Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 7 October 2026
1. 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; and the number upheld, dismissed or under examination. [70836/26]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy first question relates to the protected disclosures regime within An Garda Síochána and what have been fairly serious and damaging allegations made publicly, including in an "RTÉ Investigates" programme. Has the Minister carried out any assessment of whether the protected disclosures system is functioning? Could he outline how many such disclosures have been made by Garda members and staff over the past five years and how many of those have been upheld, dismissed or remain under consideration?
I thank the Deputy for his question. I, as Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, take extremely seriously any protected disclosures that are made to the justice sector. The Deputy’s question concerns members of An Garda Síochána and Garda staff. It is important to point out that a member of An Garda Síochána or a member of Garda staff has a number of options if he or she wants to make a protected disclosure. In the first instance, he or she can go to the internal protected disclosure unit within An Garda Síochána, which was enhanced in January 2025. If he or she does not want to do that, he or she can go to Fiosrú, the independent entity to which members of An Garda Síochána can also make protected disclosures. Third, he or she can go to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner, OPDC. Finally, he or she can make a protected disclosure to a Minister. Obviously, as Deputy Carthy will be aware, it is not the function of Ministers or Members of the Oireachtas to investigate protected disclosures, but what we do want to ensure happens is that there is a sorting process whereby the protected disclosure is put into an area where it will be identified, reported on and concluded. As Deputy Carthy has indicated, the legislation places reporting obligations on all public bodies.
My Department received 34 protected disclosures from members and staff of An Garda Síochána from 2022 to 2026. In 2022, my Department received three protected disclosures. Following an amendment of the Protected Disclosures Act in 2022, the process changed slightly, which I will address in a moment. From 2023, 31 disclosures were received, four of which were returned by the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner for examination. The four disclosures returned by the OPDC have been referred to the appropriate statutory body under protected disclosures legislation. An Garda Síochána has received 46 protected disclosures in the period from 2022 to date in 2026. Fiosrú has received a total of 161 protected disclosures from 2022 to 2026. I have received a breakdown of these numbers, giving information about activity in each of the years.
The protected disclosures regime was put in place to ensure we would not have a recurrence of previous scandals within An Garda Síochána. We are aware that protected disclosures have been made regarding the mishandling of weapons, the misuse of State funds and defective Garda holsters. These are very serious issues, but almost as serious is the allegation that those who made disclosures are actually sidelined, obstructed and sometimes penalised for doing so. Questions arise in respect of how the Minister's Department and, in particular, a predecessor of his handled a protected disclosure that came before her in one instance. My supplementary question is very simple: would that happen again? Is that the route that the current Minister would follow in respect of a protected disclosure of that nature? Would it be referred back to An Garda Síochána, or would he instead seek an independent examination? It is important to clarify what the situation would be today if such a protected disclosure were made.
The Deputy is going from the general to the specific. I am cautious about speaking specifically about individual protected disclosures but, obviously, I have examined the files on what happened prior to my arrival in the Department. My view is that my predecessor, Deputy McEntee, behaved in an entirely appropriate manner and followed departmental advice in respect of issues to which the Deputy is referring. As he will be aware, on 27 February 2025 I referred issues highlighted in the protected disclosure under section 102(5) of the Garda Síochána Act to Fiosrú. I referred them for the purpose of having them investigated. I do not want to get into detail on the issues arising from that, but it is important, if somebody makes a protected disclosure and we have identified an entity to investigate it, that the individual engage with that entity so it can conduct and conclude its investigation.
This is important for public confidence. It is also important for gardaí, either now or in the future, who might be inclined to make a protected disclosure. I am not asking the Minister to make a judgment call on anything that was done previously. That will happen in time. What I am asking today is this: if a member of the Garda takes it upon himself or herself to make a protected disclosure to the Minister's Department, is there a likelihood, as has happened in the past, that it will be referred to An Garda Síochána in a manner in which he or she could be identified?
Is there a likelihood, as has happened in the past, that it will be reverted to An Garda Síochána in a manner in which he or she could be identified? I will not even use up my time because that question has to be answered today.
If a protected disclosure is made to the Department or to me as Minister for justice, I will do what then Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, did in the first instance, which is refer it promptly to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner. That is the important thing to do because it is not for me as Minister to determine the process of investigation or how a disclosure should be investigated. It is important that protected disclosures get to the statutory entity that will look at who should investigate it.
There can be situations where there is communication between the OPDC and a Minister and issues will arise in respect of it. However, ultimately, what happened in this case was that the issues highlighted in the protected disclosure were referred to Fiosrú for independent investigation. It is important that the issues referred to Fiosrú for independent investigation were thoroughly investigated, but it takes two individuals for that to happen. There is the State entity receiving the information-----
With respect, the Minister is not answering the question.
-----and the person making the protected disclosure, who needs to engage with the investigator for the investigation to be concluded.
I am talking about how the Minister and his Department would deal with it. That is very disappointing.
