I raise a matter of grave concern regarding the practical effects of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. While the Act was conceived with noble intent in the shadow of the experience of the Maurice McCabe case and his testimony, the reality for many whistleblowers across this nation is that the promised protection remains legally at odds with the lived reality of the legislation.

Recent findings of the commission of investigation into the Grace case underscore this point. Despite protected disclosures having been made, the system failed with harrowing consequences. The individuals who spoke out were not met with support but with institutional silence and personal hardship.

One of the most glaring problems with the Act of 2014 is the deficiency of the framework through the absence of legal aid for those who make protected disclosures and subsequently find themselves before the Workplace Relations Commission, the Labour Court or the Circuit Court, High Court or Supreme Court. These individuals are often pitted against a large organisation, such as the HSE and others, with ample legal reassurances and well-resourced legal teams. They are left to shoulder the financial and emotional costs along with this. Moreover, too many of those taking these cases have been bullied, blurred and pushed into a non-disclosure agreement that functions as a de facto gagging clause. Not only does this rob the public of the truth, but it ensures the systemic reform that needs to take place does not take place. It is a chilling message to those who want to be whistleblowers but are afraid to come forward because of the financial implications and risk. I ask the Minister plainly whether the Government will commit to reviewing the Protected Disclosures Act, with a view to introducing statutory legal aid for those individuals who disclose and are deemed appropriate and protected under the 2014 Act?

I thank Deputy O'Flynn. I take with great seriousness the issues he has identified on the experience of individuals relating to the protected disclosures regime. As he knows, we have various legislation from 2014 up to 2022 reflecting the updated reforms introduced, some of which were introduced in the aftermath of some of the cases he has referenced, and reflecting best practice. Under the current regime a review is built in under the 2022 Act, which is due in 2027. We also have the Protected Disclosures Commissioner, who independently has a statutory function in the context of protected disclosures. Support from my Department is given to Transparency International Ireland; its Speak Up helpline is funded by the Department to support those who make a protected disclosure. Strong legislative and statutory frameworks must also be matched by implementation across Departments, which have responsibility at statutory and departmental level for statutory and mandatory disclosures.

In terms of protected disclosures and Deputy O'Flynn's request for a review, I am happy to engage with him or to get feedback on the experience of the individuals concerned. We need to have a protected disclosures environment which works in the interests of whistleblowers, who should be protected and supported with whatever issue they want to raise. I am happy to reflect on what Deputy O'Flynn has said today in this context, taking into account the fact there is a statutory review period built into the existing legislative framework. I will ask my officials to reflect on what Deputy O'Flynn has stated and what has emanated from what has been expressed by others involved in particular cases.

I thank the Minister for his reply but it is a bit like previous replies in that it does not really say much. How many people will come forward as whistleblowers and sign these non-disclosure agreements, and how many problems will be hidden and put under the carpet yet again, before 2027? If we did not have the likes of Vicky Phelan, who decided not to sign a non-disclosure agreement, we may not have ever known of the scandals and the number of deaths. How many things have been hidden in Tusla, the HSE or banking? If whistleblowers had wanted to come forward from the banking sector prior to the collapse in 2007, when we in the House all now know there were people asleep at the wheel at the head of financial regulation, they could not have done so because they had signed non-disclosure agreements. Banking scandals were hidden. So many other scandals are hidden in this country that we are not even able to get to because of the fact that whistleblowers do not have legal support.

We have to get this sorted, or else we will be a nation of cover up after cover up, learning nothing from all the cover ups.

My Department works with the protected disclosures national advisory group, a forum of disclosure managers from Departments, public bodies and prescribed persons to share best practice and identify any challenges that are emerging from the existing legislative framework. I will ask them to review what the Deputy has stated and feedback from others in the context of what he has said regarding the existing legislative position. Important reforms were made in 2014 and in 2022, all in the interest of supporting those who make a protected disclosure to Departments. I want to ensure that the framework we have is in line with best practice, both in at domestic and European levels-----

Not for the whistleblowers.

I assure the Deputy that this is my genuine intention. A legislative framework must protect whistleblowers and those who make a protected disclosure. I will ask the advisory group, which consists of a number of members across different Departments, to review what the Deputy has said and indeed if there are any reforms-----

Thank you, Minister.