Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Dáil Éireann: acknowledges that:

— the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, as amended, was enacted to give effect to the European Union's Whistleblowing Directive and to protect persons who, in good faith, report wrongdoing in the public interest;

— despite these statutory protections, numerous whistleblowers have faced retaliation, career destruction, delay or suppression of their disclosures through misuse of process, non-investigation, or coercive confidentiality agreements;

— the persistent failure of State bodies and prescribed authorities to investigate credible disclosures in a timely and transparent manner constitutes a denial of justice, a breach of Ireland's obligations under Articles 10 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and a gross abuse of administrative power;

— the misuse of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) within the public service has had the effect of silencing victims of wrongdoing, concealing public malfeasance, and undermining the deterrent effect of whistleblowing law;

— the absence of enforceable personal sanctions for officials who obstruct investigations, destroy evidence, or delay disclosure processes has eroded confidence in the rule of law and in Ireland's commitment to transparency and integrity; and

— comparative evidence from the Czech Republic, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand demonstrates that timely investigations, transparent publication of outcomes, enforceable penalties for delay, and, where appropriate, reward mechanisms for disclosures leading to recovery of public funds are essential to make whistleblower protection truly effective;

recognises that:

— the protection of whistleblowers is a matter of constitutional importance, engaging the State's duties under Article 40.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann to defend and vindicate personal rights, and under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to ensure good administration; and

— effective legislation must therefore, guarantee:

— swift and independent investigation of disclosures;

— protection against penalisation and coercive NDAs;

— access to legal aid, counselling, and support;

— enforceable sanctions for officials who obstruct investigations; and

— full compensation for those who suffer detriment through State inaction or abuse of power; and

accordingly, calls on the Government to:

— introduce a Protected Disclosures (Strengthening, Enforcement and Transparency) Amendment Bill, to establish a statutory duty on all public bodies to initiate timely, impartial, and transparent investigations, require publication of anonymised progress reports, and empower the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner (OPDC) to levy financial and disciplinary sanctions for failure to act;

— create personal accountability provisions making it an offence for any officer or employee of the State to obstruct or delay an investigation, destroy or alter documents, or knowingly provide false information;

— establish a statutory right of mandamus and judicial remedy, enabling a whistleblower to apply to the High Court to compel a public authority to perform its investigative duty;

— provide full compensation, reinstatement, and exemplary damages to whistleblowers who suffer detriment due to refusal or obstruction of investigation;

— establish a whistleblower legal aid and support fund to provide representation, counselling, and rehabilitative assistance to whistleblowers and their families;

— amend the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, to prohibit the use of NDAs that restrict a whistleblower's right to describe wrongdoing or penalisation, deeming any such clause void unless expressly requested by the whistleblower with independent legal advice;

— require all public bodies to certify annually to the OPDC, that no prohibited NDA has been used in any settlement relating to a protected disclosure;

— mandate publication of quarterly data identifying public bodies that have failed to provide documentation, or complete investigations, within statutory timelines;

— introduce escalating sanctions for repeated or systemic non-compliance, including administrative fines, public censure, referral to oversight bodies and budgetary penalties;

— expand the remit of the OPDC to include audit and inspection powers, and coordination with other enforcement authorities;

— develop a pilot whistleblower reward and recovery scheme, modelled on international practice, allowing modest percentage awards from recovered public funds;

— insert an express statutory duty of cooperation and transparency, requiring all authorities to provide requested information within 14 days, or face a rebuttable presumption of obstruction;

— empower the courts to award costs and punitive damages against public bodies or officials found to have acted in bad faith;

— provide for independent oversight by the Office of the Ombudsman and the Oireachtas Committee of Public Accounts; and

— require a statutory review within three years of commencement, to evaluate the effectiveness of the new provisions.

I am not going to soften this. We have a national disgrace on our hands. Ireland claims to protect whistleblowers, but what we actually do is destroy them. The Minister of State knows it, I know it, and the public know it. We bring laws and pat ourselves on the back and then the State turns around and crushes the very people who tried to protect us. Today, I am saying, "Not any more; not on our watch." Under legislation endorsed by this House, whistleblowers are being punished for doing the right thing. We are supposed to be the ones defending these people, but look what actually happens in this country. They speak up, report wrongdoings and act in the public's interest, and the State responds with the three Ds: delay, deny, destroy. This was reported and called out by The Irish Times.

This is across all of the Civil Service. I have a list of whistleblowers. We have Maurice McCabe, who is in the Gallery, and An Garda Síochána; Noel McGree and the Irish Prison Service; Yvonne O'Rourke and the Defence Forces; John Barrett and An Garda Síochána; and Ciarán Kenneally and Tusla. There are many more from local authorities across this country.

We are not here today to punish people in the Civil Service who are doing the right thing. Many people in all those agencies, in the Civil Service and in An Garda Síochána do brilliant work. There are also, however, always a small few who use their position outside the remit of their work, and then expect their Departments to cover them when it comes to the law. This is where we have got to stop it. I am going to read out one of these cases. It has already gone through the courts and already been finished.

I rise today to address a matter of public concern, the misuse of public powers by officials acting outside of their lawful remit and the misuse of taxpayers' money to shield such behaviour. I want to bring to the attention of the House a case involving Meath County Council, where significant procedural failures have been highlighted to me. I have also received confirmation regarding other State authorities and genuine concerns. These include instances where important health and safety issues were raised and ignored. Instead of addressing those concerns, public funds are now being used to silence the whistleblowers who correctly identified both the procedural failures and the associated risks, such as using public funds to place criminal records on innocent individuals who are highlighting the wrongs. These failures occurred in the authorisation and oversight of a waste facility beside an airfield in County Meath, where proper procedures were not followed and warnings from the State bodies, professionals and the airfield owner were disregarded. The consequences were devastating for a unique and well-established property and family business, with a long-standing legacy effectively destroyed.

The situation escalated further when the council pursued criminal convictions against an innocent member of the family without a defence or support of the allegations. For absolute clarity, nothing in what I am proposing would weaken the public right to a legal action against the local authority. In the court case, the presiding judge stated that Meath County Council did not deal with the matters appropriately, that she could not answer positively regarding the submission and that the individual had been treated very badly for a very long period. Such remarks from the Bench are rare and they point out the serious breakdown in proper administration standards.

This raises a fundamental issue. Civil servants are protected when they act within the scope of their lawful authority. This is where it is going to become very important for people to watch this and for civil servants to watch this as well. I am going to read this again just to make sure that all civil servants understand the law. It outdates any constitutions or Acts. This is law. It is the law of the land and this is what they have to work to. Civil servants are protected when they act within the scope of their lawful authority. When officials go beyond their remit, however, misapplying, construing or effectively manufacturing legislation or obligations that do not exist and refuse to provide a legal basis for their actions when asked, they are no longer acting for the State. This is the most important thing. They are knowingly making legislation themselves, but they are not acting within the lawful work they are permitted to do. They are acting as individuals and they should be held individually accountable.

Taxpayers should not be footing the bill to defend ultra viresconduct. Public funds must never be used for wrongdoing or to encourage behaviour that undermines confidence in our instruments. If we continue to indemnify officials who knowingly act outside the law or fail to carry out their duties properly and fairly, this will incentivise future abuse of authorities and destroy innocent families, businesses and communities. For absolute clarity, nothing in what I am proposing would weaken the public right to take legal action against the local authority. People must always retain the fundamental right. These reforms simply end an automatic use of taxpayers' money to defend officials who knowingly exceed or misuse their lawful powers. Therefore, I am calling for a review of the statutory protections afforded to civil servants, a clear mechanism for professional accountability when officials act outside their remit and an end to the using of public funds to defend ultra viresactions.

Ken O'Flynn (Cork North-Central, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last June, I said something that many people across this country already knew. Whistleblowers in Ireland are not protected. In fact, they are destroyed. The Tánaiste stood up in this very House and told it our laws are among the best in Europe. He said the Government values these people. Since then I have sat with countless whistleblowers, well over 50 of them, from every corner of the public service, from civil servants to local authority staff, nurses, Defence Forces personnel, people in universities, people representing nursing homes and State agencies. Their experience is simple. They do not feel protected. What they do feel, is punished. They feel threatened, isolated and abandoned by the State that they went out to protect and try to defend to the best of their ability. Why is the reality so different from the Government’s press release? It is because the key protections are ignored in these laws. Basic rights are denied to the whistleblower, access to records is blocked for the whistleblower and the full financial strength of this State is used to grind those people right into the ground. Every Member of this House knows the truth. A law is only as strong as those who implement it.

Let me give an example. I welcome Sergeant Maurice McCabe and Mr. John Barrett to the Public Gallery, along with others. Both of them have stood up for honesty, integrity and the duty of public service, and both have paid an enormous personal price for standing up and doing the right thing. In the case of Mr. John Barrett, one of the most shocking I have ever come across in my public life or ever even read about, in September 2024, he received a letter purporting to tell him he was to be sacked as a senior civil servant from the Minister for Justice. We must bear in mind that the Minister for Justice had no legal authority to do so. Only the Government can dismiss someone at that senior level of the Civil Service. The Minister acted alone. Her actions were not legal and were not constitutional in any basis whatsoever. Worse still, the dismissal relied purely on a disciplinary investigation by the Garda Commissioner, who had no power whatsoever to initiate it. The process was tainted from the very start. It was not independently run, it was not fair and the crucial documents providing Mr. John Barrett's innocence were deliberately withheld for years.

The most extraordinary fact and the absolutely amazing fact that I find about this entire case is that there was never one complaint against that man. Not one complaint was ever put in writing. There was not one allegation. Everything was fabricated about that man. Letters from 2018 were provided afterwards. They were hidden from the Minister and from the courts, and it resulted in millions of taxpayers' euro being spent defending a false witness against that man. That was not a mistake. That was a strategy and it was clearly aimed to destroy that man and to send a message to every whistleblower across the State: keep your head down, do not speak out and do not put your head above the parapet when you are taking us on and telling the truth about us.

Across the system I have witnessed similar patterns from the more than 50 people I have met. I call it the hidden playbook. It is delay, deflect and deny. Quarterly updates are ignored, disclosures are not investigated, records are withheld and people are targeted. When the whistleblower asks for help, the request is often sent straight back to the person about whom the complaint is made or who has perpetrated the wrongdoing. Meanwhile, this State uses its vast financial resources to power itself and spends endless resources in legal fees, all to destroy the whistleblower. A whistleblower cannot do the same. That imbalance tells a story of its own.

I say each Member of this House that we need to reflect on the values of this House, what this House truly stands for and what the EU law stands for and how it is implemented. We need to reflect that honestly in this Chamber and in this House. It is a system designed to silence people, not to protect the people of this Republic.

This cannot continue. This House has a duty to change it. We in Independent Ireland intend to bring forward legislation in the coming months to level the playing field, enforce accountability of those who misuse their powers and deliver real protection for those who speak up.

Before I conclude, I want to acknowledge the courage of the people in the Gallery today: Mr. Ciarán Kenneally of Tusla; health whistleblowers, Shane Corr, Peter Behan and Margo Hannon; Yvonne O'Rourke of the Women of Honour; George McLoughlin of the Department of enterprise; and Noel McGree of the Irish Prison Service. Noel McGree lost everything. He lost his home because of standing up and speaking out. Why did he do it? It was because he reported millions of euro that had been stolen and theft of State property. His reward was to lose his home and his livelihood. He is here in the Gallery today and I salute him. I feel so sorry for what he has gone through in this scenario.

Their stories are very different but the pattern is continuously the same: delay, deflect, deny, punish and exhaust the whistleblower. The message is always the same in the Civil Service and in other bodies - keep the head down, say nothing and let the system carry on as it is. However, these people refused to do that. They put the truth first, they put their country first and they put Ireland first and Ireland is better because of them.

I mentioned Ciarán Kenneally, a man who brought the whistleblowers to my attention first. This man has been destroyed by the State and has been left financially bereft by the State. There are whistleblowers in the Galley who will tell the Minister of State what the State did to them. In each individual organisation, there is a playbook. There is a playbook at hand here.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the courageous individuals in the Gallery who stood up, such as Maurice McCabe, John Barrett and Ciarán Kenneally. These people and many others, including the Women of Honour, have done a tremendous service to the State. They showed incredible courage and conviction. In every case, the State used every lever in its power to smear these individuals. I rise with a heavy heart and a sense of responsibility. What we are addressing here is not a technical matter. It is an indictment of the State by the people who stood up to protect the State.

I want to highlight the horrific experience of the members of the Defence Forces, the Justice Alliance and the Women of Honour. This case is a systematic failure embedded over many years by silence made possible by the State that looked after itself before justice. The Defence Forces Justice Alliance submitted more than 50 protected disclosures. These disclosures included reports of bullying, harassment, abuse, sexual assault and institutional wrongdoing. Many of these disclosures related to the Minister and senior officials within the Department. The protected disclosures were sent to the very Department and the very senior figures implicated in the allegations. The playbook is at hand here again and the inquiry was closed at a preliminary stage.

We know the wrongdoing did not stop. It continued. People who had served with honour and courage were left discouraged, silenced and in many cases traumatised over and over again. They became convinced that the protected disclosure legislation was not fit for purpose. There are many more examples. There was a clear message right across the Defence Forces because people saw what happened to those who spoke up and many others stayed silent.

I raise the devastating case of Ciarán Kenneally, a man with great courage who stood up and highlighted issues in terms of financial irregularity in relation to Tusla in Cork. In 2019, he made a protected disclosure about gross mismanagement, bullying and potential irregularities in the Tusla office in Cork. Instead of being protected and the case being investigated and highlighted, he was left without pay, unable to access social welfare because Tusla struck him off, gave him zero pay slips and refused to engage with him. It refused to accept his resignation letter because it highlighted problems and difficulties within Tusla. However, what followed was worse. Internal records, released only after the WRC settlement, showed that Tusla staff had contacted his private therapist without consent, conducted unauthorised background checks on him and even falsely suggested he posed a danger to vulnerable children. This is what happens to whistleblowers in this country. It was a smear campaign. An internal investigation dismissed his original concerns. Yet, a former staff member has since confirmed that financial oversight issues did exist in Tusla at that time and also found derogatory language was used against him. A separate internal investigation took place.

Two weeks ago he filed a second protected disclosure detailing concealed data, retaliatory actions and corroborated evidence. After seven years, the damage to him professionally, personally and emotionally is profound. This is a failure of a State agency to uphold the very principles it claims to protect: fairness, due process and safety for those who speak up in the public interest.

This cannot happen. We must stand up and protect individuals who stand up in the interest of the State.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all the words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes that:

— the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, protects workers from penalisation for speaking up about wrongdoing in the workplace; and

— persons who make protected disclosures or 'whistleblowers' should not be treated unfairly, lose their job or face legal proceedings because they have made a protected disclosure;

recognises that:

— the enacted Protected Disclosures Act 2014, was further enhanced by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022;

— the amended Act gives effect to the European Union (EU) Directive 2019/1937 ('the Whistleblowing Directive'), which requires Member States to ensure that:

— whistleblowers have at their disposal effective channels to report breaches of EU rules confidentially, both internally (within an organisation) and externally (to a competent authority);

— whistleblowers' reports are properly investigated and acted upon by the organisations and competent authorities; and

— whistleblowers are protected from retaliation;

— the Directive provides that the European Commission (EC) must furnish a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the impact of national law transposing the Directive, and the report must consider the functioning of the Directive and whether additional measures are appropriate;

— in July 2024, the EC indicated that this report would be finalised 'no later than 2026';

— Section 10A of the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, provides for the establishment of the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner, which commenced operations on 1st January, 2023;

— Section 2A of the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, provides for a statutory review of the Act to be commenced not later than five years from the date of this Act being passed; and

— this review is due to complete in 2027, and a public consultation will be carried out prior to this review; and

further notes that:

— the Government remains committed to supporting and protecting whistleblowers;

— a review of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, took place in 2018;

— a comprehensive public and stakeholder review of the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, is statutorily due to take place by 2027, with a public consultation on same to begin next year, and Section 14A of the Act already makes it an offence for any person to hinder, or attempt to hinder, a worker in making a report, penalise, or threaten to penalise, a reporting person, bring vexatious proceedings against a reporting person, breach the confidentiality of a reporting person, provide false information or fail to comply with the requirement in section 6(3), to establish, maintain and operate internal reporting channels and procedures referred to in the said section 6(3);

— neither the Act nor the EU Directive requires that an investigation is carried out for every report of wrongdoing that is received, and in many cases an investigation may not be appropriate as no prima facie evidence of a relevant wrongdoing may have been discovered, or the issues highlighted in a report may not meet the definition of a relevant wrongdoing, as set out in section 5(3) of the Act, and some reports may also highlight issues that are more appropriately addressed through complaints or human resources processes;

— statutory protection from penalisation is already provided primarily by the Workplace Relations Commission, who can make orders for restitution and the payment of up to five years' salary in compensation, cases can be appealed to the Labour Court or, alternatively, a whistleblower can sue for damages in court, where there is no maximum award of compensation;

— Exchequer grant support has been provided to Transparency International Ireland since 2016, for the provision of a free 'Speak Up Helpline' and Free Legal Advice Centre service for persons considering making a protected disclosure, or who have made a protected disclosure;

— Section 15 of the Act already states that workers are immune from civil legal action by the employer (e.g. for breach of confidentiality clauses in their contract of employment);

— Section 23 of the Act also provides that it is not permitted to have clauses in agreements that:

— prohibit or restrict the making of protected disclosures;

— exclude or limit the operation of any provision of the Act;

— preclude a person from bringing any proceedings under, or by virtue of, the Act; and

— preclude a person from bringing proceedings for breach of contract in respect of anything done on consequence of the making of a protected disclosure;

— Section 14A of the Act already sets outs the actions in relation to processing a protected disclosure that are deemed to be a criminal offence, and administrative fees may be considered in the context of the statutory review; and

— the courts are already empowered to award costs and damages in relation to protected disclosures, and Section 14A provides for criminal charges to be brought against a person/official.".

I welcome the debate on the protected disclosures legislation. On behalf of the Minister, Deputy Jack Chambers, I sincerely thank Deputy Richard O'Donoghue and the Independent Technical Group for bringing this very important matter before the Dáil. I also acknowledge the presence of the people in the Gallery.

The Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is Ireland's national whistleblower protection law. This legislation was designed to protect workers from penalisation for speaking up about wrongdoing in the workplace. Persons who make protected disclosures, often referred to as whistleblowers, should not be treated unfairly, lose their jobs or face legal proceedings because they have made a protected disclosure. On foot of the EU Whistleblowers Directive - Directive (EU) 2019/1937 - the Act was expanded and enhanced by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, which was signed into law on 21 July 2022.

The protected disclosures legislation provides comprehensive protection for whistleblowers from penalisation or threats of penalisation.

These protections cover unfair dismissal and unfair treatment such as suspensions, demotions and loss of pay, change of working hours, reassignment, disciplinary actions, coercion, intimidation and harassment. Statutory protection from penalisation is provided mainly by the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, which can make orders for restitution and payments of up to five years' salary in compensation. Whistleblowers can appeal decisions of the WRC to the Labour Court and also have recourse to sue for damages in court. As well as these protections, the Act provides for criminal penalties for penalising a reporting person, taking vexatious legal proceedings against a worker or reporting person, or disclosing the identity of a reporting person.

I note that the Independent Technical Group has not introduced a draft Bill or heads of Bill but has simply put forward a number of broad proposals for the amendment of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. I would like to go through some of these proposals and our reasons for opposing them. There are technical flaws. Some of the proposed provisions are conceptually and technically flawed as they call for the introduction of sanctions and protections and the establishment of statutory duties that are already enshrined in the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. For example, the Independent Technical Group proposes the introduction of "personal accountability provisions making it an offence for any officer or employee of the State to obstruct or delay an investigation, destroy or alter documents, or knowingly provide false information". However, these kinds of provision are very clearly set out in section 14A of the Act. Section 14A makes it an offence for any person to hinder or attempt to hinder a worker in making a report, penalise or threaten to penalise a reporting person, bring vexatious proceedings against a reporting person, breach the confidentiality of a reporting person, provide false information, or fail to comply with the requirement in section 6(3) to establish, maintain and operate internal reporting channels and procedures referred to in the said section 6(3).

The group's proposal to amend the Protected Disclosures Act to prohibit the use of non-disclosure agreements does not take account of the fact that section 15 of the Act already states that workers are immune from civil legal action by an employer, for example, for breach of confidentiality clauses in their contract of employment, and that section 23 of the Act prohibits the use of clauses in agreements:

(a) to prohibit or restrict the making of protected disclosures,

(b) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this Act,

(c) to preclude a person from bringing any proceedings under or by virtue of this Act, or

(d) to preclude a person from bringing proceedings for breach of contract in respect of anything done in consequence of the making of a protected disclosure.

It is clear, therefore, that the existing Act already protects workers against criminal liability and the use of NDAs.

The group also proposes a provision:

to establish a statutory duty on all public bodies to initiate timely, impartial, and transparent investigations, require publication of anonymised progress reports, and empower the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner (OPDC) to levy financial and disciplinary sanctions for failure to act ...

The essence of this provision is already included in the existing Act. Sections 6A and 7A of the Act set out the requirements for timely and impartial assessment and follow-up of reports of wrongdoing through both internal and external reporting channels.

In relation to the proposal requiring transparent investigations, it is important to note that neither the Act nor the EU directive that it transposed requires that an investigation be carried out for every report of alleged wrongdoing received. In many cases, an investigation may not be appropriate as no prima facieevidence of a relevant wrongdoing may have been discovered or the issues highlighted in a report may not meet the definition of a relevant wrongdoing as set out in section 5(3) of the Act. Some reports may also highlight issues that are more appropriately addressed through complaints or through HR processes.

The group also proposes a requirement for the provision of anonymised progress reports. Section 16 of the Act sets out that every effort must be made to protect the identity of the reporting person. Section 14A states that any person who breaches the duty of confidentiality as set out in section 16 commits an offence. The penalty for committing this offence is, on summary conviction, a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both; or on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €75,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or both. It should be noted that, given the nature of some reports of wrongdoing, simply anonymising progress reports would not be sufficient to prevent the transmission of information from which the identity of the reporting person could be directly or indirectly figured out. In short, this proposal is not workable, taking into account the duty to protect the identity of the reporting person already enshrined in the Act.

Besides the technical flaws that are evident in the proposals put forward by the group, there are other fundamental issues and reasons to oppose these proposals. Section 2A of the Act requires a statutory review to be carried out no later than five years after the Act has passed. The Act was passed in July 2022 and, therefore, a review is due to completed in 2027. A public consultation will be carried out in advance of this commencement date and the views of all stakeholders will be sought. This public consultation will provide a complete picture of the experience of the Protected Disclosures Act since commencement and will lead to well-thought-out and evidence-based recommendations for improvements to the legislation.

Further, on 3 July 2024, the European Commission presented a report on the transposition of the EU whistleblowers directive 2019/1937. This report stated that a review of the directive, which is referred to in Article 27(3), would be finalised no later than 2026. This review or evaluation will assess the functioning of the directive and consider the need for additional measures, including amendments with a view to extending its scope to further EU acts or areas.

Given that a European Commission review is due to be finalised and a statutory review is due to commence well in advance of the review of the proposed provisions set out in the motion, it is necessary to oppose the motion and await the results of the European Commission review and the statutory review. This would allow for a more considered and evidence-based potential amendment of the existing Act, and within a shorter timeframe.

I would like to thank very sincerely the members of the Independent Technical Group for bringing forward a debate on the protected disclosures legislation. For the reasons I have made clear, the Government must oppose this motion and is tabling an amendment for the House to note that the existing legislation already provides the protections desired by the Independent Deputies and that both the national and EU scheduled reviews should be allowed to take place, unhindered, in order to achieve a rounded, evidence-based policy position for any potential amendments to the legislation in the future.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our staff John Campbell, Marc Nolan and Emmett Corcoran for putting this Private Members' business motion together for us, in the Dail today. Simply put, this motion is to strengthen whistleblower protections. It is about enforcement and accountability in public administration. The treatment of whistleblowers in this country has been an absolute disgrace. This motion is about trying to change that. Whistleblowers are the truth tellers in our society. They expose the wrongdoing, protect public funds and uphold integrity in our institutions, yet despite the Protected Disclosures Act and its alignment with the EU whistleblower directive, too many brave individuals have paid a heavy price for doing the right thing. Careers have been destroyed, disclosures have been delayed and coercive confidentiality agreements have been used to silence the truth. This is not justice and this is no acceptable.

The scale of whistleblowing in Ireland today shows why this motion matters. In 2023 alone, there were 1,162 protected disclosures made to public bodies. Some 734 of those reports required follow-up and 161 cases were sent for further proceedings.

One single disclosure in the HSE led to €3.7 million being recovered for the taxpayer. That is the value of speaking up but here is the reality. The Workplace Relations Commission saw whistleblower complaints triple last year, with 301 cases, a 201% increase. That tells us something is broken. People are still being penalised for telling the truth.

As public representatives, we see every day how secrecy and bureaucracy undermine trust. Take housing in the council, for example. Some of us spend months making representations, attending meetings and fighting for families who desperately need a home. When a house is allocated, the local authority has now made a decision it will not tell us who got the house in our own constituencies. That is madness gone wrong. If we are doing the work, we should be told the outcome. That lack of transparency is the same culture that punishes whistleblowers. It is about control, not accountability.

Look at school transport. Parents come to us, give us all the details and ask for help getting a bus seat for their child. Now they have to send an email authorising us to act on their behalf before we can even contact Bus Éireann - another layer of bureaucracy. Why? Do they think we would make up stories as TDs about a child wanting to get a bus seat? No, we do not but the system tries to burn you out and make you walk away from the truth. Too many offices do not want to give answers. That attitude of avoiding responsibility and scrutiny is exactly what this motion seeks to change.

Earlier this year I raised a shocking issue of financial advisers in west Cork and Kinsale. People poured hundreds of thousands of euro of their own private money into investments, thinking they were safe because these advisers were regulated by the Central Bank. When we finally got a meeting with the Central Bank, it told us the advisers were regulated but can sell unregulated products. I will say that again: regulated advisers selling unregulated products. The people who lost their life savings are devastated, mentally, emotionally and financially. In their own way, they are whistleblowers too. They spoke up, embarrassed and broken, because the system failed them.

Closer to home, local whistleblowers, including home helps, came to me and said they were ready to work but patients were being told there was no one available. When I raised the issue in the Dáil, one of those home helps lost their hours. That is retaliation; that is the punishment for speaking the truth.

Whistleblowers come in all walks of life. They are ordinary people who refuse to stay silent when something is wrong. The motion is about giving those people real protection. It calls for swift, independent investigations, enforceable sanctions for obstruction and personal accountability for officials who destroy evidence or delay inquiries. It bans coercive NDAs, demands transparency through quarterly reporting and expands the powers of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner. It even proposes a pilot reward scheme for disclosures that recover public funds because honesty should never come at a personal cost. Protecting whistleblowers is not just a legal obligation but a constitutional duty under Article 40.3 of Bunreacht na hÉireann and a moral imperative.

Other countries reward whistleblowers. In the United States, whistleblowers who help recover public funds can receive up to $30,000 of the amount recovered. Ireland needs to follow that lead. Australia and Canada have strict timelines for investigation and delays are penalised. We should adopt similar standards. If we fail to act, we fail those who risk everything to defend the public interest. The message we need to send is in Ireland truth will never be punished and those who expose wrongdoing will be protected, supported and vindicated. I am disappointed to hear the Minister of State saying the Government will oppose the motion and put down a countermotion. That is a delaying tactic. That is kicking honesty down the road. Government Members should be ashamed of themselves to do that and should reconsider their decision.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all personally know or locally are aware of whistleblowers. I know some myself. They are vital to protecting the public interest. These individuals call out corruption, waste, incompetence, bullying and abuse, including our distinguished guests in the Public Gallery. All too often, they pay a price for their transparency and honesty.

The proposals before us are about changing that, going beyond the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and ensuring any legislation has teeth. They are about making sure whistleblowers are protected, supported and respected within every sector. My colleagues' first proposal is that every public body must investigate whistleblower reports quickly and fairly - no delays, no excuses. If they fail, a new Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner would have the power to sanction them. That is how we make sure disclosures are not ignored. It is not rocket science. Implementing it may require massive changes in culture and will face institutional resistance but this has to be overcome.

Then there is the measure seeking personal responsibility. If an official obstructs an investigation, destroys evidence or lies, he or she should face additional criminal charges, which should help stop cover-ups. I especially like the proposal to give whistleblowers the right to go more easily to the High Court to force an investigation so the court can compel action not coming from elsewhere. This needs to be in turn protected from abuse and spurious claims but if done right, it is a safety valve when the system fails otherwise.

Whistleblowers often suffer retaliation and it can be very subtle. I support proposals for reinstatement, full compensation and exemplary damages, including a more detailed analysis and appreciation of what constitutes constructive dismissal. It might not always be possible but striving to make it the norm is laudable. Tied in with this is the need for a legal aid and support fund so whistleblowers, and sometimes their families, can get representation, counselling and assistance. Speaking up should not mean financial ruin or personal collapse, as it has in the past. We have to have checks and balances but the motion should be tested with supporting additional legislation.

Gagging clauses and non-disclosure agreements should be banned or hugely restricted. I take on board what the Minister of State said about section 15 of the existing Act but coercion and intimidation are currently very difficult to prove and no whistleblower should be silenced against their will for pursuing the common good, whether it is by tangible actions, threats, ghosting or anything more subtle. Public bodies should, therefore, have to certify every year that they have not used prohibitive non-disclosure and that no staff have inferred or implied the same.

We also need accountability, which is why publishing the quarterly data showing which bodies failed to meet deadlines make sense, along with sanctions for repeated failures where escalative action is not taken. I welcome the proposal's provision for independent oversight and a review after three years of whether the reforms are working, which is why I cannot understand how the Government could not them take on board and integrate them with existing legislation.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not totally sold on the suggestion of a whistleblower reward scheme. I note it has worked to an extent in the United States, albeit under a different system and mindset from our own. We should certainly look at best practice and, in this context, I do not have a problem with a pilot and neither should the Government. We need to make investigations mandatory, punish obstruction and publish it, protect jobs for conscientious employees and provide real support. This will better help the decent people who shine a light on wrongdoing and ensure whistleblowers are treated as friends of the public interest and not, as is all too often the case, as enemies of the State. If we are serious about integrity in public life, we must be serious about protecting whistleblowers.

I do not know if the reforms proposed will move Ireland from a culture of bureaucratic omertà to one of accountability overnight but they are worthy of scrutiny and are not to be dismissed out of hand, as they have been. I support the proposals. I hope the Government will reflect on what has been said today and examine every angle closely, either when further Private Members' legislation comes forward or possibly through the Government tabling amendments, as has been suggested, to the existing legislation.

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to begin by saying the response from Government was outrageous. We have whistleblowers here today who clearly fed into this fantastic motion that Independent Ireland put forward and all we got from the Minister of State was gaslighting. To say it is not a Bill and, therefore, he cannot back it is nonsense. Deputy Buckley and I introduced a Bill four years ago and it was not acted on. Also, this motion has recommendations in it. Then there is talk about the EU review. The whole reason for the changes in the whistleblower legislation the last time was the transposition of the EU directive. What came out of it from Government was weak. That is why we are here. I hope for a stronger response later on from Ministers. I will go back to the speech I had prepared but that angered me this morning.

I commend all whistleblowers on everything they have done. The reason they are whistleblowers is that, fundamentally, they know the difference between what is right and what is wrong.

These are people who saw injustice and used their voices to speak truth to power, and they continue to do so clearly to this day. To our great shame, so many whistleblowers have faced persecution as a result. They have lost their jobs, they have been bullied and blacklisted, and they have faced huge consequences in their professional and personal lives, including experiencing homelessness. The Irish people owe them our deepest gratitude. Without them, we would not know about many scandals that have been exposed over the years. Go raibh míle, míle maith agaibh and thank you for coming here today.

I commend Independent Ireland for bringing forward the motion. It is deeply regrettable that despite the opportunity to change things three years ago, we are still in a situation whereby whistleblowers do not have the protections they should. The reason we know this is because we hear it from whistleblowers themselves. It is quite shocking to me that, next week, four years will have passed since 1 December 2021 when my colleague Deputy Pat Buckley and I introduced a Bill in an attempt to strengthen the transposition by the Government of the EU directive in 2022. Unfortunately, what the Government transposed at the end of the day was simply not strong enough. One of the cruellest elements of it was that it was not retrospective. To exclude those going through live proceedings at the time was unforgivable and a real kick in the teeth for them. At the time, I tabled an amendment to attempt to rectify this but it was not accepted.

What we needed from the Government was to empower Ministers to gather all documents relevant to a protected disclosure made to them regarding their Departments or bodies under their authority and to pass this information on to the Attorney General in connection with the conduct of legal proceedings on behalf of the State. In July of this year, I said that when the Government was transposing the EU directive on protected disclosures, I was clear at the time, and I voiced significant concerns, that it was perhaps deliberately going to weaken the transposition. I said I felt the setting up of the protected disclosures office was a retrograde step and it removed protected disclosure as a political issue. Previously, an Opposition TD could deliver a protected disclosure to the relevant Minister and then seek to know what progress had been made. Now, Ministers can simply say it has been handed to the protected disclosures office and it has nothing to do with them any more. We have clearly been proven right on this, as have the campaigners. What we also needed from the Government was for the new Bill to include organisations of fewer than 50 people. Instead, it excluded them. This was a wrong decision.

When dealing with this issue, it is also important to deal with the facts. Research shows that whistleblowers lose more than €40,000 in the course of their working lives as a result. As we have hard evidence on this, it is quite clear that financial supports should be part of any strengthening of the legislation. We see that in today's motion. Providing free legal aid and psychological services for whistleblowers, and removing the limitations on financial compensation that whistleblowers can win by way of redress, are important steps in this regard.

Whatever the view of the Minister of State or me on the transposition of the EU directive, and whether at the time he believed it was strong enough, we have to deal with the reality of the situation now. We know that whistleblowers are still being wronged and still face harassment and backlash as a result of their bravery. If we know this, then we need to act on it. We have the ability to do so in this Chamber. Transparency International says whistleblowing is acknowledged as one of the most effective ways of stopping wrongdoing. Without whistleblowers, we would live in a very different society. We owe them this, and we need to finally acknowledge it as a State. Without firm action, wrongdoing will continue.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and I thank Independent Ireland. More importantly, I thank those in the Gallery. They are heroes of the State who get absolutely battered for telling the truth. It is an absolute and utter disgrace. I have a script but I want to speak about the comments of the Minister of State and the Government amendment. The amendment states

— whistleblowers have at their disposal effective channels to report breaches of EU rules confidentially, both internally (within an organisation) and externally (to a competent authority);

— whistleblowers' reports are properly investigated and acted upon by the organisations and competent authorities; and

— whistleblowers are protected from retaliation;

This is in the Government amendment and it is absolute verbal diarrhoea.

I have brought protected disclosures to two Taoisigh and four Ministers over the past three or four years. A man is now deceased because he was killed in Stryker in Carrigtwohill two years ago. The protected disclosure is still ongoing. A good friend of mine came to me last Friday regarding an issue that had been going on for seven years involving Scouting Ireland and the abuse of children by a now deceased schoolteacher and scout leader who I knew myself, Denis O'Shea. The State, and in particular Scouting Ireland, have spent seven years changing their legal teams to stall. When whistleblowers come forward, they are being absolutely battered and punished. Millions of euro in public money is spent making legal teams rich and nobody is getting an answer. I will go back to the years 2000 to 2002, when 59 people in east Cork died by suicide, 23 of whom were all around the same age. I know this will upset some people. I know four people above in the graveyard because when people made protected disclosures, they were not acted on. This aggressive man was head of the Diocese of Cloyne scouts as the regional director. He ran the Mount Melleray Scout Centre. The system is rotten and failed I do not know how many people. When we are talking about protected disclosures, we need to take it as seriously as possible. You can hear it in my voice.

As Deputy Mairéad Farrell said a moment ago, we introduced an alternative Bill in 2021. It had provisions for mental health and counselling supports for families. Every single one of the whistleblowers in the last protected disclosure I brought here was paid off by the Government. The family of someone who is now deceased has been purposely split. I have been threatened for telling the truth. Some of the whistleblowers came back to me last Monday and told me they had been blacklisted and could not get a job anywhere. When we are talking about protected disclosures, we must remember each one of these and what happened to them and their families. Please take it seriously and take on board what we say.

Deputy Farrell spoke about waiting for the EU. We waited 18 months for the directive to come from the EU so we could table a Bill and do the right thing. Normally when we come into the Chamber, we are trying to serve the people outside of here we are supposed to serve and do the right thing. By God, no matter how many times you try to tell the truth in this country, you are going to get battered and punished while the perpetrator skips down the yellow brick road as if nothing happened. Please withdraw the Government amendment, do the right thing, support Independent Ireland and try to move this forward. I can certainly say that we will be back to have another crack at the protected disclosures Bill again.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Independent Technical Group for tabling this motion. It is very important. I thank those in the Gallery who have paid the price, their families and those who are not with us today. Deputy Buckley rightly remembers those who are no longer here. We are here today to confront a profound failure of law, protection and leadership. It is a failure that punishes the brave and protects the powerful. It is a failure that tells every ordinary person in the State not to speak up or they will pay the price.

I want to speak about protected disclosures in An Garda Síochána. I commend the members of An Garda Síochána who serve the force and this country with dignity and dedication. A constituent reported domestic violence by a serving member of An Garda Síochána and a criminal investigation began. Separately, this constituent made a protected disclosure to Fiosrú detailing interference, protection and cover-up by some colleagues in An Garda Síochána. This disclosure also highlighted systemic issues around the ability of some members of An Garda Síochána to impartially investigate cases of domestic violence. What followed exposed the deep inadequacy of our legislation. Every single time the protected disclosure progressed, the defence made a disclosure order. The criminal trial was delayed again and again. Fiosrú had to put the protected disclosure investigation in abeyance; it was effectively frozen. The protections promised by the Government were suspended and the whistleblower was left exposed, vulnerable and punished for their honesty. After the guilty plea, the investigation resumed but crucial parts could no longer be examined because too much time had passed, delayed by the very process that was meant to protect whistleblowers.

11 o’clock

The law that was meant to protect this individual became the barrier to justice. The system failed the whistleblower. Here is the hard truth. Once the protected disclosure had been disclosed to the accused, the organisation against which wrongdoing was alleged, an impartial investigation became impossible.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy O'Reilly.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have seven and a half minutes.

Evidence can be shaped. Witnesses can be influenced. Records can be altered or destroyed. Justice can be quietly denied. This is not a minor flaw; it is systemic failure. The Government knows about this gap, but continues to send a clear and chilling message, that if people speak up about criminal activity in An Garda Síochána, they cannot be guaranteed that the wrongdoing will be exposed. If people show courage, the system may very well punish them for it. This is the reality. This is the message and it is the Government's failure. That is the message whistleblowers are hearing across the State and it is one that should shame any government that claims to stand up for transparency, accountability or justice. Urgent, meaningful reform is needed. The Protected Disclosures Act must guarantee confidentiality, even during criminal proceedings; prevent disclosure orders from destroying investigations; protect whistleblowers from retaliation, delays in justice and exposure; and ensure the law cannot be weaponised against victims.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for using Private Members' time to facilitate this debate on protection for whistleblowers. From the bottom of my heart, I welcome every one of the whistleblowers who had the bravery to come here and be with us today. I will also say a word for those who simply cannot speak up, the people who have been beaten by the system and battered by the State, for whom a protected disclosure represented, in some instances, the end of their lives and certainly the end of any mental peace they had.

The Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, rambled in and said:

The Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is Ireland's national whistleblower protection law. This legislation was designed to protect workers from penalisation for speaking up about wrongdoing in the workplace.

He did not stay for the whole debate, but I hope he will look back at it. I ask him to go up to the Gallery and ask those people whether they feel protected, if they feel the State protected them.

Before I was elected, I was a trade union official and I have sat with people whose lives were destroyed because they spoke up. They wanted to make things better. The Minister of State might never know their names, but I have sat in their living rooms and kitchens and they have sat in my car. A nurse in the west of Ireland spoke up about mismanagement in the health service and her hair fell out, her marriage was destroyed and her children did not even recognise their mother any more. It started with no access to night duty or overtime. She was ostracised. There were rumours. The Minister of State will not see her in the Gallery because her life was destroyed. There is no protection for whistleblowers. I urge the Minister of State to go up to the Gallery and ask them whether they feel protected and if they do not, to withdraw the Government's amendment and do the decent thing.

Conor McGuinness (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will begin by addressing the whistleblowers in the Gallery who have come to watch this debate. They are watching, listening and taking stock of everything that has been said by the Minister of State's colleagues. I thank them for the service they have done the State and I thank the many people behind them who did not make it here and cannot be here, the families, and those who lost opportunities because of issues of corruption, illegality, theft and crime within elements of the public service, going back decades, that would never have come to light were it not for the courage, strength, dedication and public service of the people who blew the whistle, said enough was enough, that they could no longer have this on their conscience and decided to bring it out in the open. By God, they paid the price. They were harassed, harangued and bullied. Attempts were made to bribe them and blacken their names, blacklist them, hurt their families, take their children from them, take their livelihoods from them, do them into the ground and bury them by this State, agencies of the State, people operating on behalf of the State and successive Governments. That needs to be reckoned with, but the best way we can do so is by ensuring it never happens again to another whistleblower. God knows, there will be misdeeds and illegality, cutting corners and corruption within elements of the public service. It is a feature of human endeavour, unfortunately, but I thank God there are people who have the courage to stand up and do the right thing.

Sinn Féin strongly supports the Independent Technical Group's motion today. We urge the Minister of State to bring back to the Government the strength of the arguments on this issue he is hearing in the Chamber, from all parties and none, and to withdraw the Government amendment to the motion, which seeks to undermine it in the way many whistleblowers across the State have been undermined. I urge him to do the right thing and support a functioning democracy and a functioning public service that has protection for whistleblowers, those who do the right thing and display courage and a strong dedication to public service.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the whistleblowers to the Gallery. They have done an incredible service to the State. I thank them personally for that. I also thank the Independent Technical Group for bringing forward this motion. It has brought to the State the corruption that has happened within our political and justice systems and opened the door to justice for the victims of abuse. In return, far too many whistleblowers and others have seen their lives ruined. The question the Government must answer is whether this is by intention or design. Even if it is unintentional, the whistleblower framework the Government has overseen should be made fit for purpose because whistleblowers today continue to face the consequences of doing the right thing. They face smear campaigns. They have lost their homes and livelihoods, all while the Government has failed to protect them. It will waste taxpayers' money. It needs to help the people.

Sinn Féin holds whistleblowers in the highest regard. We recognise the positive role many have played in bringing the truth to light. I commend my party colleagues, Sinn Féin spokesperson on public expenditure and reform, Deputy Farrell, and Deputy Buckley, who tried to bring this motion to the Dáil previously. The legislation it proposes would move the onus from the employee to the employer in cases where the employee alleges penalisation as a result of making a protected disclosure. It will also make it an offence to attempt to hinder or penalise people who make a protected disclosure. This is crucial. It is long past time that smears ended.

The Taoiseach does not believe he or his Ministers should be across a protected disclosure made regarding their Departments. In some instances, potentially-----

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We move to the Labour Party slot. I call Deputy Nash.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----leaving officials subject to potential disclosures responsible for dealing with them.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Nash.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In his new role, perhaps the Minister of State will see fit to support this motion and protect whistleblowers.

Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Independent Technical Group for tabling this motion. It is an issue close to my heart and it is personal. I welcome, like other colleagues, those who have gathered in the Gallery this morning. They are people who have taken enormous personal risks to do what is right. Not only have they all served the people in their roles as civil and public servants, but they have doubly served the people by taking risks to expose wrongdoing in their places of work. They have been at the forefront, whether they believe or accept it given what they have gone through, of initiating significant change.

I have some history in and personal attachment to the principle of what is termed whistleblowing.

I am proud of the small role I played, more than ten years ago, in helping to develop what was then pioneering legislation, namely, the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, with my colleague, former Deputy Brendan Howlin.

I come from a political tradition of reformers, from a movement that believes in solidarity and in supporting people where injustices are being done, where people are encouraged and supported to tell the truth and where individual citizens, once empowered and protected, can do great and important things. It is in this tradition that the 2014 Act and the subsequent 2015 code of practice for the Workplace Relations Commission that I signed into law came into being. The intention and ambition of that legislation was wide-ranging, and its principles were, and still are, laudable. The law then and now is first and foremost legislation that should, at all times, be and intend to be all about the protection of whistleblowers who report wrongdoing in their organisation from dismissal and any form of penalisation. In its implementation by officials in far too many cases, it has too often fallen short of those ambitions and too many people have been dragged through the mire and have been destroyed.

The legislation, the supporting material and the code of practice that I referred to go into great detail, setting out what all of this involves, including what penalisation looks, sounds and feels like. This is in case anyone is capable of misunderstanding it, deliberately or otherwise. I had cause to look again at the material on the WRC website associated with the code of practice, and frankly it could not be clearer. Here are just some of the terms used, in case people have not seen it or are not aware of it, when it talks about penalisation. It refers to suspension, dismissal, demotion, disciplining, unfair treatment, discrimination, harassment and threat of reprisal. I could go on. We are aware of all of this. It talks about "a culture of encouraging workers to speak out if they have genuine concerns".

The protected disclosures legislation that was enacted in 2014 and has since been revised and amended, and then updated as per the EU directive in 2022, has given a voice and legislative protections, at least, to workers who have, time and again, taken their courage into their hands, raised their voices and gone through all of the channels laid out in the legislation to make protective disclosures, perhaps over serious wrongdoing, initially to a designated person within their own workplace or externally or, in some specific cases, to a Government Minister or through other means laid out in the Act and the code. This has led to concrete changes in workplaces, with the uncovering of malpractice, fraud and other criminal acts. To those who have done this, we all owe a debt of sincere gratitude. To those who have done the right thing, but have been let down badly by a system that is obliged to protect and support people, and who have been abused, humiliated, diminished and forced out of their work, we owe you all a system of whistleblowing that works as it was always intended to do.

It can be argued, notwithstanding the motion, and I would argue this case to a point, that we are not actually in need of new legislation but in need of proper implementation and enforcement of the legislation that is already on the Statute Book. I had the opportunity to speak last night with Noel McGree, who is with us today. His experience is well known, but perhaps not as well understood by the wider public as it ought to be. He did the right thing. His claims were proven to have been correct and he has suffered, as was said earlier, inordinately. If cases like Noel's keep emerging, then we have a system that needs to be constantly reviewed and revised to ensure the legislation is always, in all cases, being adhered to, implemented and enforced. Where there are failures, there needs to be accountability. We must remember that it is people who are responsible for systems and failures in those systems.

In too many cases I have seen, processes set down in law have been treated as unimportant by some people whose job it is to manage, engage with, handle and process complaints. While it may be the case that it is a minority of workers making protective disclosures who experience detrimental effects, this is hardly the point. The scale and extent of the apparent campaigns of reprisals experienced by many who have gone public and have spoken about the toll and upheaval they and their families have experienced, once they blew the whistle and were entitled to the full protection of the Act but were failed, must not go unnoticed by anyone.

Going back to Noel McGree, he and I agree, having discussed this last night and we had email exchanges, that the legislation we have does, in theory, provide strong protections for whistleblowers. It is in the implementation where the problems arise. We can have all the fine legislation and regulation in the world, but if bodies are not resourced and if the law is not enforced, then this brings the system into disrepute. Well-intentioned law is not what we want. We want enforcement and citizens having the confidence that when they follow their conscience and do what is right and report wrongdoing, there is a well-resourced system that sees disclosures that are made in good faith, through the correct channels and in compliance with the letter and spirit of the Act, processed properly. There should be a system where regular communication is made with the complainant, where disclosures are adjudicated fairly and where things actually demonstrably change as a result of that risk being taken. This is a system that rests and depends on the trust and confidence of the public. This is why there is an onus on those who are in positions of responsibility to be unequivocal and unambiguously clear on what they say in the Dáil and to not mislead, however unintentional that may be.

This takes me to comments made on the record of the House on 12 November 2025 by the Taoiseach in respect of the handling of protected disclosures. In essence, he appears to have claimed that there is somehow a form of prohibition of some description on a Minister reading a protected disclosure that was duly submitted to the Minister. The claim seems to have been made that he has legal advice to that effect. This is arrant nonsense and it would be useful and in the public interest if the Taoiseach clarified his comments. The functions of Ministers receiving a relevant protected disclosure and what happens to that disclosure next are clearly laid out and, I would hope, well understood by Ministers.

Again, this has been raised with me by Noel McGree, who has also raised connected concerns over the application of the Carltona principle and the real-world potential for cases to be handled and processed without complete ministerial knowledge, and in situations - this is important - where independence may be called into question. This is a matter that requires vigilance. A Deputy mentioned earlier the cases of protective disclosures made by members of the Defence Forces Justice Alliance. Those very same issues that were raised involve concerns being expressed over the independence of those who may be handling complaints and potential conflicts of interest. This is something that we need to be alive to. We are also well aware of the practice of whistleblowers being forced out of their work on grounds of ill health. This seems to me to be an all too familiar occurrence. There is also the way this can be used as a means to effectively blacklist someone and ensure the person does not work again. All of this just serves to illustrate how far things can go and the impact on those who make protected disclosures when the system decides to circle the wagons.

Some significant strides were made in the 2022 Act, and that was acknowledged. Some amendments I and colleagues in Sinn Féin and other parties tabled should have been adopted by the Government at the time. Unfortunately, they were not and I feel that we will be revisiting that. The proof of the pudding, as the saying goes, will be in the eating. Again, it is all well and good having excellent legislation on paper, but the test is the enforcement of its provisions at all times and in all cases, with no exceptions.

With some of the new provisions, especially the provision in relation to specifying defined acts of penalisation of criminal acts, there appears to be very little familiarity about these provisions in the agencies responsible for prosecuting them and how they are actually properly applied. There may very well be resource issues in this regard, but it is important, when legislation is enacted in this House, that the authorities responsible for prosecuting and processing complaints in that regard know what they are doing, engage properly with complainants and that justice is done.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Independent Deputies for tabling this motion. This is a very important area that needs proper scrutiny and debate. I very much welcome the whistleblowers who are with us today in the Public Gallery. I thank them and indeed every whistleblower for the service they have given to the country. Their bravery and courage should be supported by all of us. They act in the public interest and their role in democracy is incredibly important. I do not think that was recognised sufficiently in the comments made by the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae.

There did not seem to be any recognition from the Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, that whistleblowers are often penalised, smeared, blacklisted and persecuted. Is he and the Government not aware of this or simply not concerned about this? He was incredibly quick to leave after he made his contribution. He could not leave the Chamber quick enough. He did not want to stay around and hear any of the further contributions on this.

Whistleblowers have had their lives destroyed and even lost. There have been untold mental health repercussions for people who have done the right thing by coming forward to expose waste, corruption and wrongdoing. If the Government was serious about tackling waste, corruption and wrongdoing, it would be very serious about protecting whistleblowers. That is not what we heard from the Minister of State earlier.

We owe a debt of gratitude to whistleblowers. At the very least, there should be strong and proper protections for all whistleblowers. The integrity at work survey in 2023 found that 50% of women and 37% of men who said they reported wrongdoing suffered consequences. They are startlingly high figures. There was no recognition of that in the comments from the Minister of State. He seems to be oblivious to it or simply does not care. That is an incredibly high amount of people coming forward and reporting wrongdoing who are being persecuted and suffering negative consequences as a result, yet we do not hear from the Government about any immediate or urgent action it is going to do about that.

We know the level of persecution and negative consequences is lower for staff in organisations where there is external advice and support made available either through being a member of a union, the speak-up helpline or other supports. It is really important that employers make their employees and potential whistleblowers aware of those supports. They are not enough to mitigate the negative consequences, but they do help.

The Taoiseach's comments on 12 November on the role of Ministers in terms of protected disclosures made to Ministers were misinformed and very worrying. I call on the Minister to clarify those comments. If we have misinformed commentary on whistleblower legislation being made at the head of Government, it sends out a very serious signal to the rest of the country. That needs to be urgently clarified.

There are a number of things that can be done now to improve the situation for whistleblowers. For example, legal aid to whistleblowers should be extended. That is envisaged in the EU whistleblowing directive. It has not been done. We need to be fully compliant with the directive. While there is free legal advice and counselling available, the lack of free legal aid is a major flaw. It should be brought in straight away.

The cap on compensation for whistleblowers under the protected disclosures Act should be removed. Awards should be made only on the principle of what is just and equitable. That cap particularly discriminates against low-paid workers who come forward and workers in the financial services sector where significant amounts of remuneration come through bonuses. That is not taken into account with that cap. I do not think that cap should apply to anyone. It should be based on what is just and equitable, but it particularly penalises low paid workers and people who come forward from the financial services who receive bonuses.

There should be proper training around whistleblowing and protected disclosures law for adjudicators in the Workplace Relations Commission. There is clearly insufficient knowledge of the legislation there. Fundamentally, we need to enact the long-awaited public sector standards Bill to provide ethics training for all public officials. That Bill was brought forward in 2015; ten years later, we are still waiting. Why is the Government doing this? It is straightforward. There is nothing controversial in it. Why has it not been brought forward ten years later? What on earth is it waiting for?

The lack of enforcement powers for the office of protected disclosures needs to be addressed. For example, we have seen that the Dental Council failed to act in a very serious situation. The lack of enforcement powers means there is nothing that can be done when a body chooses not to act after serious issues have been uncovered.

The issue of continuous penalisation needs to be addressed in the legislation. Workers can and often are penalised beyond the six-month or one-year in exceptional circumstances that is allowed for in the Act. However, when that happens, there is no protection or provision for them in the legislation. This time limit should run from the date of the last instance of penalisation. That would make it fairer, but even then, you have to take into account that it can take time for people to come forward. When they are penalised, it can be shocking and traumatic. It can take time for someone to process that and then take time for them to talk to friends, family, the union or workplace supports. It can also then take time for them to figure out what they need to do. Even at that, there needs to be sufficient time given. People do not expect to be in or dealing with these situations. It can take time for them to work through what is going and to realise there are protections in the legislation. Short timeframes can be very prohibitive.

The Office of Protected Disclosures Commission has identified a number of areas where there are gaps in the regulatory and oversight framework. These include private congregated residential settings, home support services, non-professionals working in GP and dental practices and accommodation centres for people seeking international protection. These gaps need to be urgently addressed. Challenges in terms of transmitting disclosures in local authorities have also been identified. That needs to be addressed. Furthermore, some prescribed persons, public and private, are failing to ensure that their protected disclosure channels are clearly visible and readily accessible. That is a major failing in the implementation that needs to be addressed.

There is the issue of bodies failing to act. For example, if a person making the protected disclosure is anonymous, serious allegations are not followed up on. This is completely wrong, and the legislation needs to be changed to ensure that cannot happen. There needs to be a legal requirement to act on useful and verifiable information from anonymous sources. Some public bodies do that, but it is not taking place across the board and has to happen. The Act does not oblige recipients to follow up on anonymous disclosures. They are often ignored or the recipient declines to take action. Recipients should follow up in circumstances where there is proper information and where it shows there could be relevant wrongdoing.

This does not necessarily require a change to legislation. It could be enough for the Minister to revise the statutory guidance on this, making it clear that information must be assessed and investigated where it tends to show relevant wrongdoing, irrespective of whether the identity of the whistleblower is known. Indeed, where it happens, efforts should be made to communicate with the anonymous whistleblower in order to build up trust. This can be a particular issue and can take time, particularly more so with women where it can take maybe more time to move from being anonymous. Public bodies are expected to accept anonymous disclosures under statutory guidance. However, this has to be extended to employers in the private and not-for-profit sectors.

There is a huge amount that needs to be done and this needs to be taken very seriously by the Government. The response by the Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, did not show an intent by the Government to take this with the seriousness that is needed. It was really disrespectful and a slap in the face to whistleblowers who have been persecuted and penalised.

I hope that the Minister of State, Deputy Feighan, shows them in his remarks the recognition that is needed and that he shows the urgency needed to address this.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank those who brought forward this motion, which we support. I mostly thank and pay tribute to the whistleblowers who are in the Gallery and those at home and elsewhere. One of the privileges of my job is that I get to meet whistleblowers while they are in the process of whistleblowing. I get to work with them as they are trying to bring justice and do good in whatever sphere they work in.

I have met a whole bunch of whistleblowers at this stage working in different areas of the world or industry. What is interesting is these are not people who are extraordinary to look at.

They look like anybody else. There is not a sign above their head that says they are a heroic and extremely brave person. These are ordinary people who take a decision to do the right thing. They see wrong being done, be it springs inserted wrongly into children, unnecessary operations on children, abuse taking place in our care homes, wrongdoings in the Irish Prison Service or abuse and mistreatment of animals and workers at Dublin Zoo. They see things taking place they know are wrong and decide that they will do the right thing about it. What opens up for them then is not really what they expect, in some cases. They go to do the right thing, they make a protected disclosure and then, in many cases, they face very serious consequences for their whole life. They face very serious harassment and we have correctly heard a lot about Noel McGree, who was evicted, with his family, into homelessness which flowed from protected disclosures about the Irish Prison Service, for which he was vindicated.

Steadfastly, these people do the right thing. Many times, we see on "Prime Time" or whatever some major scandal that breaks and it then becomes a major story in here, out of which some change begins to happen. Many times the public does not know that starts, in most cases, with a whistleblower who calls out the wrongdoing. These are also the cases we know off. There are people who have contacted me who have blown the whistle on various things and never get justice. They get harassed out of their workplace and never get what they have sought by speaking out. The problem with the Government's approach and its amendment is that it is basically saying, "Fair play to the whistleblowers but everything is fine here in terms of legislation". However, the reality of people's experiences is that everything is very far from being okay.

Briefly, I want to recount one whistleblower's experience who is in the Visitors Gallery, Margo Hannon. Margo was a healthcare assistant. She made a protected disclosure to the HSE regarding serious adult safeguarding failures, breaches of national infection control guidelines, deficiencies in end of life care and communications issues. That resulted in a three year investigation, which was not independent of the HSE, and at the end of which the HSE failed to publish or provide recommendations from the approximately 500 page report. Throughout this period, she experienced stonewalling, reprisals and ultimately, constructive dismissal.

She made a second protected disclosure to HIQA anonymously regarding serious concerns about suspected gerontophilia and poor infection control practices by a nurse. HIQA foundprima facieevidence that wrongdoing may have occurred and referred the matter to the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland, NMBI. However, the NMBI incorrectly refused to treat the matter as a protected disclosure, solely because it had been submitted anonymously. It now wishes to treat it as a fitness to practice complaint, which would require disclosure of her identity. The NMBI requested consent to release her name to protect the nurse's right to fair procedures "as required by law.". This appears to conflict with the spirit and intent of current protected disclosures legislation, as well as the EU whistleblowing directive. To date, no investigation has been carried out and the nurse in question continues to have unsupervised access to non-verbal patients with dementia. She says that her strongest wish is that healthcare workers be enabled to make protected disclosures anonymously, including through a solicitor, as is standard practice in other jurisdictions.

Finally, I will take a moment to correct the record in relation to one point I made with regard to the use of funds by Dublin Zoo to build an extension to the zoo director's house. To clarify, these funds came from unrestricted funds and not a public fundraising appeal. I stand over all the other remarks I made in relation to abuse of animals and harassment of workers at Dublin Zoo - this is about whistleblowers. I thank the whistleblowers who bravely brought these important matters of public concern out into the open at great personal cost.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Independent Ireland for bringing this motion forward, which we are happy to support. I got an email back in 2024, and I have been out sick for a few months so I am not sure to where this has developed, but it gives an indication of the despair and the consequences for those who make protected disclosures. It is a case I raised and about which I submitted parliamentary questions. This is an email to me after we followed up an issue for her. By the way, she was working in a children's residential institution with some of the most vulnerable children possible. She alleged very serious allegations against the CEO and staff of that residential institution with vulnerable children. She made a protected disclosure and was concerned that the person in Tusla who was looking at the protected disclosure was also somebody who was in regular contact with the institution and, therefore, was not independent.

I am not in a position to judge the rights and wrongs of this but you must look at the human consequences of it. She sent an email that said she was sorry she was only getting back to me now as she was dealing with some health issues due to the stress of the protected disclosure. She told me Tusla was supposed to give her an outcome of the protected disclosure but never did. She asked if I could please bring the letter to the Minister's attention. She said she had lost everything due to the protected disclosure while the people who have done wrong get to prosper. She detailed the lengths she went to for the past 20 years to change her life and the Traveller barriers she faced of addiction and having her own trauma from the care system. This woman had been through the care system and subsequently worked in it. She said she did what she was supposed to do as a mandated person and reported wrong doing. She finished therapy and is now out of work for five months. I will not go on but the Minister of State understands the consequences of it. She raised very serious concerns that the people who are investigating the protected disclosure - a very serious protected disclosure - have a conflict of interest.

Here is another example. This is to do with members of the Defence Forces who came to me because they alleged they were working with dangerous chemicals that affected their health and even their ability to have children. They allege that a presentation you get when you finish in the Defence Forces was denied to them because they had made a protected disclosure. When I put in a parliamentary question about this to the Minister, this was the answer I got:

I would like to thank the Deputy for his question. I am not at liberty to discuss or comment on any protected disclosure; however, I am assured by Military Management that no member of the Defence Forces is denied anything on foot of having made a protected disclosure.

That is unbelievable. A member of the Defence Forces says military management are penalising them for making a protected disclosure over the behaviour of military management. The Minister then goes to military management to ask whether this true and military management says of course it is not true. What else would it say? That is an answer from the Minister. It is absolutely outrageous. The Minister accepts that and it is either incredible incompetence or, even worse, the Minister is in on it and in on the attempt to suppress the protected disclosure with military management.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two things-----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach should stop the clock if he is going to interrupt me. Stop the clock.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is for the people in the Visitors Gallery.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Stop the clock.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the people in the Visitors Gallery please desist from reacting to any comments that are made. I warn the Deputy and all Deputies not to make any comments about something that might be the subject of an ongoing investigation. I ask Deputies to be careful with comments in relation to that.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lastly, on foot of comments from Deputy O'Reilly about workers, it is connected to protected disclosures but it is more generally about workers facing problems in particular industries and the punishments they suffer. I have raised again and again the fact that film workers working in the film industry in this country have been blacklisted out of the industry - people who have worked for 20, 30 and 40 years are gone from the industry and left with nothing - because they raised questions about the failure to implement things like the fixed-term workers' legislation.

I know for a fact, because I have met some of them, that the line producers who employ the people have said they will never employ them again based on their view of it. They are the people who have the power. The problem is that there is no independent adjudication of these things and I have raised again and again that the workers have no defence against blacklisting in the film industry, even though the Irish State funds the film industry. What does the Department of arts do when you say this to it? It goes to the people against whom the allegations are made to ask whether the allegations are true. The people who get the money from the Department say of course they are not true and they are totally innocent. What else would they say? This has to stop.

Gillian Toole (Meath East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Independent Ireland for bringing this forward. It is probably fair to say that most of us here grew up from childhood with a moral phrase repeated by our parents or guardians, "If you tell the truth, you will not get into trouble" and now we are here in the Chamber, dealing with the Protected Disclosure Act 2014, as amended in 2022 on foot of EU Directive No. 2019/1937.

I most recently brought two constituent and professional colleague protected disclosures to the Chamber. PD 2025 No. 17 has been raised twice previously. Most definitely both issues are in the public interest and they have been made with a very strong evidence base, the second one being a child safeguarding and Garda vetting issue. I just want to point out that at this point all correct disclosure procedures have been followed by the reporting persons. Everything in the 86 pages of the 2022 Act has been followed but there has been no follow-up. We are past the three-month mark. In one case we are about to hit the six-month mark. There has been no follow up by the OPDC, An Garda Síochána, the HPRA, the HSE or the PSI. There is not supposed to be penalisation by employment but in the case of one person there is absolute penalisation in their employment status. In my opinion, the compellability piece is the missing piece.

In closing, I note the comments by the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, yesterday on the Order of Business, that whistleblowers should not find "that their own situation is affected in a negative way". Unfortunately, that is not the reality. The Minister also said that he or the Government would be open to looking at improvements. Compellability and adhering to the strict timelines that are in the existing legislation is the starting point. In relation to those issues I would be very grateful to the Minister of State if there is some way of accelerating the matter that he can embark on.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome all the whistleblowers and their friends in the Public Gallery. I am supporting this motion. We all remember former Sergeant Maurice McCabe who exposed corruption and malpractice within An Garda Síochána, and the treatment he faced as a result. It led to the disclosures tribunal. On the recent protected disclosures Deputy Toole mentioned, I also raised these here in this House, including one from a healthcare professional. It raised deeply serious concerns about systemic failings during the Covid-19 scam-demic vaccine roll-out and treatment protocols in nursing homes. The discloser alleged that warnings of a safety risk were repeatedly ignored, that informed consent was not obtained and that the regulatory bodies failed to investigate credible reports of harm. They highlighted issues such as the suppression of safety data, the misuse of non-disclosure agreements and the absence of timely investigations even when lives were at stake. Lives were at stake and lives were lost. The evidence presented points to a pattern of stonewalling, delay and denial when regulators and public bodies refused to act on credible warnings and failed to investigate clusters of sudden deaths and a rise in the number of adverse events. This undermined public trust and violated legal and ethical obligations. The Department of Health, the Minister and the regulatory bodies continue to ignore these protected disclosures.

This motion calls for what is currently needed: swift independent investigation into disclosures, and we are going to have to go outside the country to get that; enforceable sanctions for officials who obstruct and delay inquiries, which they do; legal aid and support for whistleblowers who suffer retaliation; and transparency measures including publication of anonymised progress reports and compliance data. We cannot allow a culture where speaking up means career destruction. Whistleblowers are acting in the public interest. They protect lives and it is time for the State to protect them. I am seriously calling for the Minister for Health, the Taoiseach and all the other agencies to deal with the protected disclosures that Deputy Toole and I have brought to the House in good faith. It was a very serious situation that happened during Covid and it continues because, of course, we have had no investigation into the happenings of Covid. It was a kind of desktop experience but I want international experts from abroad to come in here for a truly independent inquiry. We need that and I hope this motion will be supported.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I too wish to support the motion and I welcome the people in the Gallery here. When they were doing good they were ostracised and vilified when they were actually working in the public interest. I regret that very much. We have been told, very eloquently, how some of these people lost their homes, lost their families and suffered an awful lot of mental hardship. I also want to welcome my group in the Gallery. They are from Gneeveguilla and Rathmore. We hope they enjoy the Dáil here today.

I will not go into individual cases, but I know that these people would not have raised the issues they raised only they knew in their heart and soul they were doing good, which was to protect people who were being hurt in many different ways. Like Deputy Mattie McGrath I certainly want an open and transparent review of what happened during Covid. One of the things that hurt me to the core of my heart was when the sons and daughters and family members of elderly people were not let in to see them for two to three weeks before they got really bad. The most hurtful thing about it all was that when they were unconscious for their last few hours, and when they did not know anyone at all, everyone and anyone was let in then. These kinds of things were happening. We need to find out what was the purpose of that because it certainly was not to aid or help the old person who was sick. They did not know what in the name of God was happening to them. Many of these people had their senses and they were left there to die without anyone being let in to see them. That hurts me still to this day. We must have a transparent account of what happened or how that happened.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is true to say, in the context of the people, that the State is the civil servants and the politicians, and it stands guilty of an awful injustice to the people in the Public Gallery, and to those within the system who are experiencing the chilling effect of this debate on what happened to the whistleblowers in the past and so will not come forward. The State should own up to its moral obligations and should reach out to the likes of Maurice McCabe, who may not have been here today were it not for the strength of his own family and his wife Lorraine. What has happened in the Garda since then? Have we seen dramatic reforms? Have we seen the Charleton tribunal and its output even implemented? What happened during the tribunal? My own name was besmirched by some unknown Deirdre G. during the course of that to discredit me as a witness.

Consider the case of John Barrett. The then Minister came in here to the Dáil and told us that he was being suspended but nothing happened since. John Barrett should be reinstated. He told the truth at the Committee of Public Accounts. The moral obligation should be that he should be back in his place and he should be paid. The Charleton tribunal, and the efforts being made by the State through its legal representatives, is costing the State a fortune.

The ones being penalised are the ones who are making the disclosures based on truth. The ones that are making money out of it are the lawyers, paid by the Government, which is the taxpayers. I would love to hear from Lorraine Morris, who was involved in the banking inquiry here. It was a complete whitewash according to Jonathan Sugarman, and I support that view. I would like to hear what she has to say about the Ulster Bank investigation, about the fact that the Financial Times mentions Ulster Bank, RBS and Lloyds, and about the suggestion of a €50 billion redress scheme. Part of what happened there is impacting the SMEs in this country. Let us know what happened within this House in relation to the banking inquiry. Let us hear directly from Lorraine Morris. Jonathan Sugarman lost his job and nothing was learned from it.

Consider the case of Sean O'Brien. A Minister over the prisons at that time said that he was outrageously dismissed. The Minister said he was satisfied that Mr. O'Brien was mistreated by the State. The case was never brought to his attention.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy-----

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Julie Grace-----

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy McGuinness-----

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I will conclude now. Ms Julie Grace should be recognised and it should be sorted without her having to go to Europe. Mr. Noel McGree lost his house. He was treated so badly-----

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call the Minister of State, Deputy Feighan.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and still has not been compensated by the State. Should the Minister not just step in and say we have a moral obligation to fix the wrong that was done to that man and his family?

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We must remember, a Chathaoirleach Gníomhach-----

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call on the Minister of State, Deputy Feighan, for the Government reply.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----that behind every single one of those whistleblowers and the ones who are silently waiting for something to happen-----

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----there is a family and a mental health issue.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We sat idly by-----

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call the Minister of State, Deputy Feighan.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----while all of that was put on them by the State and its agents.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call the Minister of State, Deputy Feighan.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Alo Mohan would be the same. I could go on and mention others.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, please.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know I am abusing my time-----

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, Deputy McGuinness.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but I only have two and a half minutes.

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call the Minister of State, Deputy Feighan.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to say that if we only learned from the whistleblowers, we would save the State a fortune and would hail them as heroes and not describe them, as happened, as "disgusting".

Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy McGuinness.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are not disgusting. They are, in fact, heroes.

Ken O'Flynn (Cork North-Central, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a seat on this side of the House for Deputy McGuinness.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will fight my battles on this side.

Frank Feighan (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all Members for the informative and constructive debate on protected disclosures legislation. I welcome and thank the whistleblowers in the Public Gallery for their great work and service.

I also thank the members of the Independent Technical Group for the proposals they have put forward for this debate. Having reviewed the proposals, I would like to reiterate the issues regarding the flaws evident in some of these proposals, as was highlighted by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae.

I am in full agreement with the need to adhere to the current timetable for the completion of a statutory review of the national legislation and the EU Commission review of the EU whistleblowing directive. I would also like to respond to some of the points raised, in particular the claim that comparative evidence from other jurisdictions demonstrates the need for additional measures, such as reward schemes, punitive penalties for delay and mandatory publication of outcomes. This does not reflect Ireland's legal and policy context. While countries such as the United States of America and Canada operate reward-based systems, these are linked to specific enforcement models, such as securities regulations and tax recovery, which are not applicable under Irish or EU law. Ireland has fully implemented directive EU 2019/1937, which sets out clear obligations for the timely handling of disclosures, for confidentiality and for feedback within statutory guidelines. Those obligations include acknowledgement within seven days and follow-up within three months, extendable only in exceptional cases.

Our framework also includes strong enforcement provisions. For example, under section 14A of the Protected Disclosures Act obstruction or bad-faith conduct attract criminal sanctions, including fines of up to €250,000 and imprisonment for up to two years. Introducing so-called reward mechanisms or punitive publication requirements would go beyond the directive, raise significant legal and ethical concerns and risk undermining the impartiality of the system. Ireland's approach prioritises transparency, accountability and fairness, consistent with EU standards, rather than adopting models designed for fundamentally different regulatory environments.

I want Deputies to be clear that the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is intended to protect workers from penalisation for speaking up about wrongdoing in the workplace. We can all agree that a person who truly and sincerely acts as a whistleblower should not be treated unfairly and should not lose their job or face adverse legal proceedings. This Government remains committed to the fundamental aim in line with our EU colleagues and the relevant EU directive. However, the last enhancement to this legislation, the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, is very recent. That was not a long time ago. Even more recently, the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner, OPDC, was established. It commenced operations on 1 January 2023.

The directive states that the European Commission must furnish a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the impact of the national law that transposed the directive. The Commission has confirmed that this report will be finalised sometime in 2026. The statutory review of the Act that is required by the same Act must be completed in 2027. That will commence in 2028. The main point I am making is that there is already much work going on in this area, on top of the legislation that has already been updated recently.

To clarify for the House, the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 protects workers from penalisation for speaking up about wrongdoing in the workplace. Persons who make protected disclosures, often referred to as whistleblowers, should not be treated unfairly, lose their jobs or face legal proceedings because they have made protected disclosures. The Protected Disclosures Act 2014, as amended by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, provides these statutory protections for workers. Protected disclosures can be made by workers in both the public and private sectors, including not only the ordinary employees of an organisation but also any persons engaged under contract by the organisation, such as contractors, agency workers or paid trainees, as well as volunteers, board members, shareholders and job applicants.

There are three main channels for making protected disclosures and they are open to all workers. The first is internal disclosure to the employer. Some 85% of protected disclosures are made in this manner in the first instance.

The second is external disclosure to any person prescribed by the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation or the Protected Disclosures Commissioner. Prescribed persons are usually regulatory bodies with powers to investigate and take enforcement action in relation to the wrongdoing in the particular sector. For example, the Health and Safety Authority, HIQA and the Data Protection Commission are all prescribed bodies.

The third channel is disclosure to any other third party. This could include public disclosure to a journalist or a Member of the Oireachtas. This channel is subject to more stringent conditions to qualify for protection. In general, this channel should only be used as a last resort if the other channels fail to operate as intended.

In addition, workers in public bodies can make protected disclosures to a relevant Minister of the Government. Under the amended Act, all protected disclosures made to Ministers will be sent to the Protected Disclosure Commissioner for onward transmission to the most appropriate person to address the concerns raised.

There are also special channels for the reporting of wrongdoing related to law enforcement, security, defence, international relations and intelligence. The Act prohibits the penalisation, or the threat of penalisation, of a worker for having made a protected disclosure. Penalisation includes unfair dismissal, unfair treatment, such as suspension, demotion, loss of pay, change of working hours, reassignment, disciplinary action, etc., and coercion, intimidation and harassment. All employers have a duty of care to ensure their workers do not suffer penalisation. All workers have a duty of care to ensure that workers do not suffer penalisation. The Act provides for criminal penalties for penalisation of reporting persons, taking vexatious legal proceedings against a reporting person and disclosing the identity of a reporting person.

Exchequer grant support has been provided to Transparency International Ireland, TII, since 2016 for the provision of a free speak-up helpline and legal advice for persons considering making a reported disclosure or who have made a protected disclosure. Funding for TII in 2025 amounts to €368,500, which is the same amount as was provided in 2024.

The OPDC commenced operation on 1 January 2023. The commissioner is designated to assist reporting persons wishing to make a disclosure to a prescribed person, either by directing them to the most appropriate prescribed person or by receiving the disclosure and referring it on to the most appropriate prescribed person. With 100 prescribed persons, this will make it easier for workers to get their reports to the right person.

12 o’clock

It also exists to support Ministers in accessing and following up on protected disclosures they receive by referring them on to the most appropriate authority to deal with the information reported. In certain rare cases where an appropriate person cannot be identified, the office will follow up on the information received directly and the Act has suitable powers to this effect. This ensures that there is always a prescribed person in place to report for any matter within the scope of the Act.

I will bring the Deputy's concerns, views and helpful information and interventions back to the Minister and to Government. I thank the Deputies for their attention for today's discussion.

I understand the proposal put forward by the Deputies. However, we must oppose this motion and support an amendment to continue to support the full implementation of the Protected Disclosures Act and the protection of whistleblowers generally.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy O'Donoghue to conclude.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Cheann Comhairle, I note that reply showed disrespect to certain of those in the Public Gallery and to the issue at hand.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Excuse me, Deputy. Deputy O'Donoghue to continue, please.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I start off, I thank John Campbell, Mark Nolan, Emma Corrigan, my colleagues here in Independent Ireland and, most of all, the whistleblowers who gave us the details and information on this to make sure that we could bring a Private Members' Bill to the Government on which it is after delivering 20 minutes of waffle outside of what we were talking about.

I want to make quite clear what we are looking for is a review of the statutory protections afforded to civil servants and - this is where the Deputies from that side of the House have to listen - a clear mechanism for professional accountability when officials act outside of their remit, not within their remit. Therefore, if they are doing things right, give them 100% protection. If they are doing things wrong, they are breaking the law and you should not give them protection. If they are knowingly breaking the law, you should not protect them by using public funds to defend ultra vires actions, except where a genuine good-faith error can be demonstrated. This House has a duty to ensure that State power is exercised lawfully and transparently and that when it is abused, responsibility does not fall on the taxpayer or on an innocent family, but on those who misused that power.

We can go across all the Civil Service and there are civil servants doing brilliant work. They are doing good work, they are doing responsible work and they are helping. We have a minority that have abused their power, but they also were in positions that they also abused the power on people that were in job descriptions under them to follow it on and keep this thing going. This is a responsibility of the persons that started this and I am not asking the Minister to break the law.

A review of the submission of the EU directive shows that 50% of all submissions came from Ireland and the Government is not listening. I have had people from that side of the House stand up here and say we are right. I will watch how every one of them votes this evening.

I am asking the Government to have an open vote in recognition of these whistleblowers here today. I am asking every Government Member for a vote of conscience. That is something that is within the remit of Government. How many of them will sleep tonight if they vote under our whip system today on an amendment that the Government is bringing to this? It is wrong. They know it is wrong to protect people in the Civil Service who are doing wrong outside of their remit. This is what we are asking the Government to address. Every one of the colleagues here on the Opposition benches spoke on this today. There were people who had tears in their eyes from what they were telling the House was happening, yet the Government brought 20 minutes of reading that script to the table.

Jessica Sheedy, in 2018, died in UHL and only for the whistleblowers, that same management would be in place today and we would not be correcting the past. We have a new management there. It is trying its best to repair the damage that was done. A girl died under someone who should have never been allowed to operate in the first place because somebody withheld paperwork. That investigation has been going on since 2018 and now it has gone back to the UK to show them the full paperwork that was not disclosed. The Government wants to protect people under the whistleblowers law and say they are being protected, but they are not. I know her family, Ann and Jimmy. I was at their wedding, and the Government is here putting in an amendment to "protect" them. That is wrong.

We have people in the Garda service who saw wrongdoing, and what does the Government do? It protects the people who have done wrong instead of rewarding those who are doing good and the people who are trying to improve to make sure that they are lawful and right. The Government is there to protect them. In all conscience, none of them would tell their children to keep doing wrong and we will protect them.

I am asking the Government to withdraw its amendment. I am asking every Deputy in this House on the side of Government to withdraw it and do the right thing. I am not asking to put good civil servants at risk. I am asking the Government, by law, to bring the civil servants to justice and stop the rot.

Millions of euro have been spent in cover-ups because they are afraid of the law. What is wrong with putting your hands and saying you have done wrong? There will be people who make allegations and submissions to say there is wrong being done to them. It is within the law that if people wrongfully make allegations, those can be dealt with, and rightly so. People who bring false allegations need to be dealt with as well but the laws are there for that. However, there are no laws for what is happening here, from Tusla to the fire service and the county councils. I read about a case today that had been going on since 2019 where the judge made a statement on the case that there was no evidence from the local authority, yet it used and abused the privilege of taxpayers' money and of the Government to bring this matter to court knowing that it had not the evidence and wanted to get a criminal conviction against somebody because someone else came up with some idea that they wanted to bring it to court. That is wrong. If somebody does something wrong, they are brought to court and held accountable. That is Meath County Council. I have it in Limerick County Council. I have it in Cork. I have six or seven county councils at the moment. We have shown the cases that came to court but should never have gone to court. Now there are High Court challenges.

I am going to put it on the record here today that there are people within the Civil Service who are knowingly doing wrong, and when the Government sees such cases going to the High Court and being lost, the Government can sit there in shame. The Government has a chance now to do right by having a vote of conscience - an open vote by Government.

The Taoiseach walked in here a minute ago and I believe he walked out again. I respect that because there were ten minutes to go before Leaders' Questions, but he is here.

I am asking Government Members to look up at the Gallery and think of their children and families when they vote on this tonight and that they knowingly are protecting civil servants who are doing wrong. They need to protect and reward the ones who are doing right and to make sure that they bring those others before the law. The law of this country is the law and people are not above it. I am asking Government Members to hold these people accountable and reward those people who have gone through torture for their goodness, for bringing this and for all the efforts within their families as well.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time this evening.