Search the record

earlier. I am sure the Minister came away from the "RTÉ Investigates" programme like myself. There were seriously concerning revelations in respect of protected disclosures. This Topical Issue is not to discuss that, but that will be a big test for him as Minister. For public confidence … solicitor raise concerns and will undoubtedly lead to legal challenges around fair procedures, informed legal advice, the admissibility of evidence and the protection of suspects' rights, and the risk of convictions being challenged. I do not know, and maybe the Minister can confirm, whether he is aware

were truly unacceptable and rightly caused great concern when they came to public attention. I again pay tribute to the whistleblowers who made protected disclosures relating to the handling of Grace's case. Their courage and persistence were instrumental in her finally being moved out of the foster … represent a significant shift in the way we treat children who require the care of the State, who have a right to be protected by the State and rely on us to do so. Several Deputies expressed concern about the care and monitoring of children who are being

Dáil terms. It does not appear that the issues have been addressed. We have had complaints sent into multiple agencies. We have had protected disclosures about issues relating to gas safety and enforcement. We seem to have a serious problem. For example, when it comes to Gas Networks … wish to go through a few other issues that have been mentioned including: no earth bonding; exposed gas pipes on external walls without protection; gas pipes routed through apartment stairways between floors; gas pipes in voids with no external ventilation; gas pipes in lift shafts alongside electrical controls

publicly that it only learned of these allegations in early 2024, the FAI's former director of public relations attempted to make a protected disclosure alleging the FAI had knowledge of these issues back in May 2023. I know this because I have access to the same information … reasonable grounds for concern. Reasonable grounds include "any concern about any potential sexual abuse". Did this happen in this case? Was the child protection officer informed? Was the safeguarding officer within the FAI consulted? Having seen the evidence, I think it is fair

salaries and expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman, the Office of the Commission for Public Service Appointments, the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner, the Standards in Public Office Commission, the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Office of the Commissioner for Environmental Information. Vote … supply services of unspent appropriations, the surrender of which may be deferred under Section 91 of the Finance Act 2004. Vote 37 — Social Protection (Revised Estimate) That a sum not exceeding €13,099,974,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment

repeated. I thank the commission for its final substantive report and I pay particular tribute to those who stepped forward to make protected disclosures related to the handling of Grace's case and also to the whistleblowers and people who did speak up about Grace. Their courage … device to explain how they have been failed. Grace was failed repeatedly by the very people and institutions that were supposed to protect her. I have also seen the effects of systems that are too slow or overburdened, but none of what I have seen compares to what

have paid millions for this Farrelly commission report but there have been lots of reports before this. More importantly, there is the protected disclosure made by the whistleblower. It was not the HSE that found out about the case of Grace and this foster home. It came … witnesses in a brutal way. When witnesses then wished to cross-examine someone else, they had to do it themselves with no legal protection or legal representation. There is so much wrong with this report and so much wrong with what the Government is suggesting, which is that

want to speak about the record of the Government. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, is accused of breaking the law and damaging the protected disclosures system within the Garda. I put the Government on warning that if she does not answer the questions properly on this matter, Aontú will

Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of protected disclosures made by members and staff of An Garda Síochána, either directly to his Department or through internal Garda channels, and to Fiosrú, in each of the past five years

person making the protected disclosure, who needs to engage with the investigator for the investigation to be concluded

case. You either accept that in this country we have criminal courts, civil courts, the WRC, the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner and Fiosrú, the Office of the Police Ombudsman, and that they are carrying out investigations

would be delighted to conclude. If the Deputy wants to introduce amendments to change the laws in this country in relation to the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, he should please do so. In the absence of that, the Government is committed to reviewing the full legislation and making

trusted to do so. In that regard, it has been over a week since the "RTÉ Investigates" programme concerning the treatment of protected disclosures within An Garda Síochána. The Minister spoke on RTÉ 1 earlier. He has not yet addressed the Dáil on the many questions that Members

those systems, the protection of confidential information and the accountability when safeguards fail are entirely relevant. Within that, safeguards in the Garda protected disclosure unit have clearly failed. I ask the Minister to come before the House and address the various questions that are outstanding. If the Minister

allow either the current justice Minister and the previous one to come into the Chamber to answer questions regarding the architecture of the protected disclosures office? Garda confidence has been massively undermined, as testified to by the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors and the Garda Representative Association

point of order, the Minister is aware that these protected disclosures are closed so that does not prevent her from answering any questions, just to be helpful. They waived their anonymity

work. There is a clear process in place. There is a clear structure in place, which clearly outlines that, where matters are a protected disclosure and where issues are before the courts or other bodies, I am precluded from commenting, as are others, so I am not hiding

clearly states that, under the law, it is not an option to comment on or confirm the existence or details of any specific protected disclosure. What the Deputy is referencing, what was highlighted last night and what was spoken of by individuals clearly suggests that is what

this is simply this. Tonight, the very person, Dr. Donal Corcoran, who was in charge of running the protected disclosures office will tell a story of how he and others experienced and observed consistent undermining of the independence of the office and active interference at the most senior

Deputy knows what happens when a protected disclosure is made. It does not go to the officeholder. It does not go to a Minister and it does not go to An Taoiseach. The Deputy knows that well. Why try to distort it? Let us get to the truth

Ministers cannot interfere in the investigation of the protected disclosure. What the Deputy is really implicating and insinuating here is that Ministers should. She is basically saying Ministers should interfere

accountability, yes, in respect of issues that fall to An Garda Síochána, its management and all of that but not in terms of protected disclosures. That is the point I was trying to make

Garda Síochána? Have gardaí received training? The previous Minister was not able to explain that to me in terms of the Protected Disclosures Act and the criminal offence of penalising and retaliating

functions; and — that selective internal investigations within An Garda Síochána have been weaponised against members of the force who raise legitimate concerns, submit protected disclosures or act as whistleblowers; calls on the Government to initiate a public inquiry into the conduct of internal Garda investigations during, and subsequent

will haunt the Minister, Deputy McEntee. What will also haunt them is the manner in which they did not deal appropriately with protected disclosures that were made to them. I guarantee that it will come back to haunt these Ministers. I guarantee

Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality the number of protected disclosures that have gone missing or have been compromised that have been submitted to her Department or State bodies that are responsible to her Department. [32281/26

Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Health the number of protected disclosures that have gone missing or have been compromised that have been submitted to her Department or State bodies that are responsible to her Department. [32290/26

Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science the number of protected disclosures that have gone missing or have been compromised that have been submitted to his Department or State bodies that are responsible to his Department. [32289/26

Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht the number of protected disclosures that have gone missing or have been compromised that have been submitted to his Department or State bodies that are responsible to his Department. [32294/26

Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation whether he accepts that the evidential presumption in respect of penalisation under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, as amended, is not currently required to be applied during the administrative handling and investigation of disclosures by public bodies

circular or binding instruction to all Departments, agencies, and prescribed persons requiring that, in assessing alleged penalisation of a reporting person under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, as amended, decision-makers apply an evidential approach consistent with that set out in the Act for adjudicative proceedings. [24677/26

Digitalisation his views on whether there is a flaw in the way in which EU Directive 2019/1937 has been transposed with the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022 in relation to the fact that the burden of proof is reversed when penalisation is alleged, but this has only been

Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the specific actions that were taken to implement the recommendations arising from an investigation (details supplied) into protected disclosures concerning dysfunctional reporting systems; and the audit or verification that has been carried out to confirm their effectiveness in practice. [23472/26

Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Health whether she is aware of protected disclosures made by staff within CHI in relation to IT systems, governance, or patient safety concerns; if so, the actions that were taken; the investigations that were carried out; and the outcomes or remedial

asked the Minister for Health whether any communications have taken place between her and senior CHI leadership, including the CEO, in relation to protected disclosures made by staff; and if so, to provide details. [22832/26

Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation whether the reversal of the burden of proof provided for under the protected disclosures legislation applies only during formal adjudicative proceedings before bodies such as the Workplace Relations Commission and the courts, or whether it also applies during

Service Reform and Digitalisation whether any guidance has been issued to public bodies advising that the evidential presumption relating to retaliation under the protected disclosures legislation should be applied when assessing disclosures internally; and if no such guidance has issued, whether the Government has considered whether the absence

Public Service Reform and Digitalisation whether the Government has assessed whether administrative decisions taken without applying the evidential presumption provided for in the protected disclosures legislation may expose the State to avoidable litigation risk where those decisions are later challenged in proceedings before the Workplace Relations Commission

circulars, or instructions have been issued to Departments, agencies, or prescribed persons regarding the application of the evidential presumption provided for under the protected disclosures legislation when assessing alleged retaliation during the administrative handling of disclosures; and if such guidance exists, whether he will provide details

Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration to outline the Department's policy regarding reviews of protected disclosure assessment decisions, including whether reviewers are required to be independent of the original decision-maker; whether reporting persons are informed of the reviewer

issued any policy guidance, circulars, statutory codes or administrative instructions concerning the classification and statistical reporting of offences under section 24 of the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022; whether his Department has undertaken any review of the adequacy of national reporting mechanisms for such offences since enactment

Migration the statistical and reporting framework relied upon by his Department for compiling figures on referrals and prosecutions under section 24 of the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022; whether those figures are drawn from offences recorded under a distinct legislative code within national reporting systems; and whether

statutory remit to examine systemic or organisational ethical failures affecting professional practice; whether she accepts that reliance on internal organisational processes and the Protected Disclosures Act places the burden of regulatory escalation on individual workers rather than an independent regulator; the independent mechanism, if any, which currently exists

exercised in circumstances where correspondence raising serious allegations is not provided to the Minister on the basis that it may constitute a protected disclosure; and whether any guidance exists to ensure that the Minister’s discretion is not unintentionally fettered in such situations [14353/26

Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration what procedures and timelines apply to internal reviews of protected disclosure assessment decisions within the Department; whether there are target timeframes for completion; and how procedural fairness is ensured for reporting persons during such reviews

Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation the protections available to franchisees or workers of a company (details supplied) who make protected disclosures regarding corporate governance, employment status, or misconduct. [10232/26

Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the number of protected disclosures which were transmitted by him to the OPDC under section 8 during the period 1 November 2025 to-date in 2026. [7787/26

Employment the amount expended by the Corporate Enforcement Authority in respect of legal expenditure relates to the “distractions” referenced in the annual reports, protected disclosures and HR and related matters, as distinct from enforcement related legal expenses. [6632/26

detailed account of all expenditure incurred by Tusla, in appointing a company (details supplied) as an independent body to examine and/or investigate protected disclosures in Cork in each of the years 2020, 2021 and 2022, including professional fees, associated legal costs, VAT and any other related expenses

Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Transport if any protected disclosures, workplace complaints, or governance concerns were cited to him or his Department as part of the dispute involving the DAA Chief Executive; and to outline the governance framework under which such matters were handled, including