Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Oct 2026

Vol. 1091 No. 5

• Díospóireachtaí
• Aimsigh díospóireacht
  • Díospóireachtaí na Dála
  • Díospóireachtaí an tSeanaid
  • Díospóireachtaí Coiste
• Aimsigh vótáil
  • Vótálacha na Dála
  • Vótálacha an tSeanaid
  • Vótálacha Coiste
• Ceisteanna Parlaiminte
  • Ceisteanna scríofa
  • Ceisteanna ó bhéal
• Leideanna cuardaigh
• Nuair a bhíonn tionchar tromchúiseach ag aithrisí

Ceisteanna ó Cheannairí - Leaders' Questions

Deputy David Cullinane

There have been encouraging reports since yesterday from the talks aimed at resolving the very serious situation on the Garvaghy Road. I would imagine that everybody in this House, and indeed outside it, hopes that these discussions lead to a breakthrough. The people of the Garvaghy Road and this community have shown extraordinary integrity, dignity and resilience throughout this period. They have stood together as a community, calmly but firmly, in defence of their right to live in peace and without an unwanted march being imposed upon them. Their strength and dignity have resonated far beyond Portadown. They have received solidarity and support from across this island, while events on the Garvaghy Road have attracted attention far beyond Ireland. This community has carried the scars of Drumcree for decades but which has nevertheless built and protected nearly 30 years of peace. Their strength and dignity throughout these difficult days deserve acknowledgement in this House. What is needed now is sustained engagement at the most senior level in this State to ensure that a positive way forward is secured.

This cannot be treated simply as a dispute over an Orange march through the Garvaghy Road community because what has happened over recent days has reopened one of the most sensitive and dangerous wounds in our modern history. A co-ordinated campaign has been pursued to push an unwanted sectarian and triumphalist march through a nationalist community which has lived without that confrontation for almost three decades, and the consequences extend far beyond the Garvaghy Road. It risks deepening division, destabilising politics across the North, and damaging confidence in the agreements and political relationships which have sustained peace for almost 30 years. It could also place at risk the accommodations that have developed around Orange Order marches across the North, where nationalist communities have shown enormous generosity and restraint in accommodating marches with which they profoundly disagree.

This is why both Governments must be fully and directly engaged. The British and the Irish Governments are co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement. Indeed, the people of the Garvaghy Road look to the Irish Government for leadership, and at moments of serious political difficulty in the past, progress was made because Governments engaged intensively and at the highest political level. While progress in talks is welcome - and we are all watching what is happening - there can be no ambiguity about what a sustainable solution must achieve. It cannot leave the community under the continuing threat of an unwanted Orange march being forced down the Garvaghy Road because for almost three decades this community has lived without an Orange march being imposed upon it, and this peace has to be maintained.

What direct political engagement has the Irish Government had with the British Government over the course of this crisis? Have the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach spoken with the British Prime Minister or with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Has the Government made clear to its British counterparts that any durable, sustainable resolution must mean that no Orange march is forced down the Garvaghy Road? Will the Tánaiste give a commitment in the House that the Irish Government will remain actively and intensively engaged at the highest political level until a peaceful and a lasting resolution is secured?

The Tánaiste

I will start with the Deputy's final point and say, yes, the Irish Government will be involved at all levels and at the highest level in relation to this ongoing, tense and concerning issue. I think everybody in the House would agree that we have come much too far to ever go back, when it comes to the North. We all agree on that. In many ways this is not simply a Green versus Orange issue. It is actually an issue of whether people want to go forward or backwards, and we all want to move forward. I believe there are significant majorities across communities in the North, across the island of Ireland and across these islands that want us to move forward together and never return to the past, despite the fact there is enduring hurt from the past, which I want to acknowledge. I met residents from the Garvaghy Road in Leinster House last Thursday. I was struck by two things when I met them. First, I was struck by the really good work that has gone on in that community over a sustained period. I was particularly struck by the commentary around youth work. Later in the week I heard residents from the Garvaghy Road on radio talking about how communities now mix and how children play and move around in their lives regardless of political tradition or religious background. Real progress has been made.

I was struck by something else, though. When I met the residents last Thursday, it was before the Parades Commission's decision, and there was still a hope at that time that the decision would not go the way it went. The residents told me in no uncertain terms that there had been a level of trauma and re-traumatisation caused over the course of those days, even if the Parades Commission had ruled that the parade could not go ahead. That is real too and we will have to return to that as a government, as a country and as a people.

Now is the time for all of us to be very calm and for people like me to be careful in what we say. There is that history of hurt around Drumcree. It is an extraordinarily sensitive and painful situation. We all want to protect the gains that have been made through the peace process for people across the island and there is a responsibility on everyone to contribute positively to finding a way through this situation.

I welcome the exploratory discussions that are taking place with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Like the Deputy, I have read and heard some positive feedback in relation to that in recent hours. My colleague, the Minister for foreign affairs, Deputy McEntee, has been in daily contact with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as well as meeting him in the North in recent days. The Taoiseach has been in regular contact with the British Prime Minister. Both of them and both Governments share the commitment to upholding the Good Friday Agreement and the immeasurable gains that have been made through that agreement over the past almost three decades.

At an official level as well, as the Deputy and his party will know, there is ongoing contact with a number of stakeholders, including residents from the Garvaghy Road residents' coalition. I have had a number of discussions with the Deputy's party leader. The Taoiseach and I met the Deputy's party leader as well as vice president earlier this week. We should all continue to keep in contact.

I am conscious that a further appeal against the Parades Commission decision is listed to be heard in the Court of Appeal tomorrow, I believe. This is a submission by the Garvaghy Road residents' coalition. I will not comment on any matters before the courts other than to say I think we all share the view that it would be desirable if the talks got us to a point where we could find a way forward. Huge progress has been made over many years. Northern Ireland is in such a different and better place and a return to the divisions of the past is unthinkable. There is a responsibility on all of us in positions of leadership to make sure we find a way through this together.

Deputy David Cullinane

The Orange sectarian state of the past is gone, and is not coming back, not today, not tomorrow or not ever. The peace obviously must be maintained. The nationalist community is strong, confident and resilient, as are the people who live on the Garvaghy Road, and they simply want to live in peace. A generation has lived without confrontation and without sectarian marches being imposed on them. Obviously, it was the wrong decision in the first place to allow that parade to go ahead. Many people from across nationalist Ireland, and I would say some within unionism, are looking on and saying, "Who are these people who are trying to bring us back to the past?" They have to be faced down and it cannot be allowed to happen.

As I said, there are talks ongoing. I want those talks to succeed but we also have to send very strong signals of solidarity with the residents of that community that the dark days of the past, and those images and the murders and all that happened, are never ever going to happen again. What will the Irish Government be doing over the next number of days in relation to its engagement with the British Government and the Secretary of State?

The Tánaiste

In all fairness, I think I have very clearly answered that question. We will be continuing to stay involved at the highest levels, and at all levels political and official, with counterparts and interlocutors in the British Government and the Secretary of State, with the community and residents, and with political parties and political leaders in the North, including Deputy Cullinane's party leadership as well.

I have been very clear, as has the Taoiseach, in our view regarding the decision of the Parades Commission. We have a very clear view on that. I do not want to say anything at this moment in time when people are endeavouring to try to find a resolution in good faith in the talks, and those talks need to continue.

It is important in any shared future and any shared island that we all respect each other's cultures. Of that there is no doubt and Deputy Cullinane has said that too. Every single year, thousands of parades take place across the North and most of them pass off, thankfully and rightfully, without incident. We must all respect each other's cultures. We all know, though, that when it comes to Drumcree there is a very particular sensitivity, hurt and trauma and we cannot allow the retraumatisation of the community. That is the context. It is not about parades being good or bad or who can celebrate or commemorate their tradition or culture. There has to be a place for all cultures. We all know, and Deputy Cullinane knows it well, there is a particular history attached to Drumcree that everyone is aware of in the North across traditions. That is what cannot be lost in the conversations in the hours and days ahead.

Deputy Pádraig Rice

It is now four days since the CHI scoping inquiry was published and the serious concerns of the families have not been addressed. Worse, they have been ignored. I want to reiterate why the families have these concerns. Their children, who have scoliosis and spina bifida, were repeatedly failed by the health service and the Government. Critical surgeries were delayed, sometimes for years. In some cases the delays were so long that the children became inoperable. Children were left in excruciating pain as the curvature of their spines reached dangerous levels. For some, their tiny bodies were twisted so much that their internal organs were crushed and damaged. They had difficulty breathing, were unable to sleep and spent nearly every waking moment either uncomfortable or in pain. Children missed out on school and time with friends, and their parents had to watch them suffer, helpless and unable to do anything to alleviate their trauma. Some families suffered the biggest loss imaginable with the death of a child.

The word "scandal" can sometimes be overused in Irish politics but the word feels inadequate to describe what these children and their families have endured. It involved repeated failures that lasted for years and potentially thousands of children. This is why the Tánaiste must get the public inquiry right. After everything these children and their parents have gone through, surely it is the least they deserve. What has been proposed this week simply does not cut it. Surely the Tánaiste can see that. The proposal is for an inquiry primarily to be held behind closed doors, which uses 2019 as the starting point when we all know this goes much further back. In 2014, for example, a report found serious failures in special services including neurology. Three years later, in 2017, the Tánaiste made the infamous promise to these families and their children that no one would wait longer than four months for surgery. The events leading up to this and the Tánaiste's broken promise will now be erased from the record of the inquiry. This is wrong and the Tánaiste knows it.

The Government has one chance to get this inquiry right. These children and what they have suffered cannot be airbrushed out of the record, which is what the families fear most. They have no trust in the Government, in CHI or in the proposed inquiry. Will the Tánaiste ensure their concerns are addressed? Will he ensure this inquiry is not primarily held behind closed doors? Will he expand the terms of reference so it begins before 2019 and, crucially, covers the time when he was the Minister for Health?

The Tánaiste

If we are to have an honest debate around this it would be helpful if we listened to each other. It would be very helpful if Deputy Rice had listened to what the Taoiseach said in the House yesterday when this issue was raised. It is not helpful to the many parents who engaged with Mr. Farrell's scoping inquiry. He is a very eminent senior counsel, which I am sure Deputy Rice would accept, who has done a very comprehensive piece of work. He has listened to so many people and read so many documents. It is he, not me and not Deputy Rice, who has come to the view in his independent scoping inquiry. Deputy Rice would probably be asking a lot more serious questions if we decided to ignore the independent scoping inquiry and what the independent senior counsel has said.

It is utterly wrong, and legally wrong, to suggest that a commission of inquiry is all or mainly held in private. The Taoiseach as the head of the Government was very clear yesterday on this issue and let me make it very clear again. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday rightly, accurately and fairly acknowledged that there may well be parents and others who wish to co-operate with a statutory inquiry in private, as is their right. There may well be, and will be, others who will want to give their evidence in public as, in my view, is their right. The mechanism of a commission of inquiry allows for this latitude. It allows for parts of an inquiry to be held in public and for parts of an inquiry to be held in private. We have to respect both because there are families who have gone through hell and back and the most unimaginable agony. Some of the families are known to people in the Oireachtas because they have felt the need to speak out and speak up, as is their right. There are other families whose names none of us know and they have as much right to be heard.

We have got to get this structure right. What we have said very clearly is the lengthy scoping inquiry report, which is about 134 pages or thereabouts, from Mr. Farrell has been published. There will now be engagement on the terms of reference through the Minister for Health with the advocacy groups. This should happen. The terms of reference will then have to be put before this House. This House has to ratify them so everyone here will have a role. We have to be very clear in giving effect in this process to what the Taoiseach said yesterday, and I am now paraphrasing him, on the latitude the chairperson will have in terms of the timeframe. There should be no rigidity around 2019 or anything like that. This is about getting it right. We know, and those of us who have been in the House for quite a period of time know too, that getting the terms of reference right matters and getting the chairperson right matters, as does making sure there is ongoing engagement. The trust of the advocacy groups in the chairperson will be absolutely key.

The Government has agreed, and has been crystal clear, on the need for a statutory inquiry. We put in place Mr. Farrell who, I am sure Deputy Rice will accept, is completely independent. He is a very robust and competent senior counsel. We have published his report for all to see and we will now see that there is engagement. The Department of Health will work closely in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, and there will be a call for input from advocacy groups on the terms of reference. I really do want to say that. The final terms of reference will come back to the Government for approval.

Deputy Pádraig Rice

I read Mr. Farrell's report from start to finish-----

The Tánaiste

Me too.

Deputy Pádraig Rice

-----and I spent the past couple of days talking to parents and families who are furious. They say this is worse than they feared. They feel unheard. They said this has the potential to be a farce. The Tánaiste has to listen to them. I also listened to the Taoiseach yesterday, who said there would be more consultation. Meanwhile, the Minister for Health said she accepts the recommendations in full. Which is it? Will there be more consultation and change to what is proposed or is the Government accepting it in full? The Government has to get this straight because we are hearing different things from the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health. Yesterday the Taoiseach said there will be discretion around the timeline. Will this be locked into the terms of reference? Is it guaranteed? Are we going to look at the period when the Tánaiste was Minister for Health back in 2017 when he made the commitment?

Families feel like an afterthought and they want more transparency. The Tánaiste knows that the vast majority of the families pulled out of the scoping inquiry because they were not given the information they wanted. The report mentions eight reports. Three of them remain unpublished and have not been provided to the families. They have said they need to see them. Will the Tánaiste change tack? We need to go back further than 2019 and this primarily needs to be held in public as the families demand.

The Tánaiste

When we talk about families we have to accept there is a diversity of views. There are absolutely some families and advocacy groups-----

Deputy Pádraig Rice

The majority.

The Tánaiste

Allow me to speak. They have a view that this should be held fully in public.

There are also some who do not believe that. No matter what the number is, everybody has a right to be heard. When we are talking about the medical information of a person or their child, they have a right to be heard in a way that works for them. We do not need to be adversarial on these issues. People can choose to be if they want to, or we can try to get a flexible structure in place based on the expert legal opinion of a very eminent senior counsel.

We are very clear. We have published the Remy Farrell report in full. It is important to do that from the perspective of transparency because he was asked to do a job and we should not impugn his reputation and the job he did. We will then have engagement with the Attorney General's office and, as we said very clearly, there will also be engagement with the Department of Health and the advocacy groups on the terms of reference. The terms of reference will have to come back.

The Deputy is making fair points that I think merit consideration as to how we ensure that latitude is reflected because I agree about the rigidity around 2019. There is also the idea of making sure that those who wish to give evidence in public can do so too. I agree with that as well, but we have got to have those conversations about how to do this right. I do not believe it is beyond the ingenuity of this House to get this right. I share the Deputy's view that it is very important to get the structure of this right.

Deputy Ged Nash

We are days away from the announcement of budget 2027 and it looks like everything will be leaked in advance, or will the Tánaiste be able to keep a few morsels in his back pocket for budget day? Later today, the Labour Party will publish its alternative budget. We will set out our plans for a future we can all afford. To take on the cost-of-living crisis, our plan is unapologetically and relentlessly focused on three key issues: energy, incomes and child poverty. By taxing wealth sensibly and putting windfall taxes on soaring energy and bank profits, it shows how we can widen and deepen the tax base, and that we can build better public services and support the PAYE workers and households that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil left behind last year. It also shows that Ireland can afford to provide targeted energy credits worth €400 to over 1.2 million homes that need them, that as a country that remembers what it was to be poor, we can afford a second targeted rate of child benefit and, as a wealthy and highly unequal economy, we can afford to increase social welfare payments by €15 a week, increase public sector pay and index income tax to help workers.

I do not need to tell the Tánaiste that people across the country are worried sick about how they will pay the bills this winter as grocery and energy prices rise higher and higher, and as the Government puts up the cost of public transport. When people read the news today, however, they will also be angry. They will be angry about the waste of public money outlined in the report from the Comptroller and Auditor General covering 2025. We can take our pick of the issues uncovered across Departments and agencies by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

We need to know what the Government is doing about irresponsible spending and how it will budget effectively and responsibly for next year and beyond. Last year, a €600 million hole was left in the budget of the Department of education, but there is also a growing overspend in the Department of Health of close to €1 billion. Can we expect there to be cuts of that magnitude next year to the budgets of other Departments to protect essential healthcare, or will the Government, like we do, present honest, fully funded budgets?

The publication of existing level of service, ELS, estimates from the Parliamentary Budget Office yesterday shines a light on the dilemma and realities faced by the Government. It reckons that when all the known demands on the available pot of money are factored in for new spending, just €1 billion would be left next year for new measures, new public services and new innovations. That money will be to cover the promises that the Tánaiste and his colleagues have already made on childcare, the cost of disability, carers, education and so on. That €1 billion is also about the same size as the predicted health overspend. How is the Government going to fund it all? Will there be up to €1 billion of cuts in other Departments next year to fund overspends in health, or will the Government be responsible and increase taxes on wealth to fund the scale of public services and income supports our country needs?

A Deputy

Hear, hear.

The Tánaiste

I thank the Deputy very much. There is certainly no fear of Labour's alternative budget being leaked anyway. I look forward to it being published later this afternoon and having a chance to read it and engage constructively on it in the time ahead. At the outset, let me say that while we will all come at this from different perspectives and points of view, I do not doubt that every party in this House, Government and Opposition will be endeavouring to explore ways in which we can all assist people with the cost-of-living challenges. I share the view that one of the largest challenges families, businesses, farmers, households and the country in general face is the energy situation.

There is a balance that we have got to get right here between helping people in the here and now and helping to accelerate the transition. In fairness to the Deputy's party, I know it is taking this seriously, and we have to take it seriously. We need to help people in the here and now, but we also need to see how we can assist people who are genuinely full of common sense and trying to do the right thing by their own families, businesses and farms, but need us, as the Government, to make sure that grants and other means can help to bridge the gap and make that a viable proposition for them. We saw some measures in that space this week from the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien. I think 11 more measures were announced around sustainable energy grants, such as a boiler scrappage scheme. We need to build on this in the time ahead.

In relation to the issue of the health service, I know well that there is a demand. It is a demand-led service and there are legitimate pressure points that occur throughout the year. Demands can also come from the Government and the Opposition sometimes to purchase new drugs or buy new things, and these are legitimate things that can happen outside the budgetary cycle. The Minister for Health and the Minister for public expenditure and reform are working very closely on making sure we have an adequately funded budget, as well as a realisation across the health service that budgets matter too. Good work is going on in relation to that.

I will look at Labour's proposals in relation to what it means by taxing wealth. I do not mean that glibly. We do not have enough conversations in this House about how we grow the wealth of our country so we can take in more revenue and then divide it up across our people. I would never wish to do anything and neither, I believe, would the Deputy, that would have any sort of chilling effect on enterprise or investment in our country.

Turning to the broader point the Deputy made, making sure we get value for money for taxpayers is an important one. We are in a rare position as a country of being able to deliver a budget next week that will see us being able to reduce some taxes, including taxes on work, and that is serious about sitting down with our public service unions and negotiating a new public sector pay deal because work must always pay, including work in the public service. We also aim to increase public expenditure. When governments across the European Union are not in a position to be able to do those things, there is an even greater responsibility on us to make sure there is delivery, outputs and outcomes from that additional level of investment. The budget, in all its parts, will be delivered to the Oireachtas next Tuesday. I look forward to debating its contents with the Deputy then.

Deputy Ged Nash

We will have overspends in health this year. We have had overspends in education this year, and we will have overspends in other Departments as well. The principal reason for the overspends in health and some other key spending Departments is that this Government and its immediate predecessor decided to engage in fictional, fraudulent budgeting.

I will give an example. Last year, the Minister for education made it very clear to the Department of public expenditure that she was at least €600 million short in respect of the special education services and transport services that her Department needed to provide. There was an understanding this time last year with the Department of public expenditure that it would be back knocking on the door this year and, lo and behold, €600 million plus was delivered this year. That is no way to manage an economy, no way to run a country and no way to run public services.

It is beyond time that we had an honest debate in this House about tax and spending and the real challenges we face as a country. We have not had that and we will not have it next week. What we will have next week is another effort at a budget that will involve a little bit here and there for everyone. That is not sufficient for an economy of this scale and a society that has the ambitions we have. We need that honest debate and we need honest budgeting.

The Tánaiste

I love honest debate and I welcome it. I look forward to honest, robust debate on our proposals and Labour's proposals in a constructive spirit to try to get the best outcome for the people that we are all elected to serve. I will make the point that just because the Department says it needs more, does not mean that a Government should say "Grand, here is another cheque".

Deputy Ged Nash

It does, though.

The Tánaiste

We have got to a level of public spending now, and I do not mean this smartly, that was almost unimaginable when the Deputy's party was in government. We are at a level of public spending now that does merit the question. It is one thing to ask people to do more with less, but it is quite another thing to ask State agencies and Departments to try to do more with more. I do not buy into the idea, and I am not saying that the Deputy does either, that every challenge in the public service can be addressed with another cheque and more funding. We do have to ask how we can reform things.

If we look at what the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, is doing, to take the example of the health service, that is exactly what we should be seeing from Ministers. It is that we are willing to negotiate new contracts but there will be a need to reform the way people work and hospitals will have to function as busily on a Saturday as they do on a Thursday. That is the sort of ambition we need for the health service. We will have a chance to debate the detail of all of this at great length and appropriately so from next Tuesday.

Deputy Paul Lawless

It has emerged that a whistleblower made a very serious protected disclosure to the Minister for justice in September 2023. It alleged that the gun holsters being used by An Garda Síochána were faulty and dangerous. The whistleblower said that the warnings about the unregulated gun holsters had been ignored. The faulty gun holsters are alleged to have contributed to the murder of one garda because it was so easy for the killer to slip the garda's gun from the holster, and the serious injury of another because the holster effectively triggered the trigger when it was being pulled.

The disclosure alleges that Drew Harris stopped an independent safety review into the holster from taking place. As this disclosure directly implicated the Garda Commissioner, it was legally routed to the Department of justice. The Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner ruled that the Department of justice was the appropriate body to investigate the disclosure. However, the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Helen McEntee, directly intervened and told her officials to send the matter back to An Garda Síochána to investigate. We have documentary evidence to show she blocked the Department from investigating.

When this was returned to An Garda Síochána, the whistleblower himself was named. The Minister for justice broke the law in relation to this. The whistleblower's identity should have been protected. Instead, the whistleblower was exposed to the same employer against which he was making the allegations and, consequently, his life became hell. When the matter was referred back to An Garda Síochána, the two people responsible for looking into it were so outraged that they themselves blew the whistle and subsequently submitted protected disclosures. The Garda Commissioner responded by effectively shutting down the protected disclosures unit, leaving the new whistleblowers without a job.

This is a massive scandal and, in many ways, it is even worse than the Maurice McCabe scandal a number of years ago. Does the Tánaiste accept that the Minister for justice broke the law in her handling of the situation? When the Tánaiste was Minister for justice, a protected disclosure landed on his desk in relation to faulty ammunition. What role did he play in the decision to refer that disclosure back to An Garda Síochána?

The Tánaiste

As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows, the Oireachtas must always uphold the laws within which we all operate. The legislation passed by this House in 2014 was very clear. It was to remove politicians from the investigation of complaints surrounding wrongdoing in the workplace of State agencies. This resulted in the passage and signing into law of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. The Act puts in place measures to support and protect people with concerns about actions or omissions in their workplace who wish to speak up and to do so confidentially and safely. It is very important that robust legislation is in place in relation to that because whistleblowing plays an important role in our democracy and in democracy more broadly.

A review of the operation of the Protected Disclosures Act is due to take place in the coming year. This will begin with a public consultation in which I would encourage all stakeholders and wider society to participate. When we passed the law in 2014, it specifically committed to a review of the legislation. That is timely and important.

As the Deputy alluded to, a number of concerns expressed in the RTÉ programme are subject to the legislation and have been subject to actions under it. This restricts what can be said, despite the ability of complainants to openly outline their concerns. We have legislation that seems to openly allow complainants to speak, which is absolutely appropriate, but there are restrictions on what officeholders can say in response. In light of the comments made in that programme, and some of the comments the Deputy has reiterated here today, as is his right, the current Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, has sought legal advice in relation to the restrictions imposed under section 16 of the Protected Disclosures Act. This is helpful. The Minister will consider the advice on receipt of it. It is important that anything that can be said and shared should be said and shared.

There are robust structures, policies and procedures in place across the criminal justice system to ensure the effective management of protected disclosures and to provide support to people who make disclosures under the Act. I am very confident that all Ministers in the Government, and all Ministers in governments, follow advice from officials and legal advice in relation to these matters.

In relation to due process and fairness, where critical processes are ongoing in response to a protected disclosure, they must be allowed to progress and conclude. This includes matters currently before criminal courts, civil courts or the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, or which are the subject of current investigations by Fiosrú, the Office of the Police Ombudsman. I understand that this applies to many or all of the matters raised either in the RTÉ programme or here today. The people concerned may choose to comment on a range of matters, as is their right, but it is very important that nobody else says anything that puts at risk the integrity of those essential processes. If there are matters before the courts, the WRC or Fiosrú, we as an Oireachtas should be conscious of that in our commentary.

Deputy Paul Lawless

I am very disappointed with that response. I have met the whistleblowers and noted the moral courage they have demonstrated in raising really important issues, such as defective ammunition and holsters that have possibly contributed to the murder of one member of the force.

I am asking a very simple question. It is very clear from the evidence I have seen that the Minister for justice referred this issue back to An Garda Síochána and did not follow proper protocols. As a result, the individuals were jeopardised and their lives were effectively made hell. The identities of the individuals concerned were not even concealed. That is unacceptable. The question is very simple. Did the Minister, in the Tánaiste's view, break the law in relation to it? The identities of the individuals were revealed and the matter was sent back to the very force, the very same employer, that the individuals were making the allegations against.

The Tánaiste

It nearly seems as if the Deputy is endeavouring to be the investigative body himself on the floor of Dáil Éireann. The House – it is not my decision – took a decision in 2014 that this should not be how this works. There are robust structures in place. People can and should highlight information in relation to wrongdoing in a workplace. That then has to be investigated robustly.

Deputy Paul Lawless

It has not been. That is the point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please, Deputy Lawless.

The Tánaiste

That is the Deputy's view and opinion-----

Deputy Paul Lawless

No.

The Tánaiste

-----which he is perfectly entitled to have.

Deputy Paul Lawless

Is it not yours?

The Tánaiste

What he is not entitled to do, in my humble opinion, is be judge, jury and executioner, deciding everything according to what he believes to be the 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-----

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

They are not, though. That is the problem.

The Tánaiste

-----into a number of these matters, or you do not. If the Deputy wants to introduce amendments to the legislation-----

Deputy Paul Lawless

This is not happening. That is the point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Lawless is out of order.

Deputy Paul Lawless

That is the point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Tánaiste must be allowed to conclude.

The Tánaiste

I 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 sure it is working robustly. If there are areas where it needs to be improved, let us address them. I have full confidence that not just the Minister in question but also all other Ministers in the Government comply fully with the law and advice of officials.

• Ceisteanna Eile - Other Questions
• Ar ais chuig clár ábhair
• Ceisteanna ó na Comhaltaí Eile - Other Members’ Questions