Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 24 February 2026
753. Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration whether it is Departmental policy or practice that Ministers are not provided with the substance of correspondence that may constitute a protected disclosure; if so, the legal basis for such a policy; and whether, where correspondence is subsequently determined not to be a protected disclosure, the Minister is then provided with the content of that correspondence. [14352/26]
Amharc ar fhreagra754. Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration how the statutory suspending authority functions of a Minister are 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]
Amharc ar fhreagra755. 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 [14354/26]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 753, 754 and 755 together.
My Department complies with the Statutory Guidance for Public Bodies and Prescribed Persons in relation to the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (as amended), which was published by the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation in 2023. Section 10.4 of the Guidance relates to the internal procedures for a system of review. It specifies that the role of the reviewer should not be to re-investigate the matter in question but to address the specific issues the applicant feels have received insufficient consideration.
Each internal review request is treated on a case-by-case basis. While there is no statutory time limit for an internal review, my Department endeavours to conclude such reviews within three months. However, this is dependent on the complexity of each case. Where reviews go beyond the three-month timeframe the reporting person is provided with quarterly updates.
Reports of wrongdoing addressed to a Minister are required to be transmitted to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner (OPDC). This complies with Section 8(3)(a) of the Act. The OPDC decides who should be responsible for the assessment and follow-up of such correspondence.
Where correspondence is not considered a protected disclosure, it is treated as standard correspondence.
The Minister is updated on reports of wrongdoing in line with the relevant legislation. The statutory suspending functions of a Minister are not impeded by the protected disclosures procedures.
