Mary Mitchell O'Connor (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Alan Kelly, Deputy John McGuinness and Deputy Marc MacSharry for raising this issue.

The Deputies will be aware that the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 provides a detailed and comprehensive legal framework to allow any worker who is penalised for making a protected disclosure to secure redress. The Act is supplemented by the procedures that all public bodies are required to put in place under section 21 for the making of protected disclosures and for dealing with such disclosures.

The Department of Education and Skills operates within this legal framework when dealing with protected disclosures. The Deputies will appreciate that there is a legal responsibility on the Department to protect the identity of the individual who makes a protected disclosure. While respecting this legal responsibility, I am happy to provide the Deputies with an update on the specific issue raised today. I can confirm that the Department received a protected disclosure relating to CIT in May 2017. There have been 12 steps to the process since then. In line with the agreed procedures within the Department, the disclosure was referred to the Higher Education Authority for examination. Under step two, I understand officials from the HEA made initial contact with Cork Institute of Technology in July 2017 to provide the officials with an outline of the allegations, but in a manner to protect the identity of the discloser consistent with the strict confidentiality provisions set out in section 16. The HEA has also met the discloser to discuss the allegations in more detail.

Under step three, following an initial response from CIT, officials from the HEA met the discloser to discuss the disclosures in more detail. Under step four there was subsequent correspondence between the HEA and the discloser arising from that meeting. Under step five, in light of the additional information arising from this subsequent engagement with the discloser, the HEA has recently taken further steps to examine the issues raised. Specifically, under step seven, the HEA wrote to the chair of the governing body of CIT on 29 June seeking the definitive response from CIT to the allegations.

Under step eight, the HEA has asked CIT to respond to a specific set of questions relating to the disclosures. The HEA sought confirmation that CIT is satisfied that academic staff in the department in question are not engaged in any external activities that are in conflict with their roles in CIT. The HEA sought confirmation that academic staff in that department have sought the necessary approvals to engage in external employment outside CIT. The HEA sought confirmation that CIT is satisfied that there has been no breach of the code of conduct for employees by academic staff in that department. The HEA sought details of the actions taken by CIT to investigate any previous or similar complaints or allegations made about those same issues. The HEA also asked whether CIT has suffered any adverse financial impact as a result of the practices that are alleged to have happened in the protected disclosure.

See this speech in context