which is unacceptable in this day and age. Following this pressure, the pressure after the M9 tragedy and the tragic death of Grace Lynch, the Garda Commissioner agreed to start training this year using the train-the-trainer method. Gardaí were to go to Britain to learn to become instructors so that they could train gardaí here to pursue cars, scramblers, scooters and e-bikes. It is a bit late in the day, but it is welcome nonetheless. We would hope that it would lead to more gardaí being trained as time goes by. However, at a recent public accounts committee meeting under questioning from my colleague Joanna Byrne, the Garda Commissioner could not confirm if gardaí will get the training to pursue scramblers, e-bikes and scooters. This issue has taken up a huge amount of debate in this House, at the committee and among the public, particularly after the death of Grace Lynch. It is astonishing that the Garda Commissioner could not confirm if gardaí will get this training. When Joanna Byrne submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister for justice, she was informed that her question was disallowed because he had no responsibility for this matter. It is absolutely abhorrent for him to claim he has no responsibility for this matter. For me and for the public in general, this is simply not good enough. I am demanding clarity from the Minister. I ask him to confirm if the pursuit of scramblers, e-bikes and scooters will be part of this training. It is unfathomable that this would not happen.

We have two primary issues here. First is a family who need and very much deserve answers and, second, are the ongoing and very serious issues in An Garda Síochána when it comes to protected disclosures. We are now many years on from the very brave stance that Maurice McCabe took. That "Prime Time Investigates" programme clearly shows us that we are not very far on, if at all, from that time. When speaking about an independent public inquiry, the Minister has said that we need the criminal proceedings to end and we need the inquest. However, it is important to be honest and clear. Neither the court case nor the appeal looked at the gun holster and I very much doubt that an inquest will either. I know the Horkan family have made that point. I presume they are not happy with an investigation being carried out by Fiosrú. Putting all that to one side, if a member of An Garda Síochána sees something wrong and flags it, there is a fear that the member will be removed from their role or pay a price for that. That was shown as clear as day in the "Prime Time Investigates" programme. There is something very wrong with a workplace where someone sees something wrong but cannot do the right thing by flagging it. I do not believe that Fiosrú will answer the questions on that. That is an issue for all of us and it is an issue for every single member of the public. We need to see more done on this and we need to see a lot more done in relation to protected disclosures.

I challenge the Minister to find me one person who has made a protected disclosure and was allowed to continue in their job and flourish. I would challenge An Garda Síochána but also on a wider government basis whether just one person was allowed to continue and flourish in their careers once they made a protected disclosure.

Hear, hear.

When the Protected Disclosures Act was introduced, it was sold as legislation to protect people who speak up about wrongdoing. In its current application, all it is being used to do is to highlight and identify people who speak against wrongdoing. Once the person is identified, they can find themselves isolated, ostracised, discredited and indeed penalised in the most severe ways. In 2020, Margaret Loftus made a protected disclosure to Fiosrú about issues concerning Garda handling of cases of domestic abuse. This disclosure through a court order was handed to the organisation and to the very people she made the disclosure about before it was even investigated. That disclosure is currently at recommendation stage and is being sent to the Garda Commissioner in the very near future, yet, Margaret Loftus, the person who made the protected disclosure, had no entitlement to see those recommendations or even know if they were implemented. After sticking with a hellish process for six years, she will never know what even became of it. The fundamental purpose of protected disclosures should be to prevent wrongdoing, prevent harm and protect the public interest. Instead, many people who speak up feel it protects the institution first and the individuals second. The tragic death of Colm Horkan remains a stark reminder of what is at stake when concerns relating to public safety are not addressed effectively. Questions raised over equipment and risk management should always be examined with one objective over all others: preventing serious harm and saving lives. I support the Horkan family in their quest for a public inquiry. Any one of us who has lost a loved one in whatever circumstances wants to know the answer to the basic question: could it have been prevented? A whistleblower system should be judged by whether people can speak up without fear, whether risks are addressed and whether lessons are learned. A society that punishes those who speak the truth does not have a whistleblower protection system and we should stop pretending that we have. It has a warning sign for everyone else to stay quiet and to keep their heads down if they want to keep their job. In its current form our protected disclosures system is protecting the very institutions that should be held to account, not the person who highlights the wrongdoing. This is under the watch of the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and he has to correct it. Successive Ministers for justice claiming that this is not under their remit, and that nobody looks here, is totally wrong. This has to be corrected here and now.

We are back in the same place again. What do we expect for gardaí? We should expect that they have the resources, the necessary tools and sufficient backup to be able to do the work they do, which is about protecting the wider community. We would expect the protected disclosures system to exist. If there are problems in An Garda Síochána, as with any other major organisation whose necessary work we need delivered, we need to be able to find them out and address them. What we do not need is what we have seen, namely, that those who have been brave enough to come forward and provide the necessary information have been let down badly by this Government. This is all about public safety. There are questions to be answered by the former justice Minister, Deputy McEntee, about providing information on a whistleblower directly to An Garda. I do not think anyone would think that this is a way to do business. We cannot forget the family of Colm Horkan. When I think of Colm Horkan, I also think of Adrian Donohoe and Tony Golden. These are gardaí who have been killed carrying out their duty. What has the family of Colm Horkan looked for? It is unprecedented, but they want a public inquiry. In fairness, Deputy Carthy referred to a similar Fiosrú-type investigation and how it has failed the family of Shane O'Farrell. That is not good enough. We are failing gardaí at this point in time. A family out there requires answers. It is necessary that the Minister does his part. I cannot see that anything other than a public investigation and inquiry is going to deliver. This is not good enough. We have been in this place too many times before. It is the same story as it was with Maurice McCabe, and we have not moved on.

I first send my thoughts to the family of Detective Colm Horkan. I acknowledge Aontú for bringing forward the motion. It is incredibly important. Listening to the Minister's speech, something jumped out from it. He stated that on 27 February 2025, within his first month as Minister, he invoked section 102(5) of the Garda Síochána Act and referred the issues raised by Detective Superintendent O'Reilly to GSOC. Was that the right section? Section 102(5) concerns wrongdoing by Garda members. Section 102B refers to the Commissioner himself being investigated and requires Government consent. Why did the Minister choose section 102(5) and not the one actually within the remit? The Minister should check that. I have sat down with Garda whistleblowers. I have listened to their accounts. I have heard their frustrations and discussed the extraordinary effort required to simply get serious concerns properly examined. A thought that stays with me long after those meetings is if this is what happens to people who speak up, why would the next person bother? Why would somebody put their career, livelihood and peace of mind at risk if they believe an institution will turn its attention toward them rather than toward the wrongdoing they have reported? Before going further, I acknowledge those who have stepped forward. Some of them are in the Gallery. Brian O'Reilly and Donal Corcoran are people of immense courage and dignity. The Minister should meet them. We have to establish how concerns about Garda equipment were handled, how disclosures were investigated and whether those raising them were properly protected. From my meetings with the whistleblowers, I have come away deeply concerned that what has reached public attention is the tip of the iceberg. Their brave accounts raise many questions that go far beyond a single piece of equipment or a single disputed decision. They raise questions about who gets listened to, who gets protected and what happens when somebody challenges a person with authority. We cannot decide every allegation on the floor of this House, which is precisely why we need an independent inquiry with the power to establish the facts, but we can recognise the seriousness of what has been put before us. When people involved in the administration of the protected disclosures system itself raise concerns about its operations, the Government should ask how that happened and what it says about the safeguards we were told were in place. We have been here before. After the treatment of Maurice McCabe, nobody in political leadership can credibly say they did not understand the consequences of failing a Garda whistleblower. We know what institutional defensiveness can do. We know how damaging it is when a person reporting a problem comes to be treated as the problem, yet we are again hearing accounts of interference, of professional consequences and of concerns left completely unresolved. How many times must people come before us describing the same culture before we accept that legislation alone will not be enough? A reporting channel means very little if people cannot trust where the report will end up. A protection means very little if somebody has to spend years fighting to make it effective. This culture survives when political leadership accepts procedural assurances without demanding evidence that the system is working. Tackling this failure has to begin with accountability at ministerial level. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, should appear before this House or the justice committee to answer questions about her handling of these matters, as has been requested by the whistleblowers with whom I have sat. She stated that she followed the legislation and the advice provided to her. That position should be examined alongside decisions taken, the information available and concerns raised by the whistleblowers. What did the Minister know? When did she know it? What action followed? These are simple questions. Where a disclosure concerns senior Garda management, how is the independence of its handling assured? Where officials are briefing a Minister, what safeguards exist to identify any conflict of interest? Who checked that the information that reached the Minister was accurate and complete? Changing portfolios does not remove the obligation to account for decisions taken in office. The forthcoming review of protected disclosures legislation must also seek the participation of whistleblowers. Their experience has to shape its conclusion. For our part, we will continue to work with those who seek to expose the truth. What we are talking about here are people who we trust to stand on the wall. They are people of immense courage. We often talk about how lucky we are in this Chamber, because we want more gardaí. We want people in the force. We have a good system of gardaí who we want on our streets, but there is also a scenario where people who have raised issues, people of immense integrity, are clearly experiencing continued penalisation. That is not an accusation I make lightly. I stood several times over the last couple of months with Dr. Donal Corcoran and Detective Brian O'Reilly. They are people of huge dignity. As a result of their stance, they are now living on social welfare. That cannot be allowed to continue.

Hear, hear.

The Minister and I often clash, but I do not doubt for a second that he is a decent person. What is happening to people who stepped forward - they go by the name of whistleblowers but they are actually incredible people - is wrong, and wrong is wrong. We can all talk about legislation and systems, but if the Minister stood in front of Donal or Brian, he could not help but see a system failing and come to a conclusion that this system, which was built perhaps ten years ago, was simply designed to fail because it is failing so consistently. The impact it is having on people's lives is devastating. These are people who were in uniform. I would not want anyone other than the people I have sat with in meeting rooms protecting this State and our communities. I have heard their testimonies and listened to their voices. These people have courage and dignity. They have been removed from the profession they were born to do. We should be unimaginably proud that Dr. Donal Corcoran and Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly are the people who are defending our communities. I can think of no better people. They stepped forward and did the right thing, but are now continuously being penalised. Is anybody in the Department or An Garda Síochána investigating penalisation? That is a continual wrong. I ask the Minister to meet these individuals, hear their testimonies and investigate the continual penalisation. We want people to step forward and put their hands up. The stories and testimony we are hearing from the whistleblowers are enormous. We would not be able to investigate every single one of them in this Chamber. We need an independent investigation, not only to establish accountability but also to make things better for people whom we trust to serve our communities. My final request is that the Minister meet Dr. Corcoran and Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly and do something to stop the continued penalisation.

I welcome the motion. I am glad to see wide Opposition support for this issue of protected disclosures. Whistleblowing in Ireland has a chequered history. As we have seen far too often, a deep tribalism can seep into institutions in this State, rather than an objective assessment of the facts. This can breed a culture of denial, cover-up and retribution. Whistleblowing takes great courage and perseverance, sometimes over many years. It can take a great toll on those who do it. In standing up for what is right, integrity and fairness, people are often treated wrongly, consistently undermined and deprived of any fair justice or process. Whispers ensue in institutions. People are moved around, power structures change and a culture of bullying can fester. That experience, as too many in this country are familiar with, takes an extreme toll on the whistleblower, their mental health and their families. The questions before us in this motion are very grave. There are allegations or insinuations of wrongdoing in the upper echelons of An Garda Síochána. If what I have been told privately is true, it would send shock waves across the political system and across the country. It may yet threaten a Government. Our job as custodians of public integrity is to seek out the full truth, even if it is uncomfortable and leads us to difficult realisations about our country and those who are meant to protect and serve it. History has shown us that initial disclosures can merely mark the beginnings of revelations as deeper concerns, including criminality, emerge during subsequent investigations. I am disappointed the Government has chosen to oppose this motion and I want to call out two lines in its amendment which are worth emphasising to the general public. One line says: "the Government is satisfied that there are robust procedures and protections for those who make disclosures". From what we know about how past disclosures have been handled and from what I have heard privately about these cases, I do not see how any government could possibly be satisfied with the protected disclosure system or have confidence in it. The other line says: "An Garda Síochána have emphasised that ... all allegations made under the Protected Disclosures Acts to An Garda Síochána are treated seriously, and examined for any potential disciplinary or criminal matters that may arise". While I would like to believe that is true, the Government may rue the day it made that declaration. An investigation is required to establish exactly what happened with these disclosures and understand how seriously they were treated. If the truth emerges that there was any refusal to examine any disciplinary or criminal matters in An Garda Síochána, it will cause a political crisis this Government will not survive.

I thank Aontú for this timely motion. I also acknowledge and thank other Members of the House for coming on this journey with me. I have been at this for two years, as the Minister is well aware. It is very unusual that everybody in the Opposition is on the same page on this. That tells us how serious it is. What the Minister has announced today in relation to Fiosrú and the holsters is another layer of insult on injury for the Horkan family. I have spoken to them. They describe it as a nonsense. It is a complete nonsense, an attempt by the Government to kick this can down the road and get it off the agenda. The allegations of Luke Rochford were referred to GSOC. What happened? GSOC contacted Garda management and could not get co-operation. It then contacted Luke Rochford and told him it was discontinuing the investigation because it could not get co-operation. Now the Minister is referring it again. It is a joke. Here are the two holsters. Look at them lying in my hands. This is the leather; this is the stitching. That should be the Fiosrú investigation in one go. That was holster worn by Eddie Connell and this is the one worn by Colm Horkan. They are the exact same, and not fit for purpose. This did not even cover the back of the gun of Ed Connell. Read Mick Clifford's article if you do not want to believe me. They are dangerous and known to be defective. Senior gardaí knew about these holsters and their defectiveness. Hundreds of gardaí refused to use them and bought their own. Garda management knew but did not care; it only began caring after these two incidents. Garda leadership had been warned about it numerous times by Luke Rochford. The superintendent in the Garda college in Templemore had warned them, her staff had warned them and video footage from the firearms training unit had warned them. What happened? Nothing. Brian O'Reilly kept trying to warn that they be taken down after these incidents. What happened to Luke Rochford for bringing forward these issues? He got crucified, but he will have his day. He will have justice. His case has been stopped 30 times. It will never happen because An Garda Síochána cannot afford for it to happen. I only have time to raise two issues with the Minister. First, why were these two holsters sent on two different pathways for investigation? This is the critical issue the Horkan family wants to know. After the Ed Connell incident, GSOC took primacy of the scene, GNTB provided forensic services to GSOC and the exhibits from the incident were delivered to GNTB for forensic examination. Subsequent forensic analysis of the holster identified significant defects. That is all clear. That investigation is done. On 17 June, after Colm Horkan was murdered, GNTB got to the scene, including Superintendent O'Reilly. They focused on the holster, given the concerns at the scene. Exhibits were collected, bagged and tagged, went to Forensic Science Ireland for DNA and fingerprint analysis, and should have been given over to the GNTB but never arrived. Why? That is the critical question in all this. In February 2024, three years later, the holster was given to two non-experts, non-ballisticians who did not have forensic analysis or meet ISO standards. Why? It is clear this was a deliberate action by Garda management and that is what the Minister should be focusing on. Why the two different pathways? Why the cover-up? It is a cover-up. That is why the family want the investigation. It is a critical question. Why bypass the only experts in An Garda Síochána who are qualified to do this investigation? It will never be answered through the pathway the Minister has put forward. It can only be answered through an inquiry. The second question is how protected disclosures were managed by two Ministers, including the Minister for justice, Deputy O'Callaghan. Brian O'Reilly sent his protected disclosure to the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in September 2023. It impugned the Commissioner. The Minister sent it to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner. In October 2023, the OPDC set a statutory declaration that this be dealt with by the Secretary General of the Department of Justice. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, then directed the investigation be removed from the Secretary General and redirected to An Garda Síochána, thereby usurping the OPDC's statutory direction and revealing Brian O'Reilly's identity. In doing so, she acted without legal authority and directly interfered with a serious and significant protected disclosure. Since then, the Minister has argued - and she is now supported by the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan - that she did not reveal Brian O'Reilly's identity as his solicitor had already corresponded with Drew Harris. This fails to recognise that Brian O'Reilly's correspondence with her was completely separate. The cover letter states it is a protected disclosure in its own right. The confidentiality attached to this letter was completely breached by the Minister, Deputy McEntee. There is nothing in section 16 of the Protected Disclosures Act that gives the Minister legal authority to disclose that person's identity, even if the person she exposed him to is aware he has previously made protected disclosures. Additionally, despite the fact the current Minister has consistently said he cannot speak about protected disclosures, he amazingly has the capacity to vocalise aspects of Brian O'Reilly's protected disclosures. The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, who is sitting there, has made public that he sent Brian O'Reilly's protected disclosure to Fiosrú when he came into office. He also alleges that Mr. O'Reilly has failed to engage. The Minister is completely misleading people by saying this. This is not accurate and is totally selective. It is dangerous territory for the Minister now - very dangerous territory. This is what really happened. Prior to the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, taking office on 17 January 2024, a Department official endeavoured to move Brian O'Reilly's protected disclosure out of the Department. They wanted to get rid of it before the Minister took office, really, despite the fact they had not statutory power to do so. Fourteen months after the Secretary General's appointment to investigate, Brian O'Reilly was told to go to Fiosrú and start again. He never provided any such consent. Despite this, on 27 February, the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, sent the disclosures to Fiosrú. This is a fatal error. The Minister has now also acted without legal authority. It means two Ministers have acted without Brian O'Reilly's consent or legal authority. What makes it worse is the Minister did not even tell Brian O'Reilly until March. For 16 months, Brian O'Reilly, whose protected disclosures had been statutorily directed for investigation by the OPDC to the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, was ignored by the same Secretary General, ignored by the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and ignored by the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan. He was given none of his statutory entitlements over that period of time or since. What is worse is that the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, deliberately sent it to Fiosrú under section 102(5) of the Garda Síochána Act despite knowing his protected disclosure related to the Garda Commissioner. However, it could not be investigated under this section. He should have done it under section 102B of the Garda Síochána Act but that would have meant being passed by Cabinet and the Minister was not willing to do that. Let me be clear: there was never any legal or moral obligation on Brian O'Reilly to engage in any of this with Fiosrú. The process was locked in time once the OPDC made its statutory appointment. Everything since then has been flawed. I am now clearly saying that the Ministers, Deputies McEntee and O'Callaghan, have both acted without legal authority and contrary to the interests of the disclosure, in this case, of Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly. The Taoiseach and Tánaiste need to take note - there will be consequences. The Minister has dismissed the call for a public inquiry at this stage. He has made his decision in relation to Fiosrú. The family will not accept that. It has been described as "nonsense". Fiosrú and its predecessor GSOC have already failed in this. The Minister can dismiss the Opposition's call, collectively, for a public inquiry but he cannot dismiss the calls of the Horkan family whom he met last week. Why? It is because their brother, their son, was murdered and the equipment he was wearing was not right. This was warned of well in advance. It is also the cover-up afterwards. Now, both the Minister and the former Minister are impugned, as I just outlined, for their actions as Minister for justice. I said on 25 March that the issue of these holsters and protected disclosures would haunt the Ministers, Deputies McEntee and O'Callaghan, this Government and the previous Government. I can tell them now, today, that the nightmare is only beginning.

I begin by echoing what I think every person in this House has said today, namely, that Colm Horkan was an exemplar of public service and his contribution to serving and protecting this State will never be forgotten. The family of Detective Garda Colm Horkan suffered a devastating loss when he was murdered while on duty in Castlerea in 2020. Indeed, my first act as Minister for Justice in 2020 was to visit his colleagues and family following his murder and to pay my respects and tribute to him. I again offer my sincerest condolences to them. I also want to say that I am, as is everyone in this House, completely committed to a trusted and effective protected disclosure system. Any person who wishes to raise or make a protected disclosure should be confident that they can raise issues within their workplace or organisation, that this can be done confidentially and that they will be treated fairly. I have always, in my capacity as an elected representative and as Minister for Justice, complied with the protected disclosure legislation. Also as Minister for Justice, I introduced new measures to strengthen Garda accountability and oversight. I enacted legislation to establish a new and strengthened independent oversight body for An Garda Síochána, Fiosrú. I enhanced independent oversight of Garda management by establishing a new Garda board and I tasked the Garda audit committee with examining the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of Garda protected disclosure procedures. These changes give the Garda board and audit committee important oversight roles in relation to the operation of the protected disclosure system in An Garda Síochána. Deputies will be aware that the Protected Disclosures Act precludes Ministers from discussing or acknowledging protected disclosures. This is to ensure the integrity of any investigation of a protected disclosure is upheld, to ensure the anonymity and safety of those who make protected disclosures and are subject to them and to ensure others are confident they can come forward into the future. However, in recent months, in particular following the airing of the RTÉ programme, several claims have been made about me, including in this motion. I have sought legal advice and based on that legal advice, I will today outline the action I took in relation to one specific protected disclosure. I want to be clear. Of the four individuals features in the RTÉ programme, one case is before the courts so I will not comment on that case. Two of the other people featured did not make protected disclosures to me or the Department, so I will not refer to them. In relation to the fourth person featured, Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly, a number of inaccurate and unsubstantiated allegations have been made about my handling of his protected disclosure in the Aontú motion today, by the Opposition and by some members of the media. For that reason, and on the basis that Detective Superintendent O'Reilly has asked that I speak about it, while I will not discuss the contents of the protected disclosure made by Detective Superintendent O'Reilly, I am going to lay out precisely the steps I took in handling it. On 20 September 2023, I received a protected disclosure from solicitors acting on behalf of Detective Superintendent O'Reilly. On the same date, his solicitor sent a more detailed account of the same matters directly to the Garda Commissioner and copied that correspondence to the Department of Justice and to me, as Minister. In the letter directly to me, Detective Superintendent O'Reilly's solicitors stated: "Our client wishes to be informed of whether or not the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána has referred to your office the protected disclosures containing finer details, as made by our client." In the letter sent by Detective Superintendent O'Reilly's solicitor to the Garda Commissioner, it was stated: "It is clear that our client has made protected disclosures relating to a number of matters." At no stage did I or my Department acknowledge the existence of or send the protected disclosure or any material relating to the protected disclosure to the Garda Commissioner and at no point have I engaged with the Garda Commissioner. The only instance where Detective Superintendent O'Reilly's identity was exposed to the Garda Commissioner was in letters from solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. O'Reilly. In accordance with the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, as amended, the Department of Justice referred the disclosure on 20 September 2023, the same day it was received, to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner for consideration. This was the appropriate approach. It is important to note again that in a subsequent letter to the Garda Commissioner which my Department was copied on, the solicitor representing Detective Superintendent O'Reilly stated: "We note the referral by the Minister for Justice of our client's protected disclosure to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner." On 3 October 2023, the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner referred the disclosure back to the Department of Justice. In doing so, the commissioner considered whether there was a prescribed person within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act and the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (Disclosure to Prescribed Persons) Order 2020 to whom the disclosure could appropriately be sent. Having concluded that no such prescribed person could be identified, the OPDC also considered whether the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission was an appropriate recipient for the protected disclosure. It is important to highlight that the request from Mr. O'Reilly was that this was treated as a protected disclosure, not as a complaint. The OPDC noted that GSOC could not investigate the Garda Commissioner under section 102B of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 without authorisation from the Minister for Justice and the approval of Government. The OPDC therefore determined that the Secretary General of the Department of Justice was the appropriate recipient as another suitable person for the purpose of the Protected Disclosures Act. Under section 10E of the Act, the recipient of a disclosure is required to conduct an initial assessment and determine the most appropriate course of action. It should be noted at this point that in a letter to me, dated 13 October 2023, solicitors acting for Detective Superintendent O'Reilly wrote to the Department objecting to any investigation being conducted by the Secretary General. Detective Superintendent O'Reilly's solicitor said that the Secretary General "is not the appropriate and proper person to investigate wrongdoing alleged by our client." In a later letter to me, his solicitor requested that Detective Superintendent O'Reilly's protected disclosure be referred by the Policing Authority or GSOC. It should be noted that while GSOC is a prescribed body under the Protected Disclosures Act, the Policing Authority is not. Following consideration of the disclosure, the Secretary General submitted an e-submission to me on 19 December setting out three options. The first was a referral to GSOC; however, the advice provided to me by the Department was that there was no legal basis on which to seek Government approval for a GSOC investigation of the Garda Commissioner as the disclosure did not identify specific acts or omissions by the Commissioner that could be investigated under section 102B. It is important to say at this point that a previous similar protected disclosure had been sent to GSOC having not met the requirements under section 102B, and it was not accepted by GSOC. I was advised that sending this protected disclosure to GSOC would have resulted in a similar outcome and delayed the process. The second option was that the Department itself would investigate the matter raised. The assessment was that this would amount to the Minister and the Department investigating An Garda Síochána, an approach for which there was no precedent and which risked encroaching upon the operational independence of the Garda Commissioner. Again, Detective Superintendent O'Reilly's solicitors had objected to the Secretary General investigating this issue. The third option was referral to the office of protected disclosures within An Garda Síochána. This option was recommended on the basis that there was an established process and recent precedent for dealing with disclosures through that office. Having considered that advice, I agreed with that recommendation. Accordingly, on 21 December 2023, the Department referred the protected disclosure, clearly marked as such, to the head of the office of protected disclosures within An Garda Síochána. Again, at no stage did I send this protected disclosure to the Garda Commissioner as the Aontú motion falsely claims. I worked on the basis, as any of us here would, that the head of the office of protected disclosures would treat this referral in accordance with the legislation. On 10 April 2024, the matter was referred back to the Department of justice by An Garda Síochána, that stated, upon receipt of separate advice, that several of the issues contained within the protected disclosure were assessed to fall outside its remit. Following further engagement with the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner, the Department was advised that two options remained available. First, that with the consent of Detective Superintendent O'Reilly, the matters raised could be referred to GSOC as a complaint rather than as a protected disclosure; or second, that Detective Superintendent O'Reilly could be advised to make a protected disclosure directly to GSOC. A recommendation to write to Detective Superintendent O'Reilly outlining these options was approved by me on 15 January. The Department was subsequently informed that the solicitor was no longer acting on Mr. O'Reilly's behalf but that the solicitor would pass the correspondence on to him. As the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, has set out in his speech, he subsequently referred the issues raised by Detective Superintendent O’Reilly to GSOC as a complaint. To be very clear, the disclosure was referred to the head of the protected disclosure office within An Garda Síochána, having received the recommendation. At no point was it sent by me or the Department of justice to the Garda Commissioner. I have set out the facts in relation to the steps I took in response to the protected disclosure made by Detective Superintendent O’Reilly. Every decision that I made, I made in the public interest. My objective at all times was to ensure truth and accountability, and fairness and safety for all involved. This should not distract from the tragedy that we are discussing today and that is the murder of Detective Colm Horkan. The loss of Detective Colm Horkan was devastating. I support any further measures that are now being taken to provide clarity on the matters discussed. I commend the countermotion to the House.

Colm Horkan was murdered in 2020 while wearing a Garda holster provided to him by An Garda Síochána from an equestrian saddlery in Kildare. It was provided not by a firearm specialist by from a saddlery; horse tack on the hip of an armed garda. This warning came first to us in 2019 via whistleblowers who warned Garda management that the holsters were dangerous. One week before Colm was murdered, a garda in the Israeli ambassador's residence suffered a life-changing injury when his pistol discharged. A senior garda alleged at the time that the holsters may have been to blame. How did the Horkan family learn of that? They learned of it not from the Minister's office, not from An Garda Síochána, but from a newspaper. They were promised an apology by the former Commissioner Drew Harris. We are still waiting for that apology to the family. Last Thursday, the Minister met the family and sat down with them. He said he will not commit to an inquiry. Instead, he has asked Fiosrú to investigate. Fiosrú, by the way, is the same body that was warned about the holsters in 2019. It is like the old saying, "Ask my brother am I a liar?" It does not make sense. I have come to note in this State that the crime is not about wrongdoing; the crime in this State is about telling the truth. We only need to ask Brian O'Reilly in the Gallery here, who warned about the holster too. In December 2023, the Department of justice apologised to two different Garda whistleblowers whose details were wrongly passed on, and promises were made by that Department that new checks and balances would be implemented and put in place immediately. Thirteen days later, the Department sent the Detective Superintendent Brian O'Reilly's protected disclosure straight back to An Garda Síochána, the very people on whom he was doing the whistleblowing. It does not make sense. Thirteen days is the shelf-life of the promises of the Department of justice. Let us now look at the ammunition. Faulty ammunition rounds made by an Italian company, which was willing to take them back four years earlier, instead stayed in circulation for over four years in the Garda response unit, the armed support unit and were carried every day by up to 1,500 to 2,000 members of An Garda Síochána. This was faulty ammunition that can jam, can misfire and that could take a garda's life. Why was there no recall? It was because an internal report worried about the reputation of An Garda Síochána. It did not worry about keeping people safe. It did not worry about the front-line gardaí who were carrying this ammunition. It worried about garda reputation. It put reputation before lives. To add insult to injury, on top of that those set of bullets were destroyed later at a cost to this State of €160,000, despite the fact that the company was willing to take it back four years earlier. Let us look at the gun parts. Guns belonging to a private gun club in Kildare were brought to the Garda armoury in Dublin. They were repaired. The parts were imported under the licence that the then Minister for justice signed off in the belief that they were for Garda use. They were paid for by the taxpayer. The guns were repaired and they were driven back to the gun club in a private car belonging to a member of An Garda Síochána. Two separate investigations have confirmed this. Now, we learn today that the DPP will not prosecute. That is the story of this country. Nobody pays and nobody is answerable. That is why we are calling for an inquiry today. Let us look at the two Garda helicopters that were ordered to the sum of €20 million that have never flown over Irish airspace and probably will never. This is not through bad luck or bad decisions but through stupidity and ignorance. We should follow those stories of holsters, ammunition, firearm stores and gun parts. Let us be fair about it; it all leads to one particular door. It leads to the door of Superintendent Liam White, who was responsible for the Garda firearms and responsible for procurement. Detective Superintendent O'Reilly has told the courts that the owner of the saddlery and Superintendent White are neighbours. I wonder has anyone asked the question as to whether they are both members of the particular gun club in Kildare. I suspect we might find a very interesting answer to that. It is about time that this superintendent and previous Commissioners are put under oath in public to give those answers and to tell the truth about things. The Minister said that it is not within his role to discuss such matters. I have a newsflash for him; he is the Minister for justice. I lost my confidence in the previous Minister for justice. I have told her that and I have been honest in this House. However, I am beginning to lost confidence in the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, as well. I believe him to be an honourable man. He can restore the confidence of this side of the House in him by putting this inquiry together and by making sure an inquiry with teeth examines this. We can bring the former Commissioner Drew Harris and Superintendent Liam White before us, it can all be discussed and everything can be out in the open. The Horkan family has waited six years. Colm Horkan gave his life to this State. At the very least, this State owes his family the truth.

I am absolutely shocked by the Minister's response to this motion. The Minister has completely ignored the substance of the allegations that were made in this motion. It is as if the speech was actually written in a parallel universe. Ignoring allegations does not make them go away, or does it? Is that actually the modus operandi of the corruption that we see at the heart of senior gardaí at the moment? The Minister is ignoring the allegations, not accepting them, stopping them, not allowing them get investigated and hoping they will go away but they are not going away. They are not going away for a number of reasons, most importantly because of the people behind what has happened in relation to this wrongdoing. These gardaí and this family are not going to allow this just disappear and go away. Incredibly, another whistleblower at the heart of this crisis was arrested after blowing the whistle, and the State sought to prosecute that individual. I also put on record in the Dáil today that a litany of mistakes were made by the Government and a litany of mistakes and wrongdoing were done by An Garda Síochána in relation to this. There is clear evidence of that that I have put on the record of the Dáil. There are grievous wrongs happening here. This is a grievous wrong to the family of Colm Horkan as it seeks to hide the truth from his family. A grievous wrong is being done to the Garda, and it sends a message to anybody in the force in the future to stay quiet, shut up and keep your head down. This virtually guarantees the dysfunction of the Garda management into the future and virtually guarantees that great wrongs will be done, possibly to the lives of individuals working in that force and possibly to civilians as well. The Minister's contribution here is a continuation of the corruption that led to this horrendous tragedy. Fiosrú is not the location for this investigation. GSOC, was told about the faulty holsters before the murder of Detective Horkan. GSOC did not take action at that time. GSOC cannot be seen as an independent arbiter of the truth in this issue.

Hear, hear. It is impossible.

The Minister admitted an investigation of Brian O'Reilly was sent to Fiosrú without his consent and contrary to the law. The Minister did not deal with the 108-page document and all the unanswered questions related to it. He did not deal with the question as to why they were shut down. He did not deal with the protected disclosure unit, which was shut down, an unprecedented action by any Government or organisation in the history of the State. He completely ignored the actions of the former Minister for justice, Deputy McEntee. He ignored the questions as to why the former Minister for justice sent a protected disclosure to the Garda Síochána, the head of whom was Drew Harris, and why she publicised the name of the whistleblower. She started her contribution today by saying she has a responsibility to protect the anonymity of the whistleblowers and she herself publicised the names of the whistleblowers in the emails she sent. The fact that in his contribution the current Minister failed to address these issues breaks any confidence that any investigation he authorises will address these questions. The problem at the heart of this is that organisations punish whistleblowers to protect the rank-and-file individuals of those organisations. The Minister has also done that here today. At the heart of this situation is a grieving family, a family broken-hearted at the loss of a great man. Gardaí have also lost their hard-working and honest colleague. The Minister has refused our demand for an independent investigation. It is one thing to do that to elected representatives here but for a Minister for justice to refuse the request of the family of a fallen garda for an investigation is a defining moment in the history of this Republic. I urge the Minister at this late stage to reverse from his damaging amendment. The moral weight on his shoulders today is immense. Forget about Aontú's request or that of any other political party here. Listen to the family's request and hold a full public, independent investigation into what happened to their loved one.