I join Deputies across the House in condemning yesterday's assault on Deputy Michael Healy-Rae. I wish him a speedy recovery and send best wishes to him and his family.

Last night's "RTÉ Investigates" programme was shocking. It showed that the oppressive and vindictive culture that existed when Maurice McCabe was targeted for speaking out has not been rooted out of An Garda Síochána. We heard credible allegations that Garda personnel who raised concerns were isolated, undermined and penalised. Again and again, protecting the institution appeared to take priority over investigating what had been reported.

The concerns were not trivial. They included firearms and ammunition being stored in appalling conditions, warnings about unsafe holsters being ignored, the refusal to technically examine the holster worn by Detective Garda Colm Horkan when his firearm was taken and used to murder him and alleged interference with a protected disclosure file concerning a shotgun which disappeared from Garda custody and was returned to criminal hands. Most extraordinary, the people working in the Garda office responsible for protecting whistleblowers became so disturbed by what they witnessed that they became whistleblowers themselves.

Deputy McEntee was Minister for Justice while much of this was happening. A new Garda protected disclosure office became operational on 6 January 2025. The establishment of that office was public knowledge, but the public announcement said nothing about what was happening to the existing office. We were not told its permanent and experienced personnel were being excluded, that outstanding confidential files were being transferred to a new team or what safeguards were being put in place to protect the continuity and confidentiality of those files. This restructuring was directed by the former Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, so my question to the Minister is precise. Before the change took effect, was the Minister or her Department told the existing personnel would be removed from the office and that their outstanding protected disclosure files would be transferred to a new team? If she was told, what questions did she ask? Did she seek assurances that those files would be protected and no member of staff would be penalised for raising concerns? If she was not told, does she believe the former Garda Commissioner complied with his statutory obligation under section 41 of the Garda Síochána Act to keep the Minister and her Department fully informed of significant developments capable of damaging public confidence in An Garda Síochána?

Operational independence gave the Commissioner control of the decision. It did not release him from his duty to account for it or to keep the Minister fully informed. The Taoiseach yesterday suggested he could not comment because these matters involved protected disclosures, as did the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade today, but confidentiality protects the whistleblower, not the Government or senior Garda management, from having to account for their failings. This is not about revealing the context of any disclosure. It is about whether the system established to protect whistleblowers was purposefully undermined.

I do not think anyone who watched the RTÉ documentary last night decided we could continue as we are. What measures does the Government intend to take to ensure this is investigated thoroughly? Not a single person here believes we can just revert the investigation of these disclosures to Garda management. What does the Government intend to do about it? What exactly was the Minister informed of by the former Garda Commissioner Drew Harris about the change in the office personnel?

I thank the Deputy. There are two parts to what he asked. One is the matter of a protected disclosure and that is the information given by the individual last night. As I said, it is for individuals to disclose what they have disclosed, but it is not for me to discuss it. The matters discussed last night about the office, as the Deputy mentioned, are clearly, as was set out, the subject of an ongoing investigation, so it is not for me to comment on them. That is set out clearly in the 2014 Act.

My understanding of the new unit in An Garda Síochána was that it was a move to enhance the unit. I note it was in January 2025. An election had taken place in November 2024 and there was a change soon after that, but that change in the unit was to move it from being a part-time unit to a full-time unit and to ensure the garda of most senior rank was an inspector, which was not the case before that. That was clearly the intention in establishing a new unit. I am afraid I was not party to whether people transferred over. It is not information I am aware of, but the whole intention of establishing a new unit in 2025 was to enhance it, put it on a permanent footing and make sure the most senior rank in it was inspector, which had not been the case previously.

It is important for me to stress that there is an onus and obligation on each of us in this House, particularly given what we saw in the past, which was the reason for introducing legislation in 2014 and for enhancing it. It is why at the end of this year a review will start to look at the legislation, whether it is operating effectively and whether there are things we need to change. I encourage and suggest, particularly after last night, that all of us and the stakeholders involved in this need to make sure representation is made to that review because we need to make sure legislation we enact, which has put this into an independent process away from the political system, as it should be, is operating as effectively as possible.

When you put something at arm's length from the political system, you need to make sure it is operating effectively, as it should be, while maintaining that independence. I do not think any Minister for justice should have a role in a protected disclosure. No Minister for justice should be the investigator in something that is brought forward. I do not think anybody in this House believes they should.

We now have an opportunity to review the legislation. I believe it has worked effectively. Again, I commend the many people who, despite great personal impact on their own lives and the lives of their families, have come forward to highlight issues, not just in An Garda Síochána but also in other workplaces. That is the importance of the legislation. It is not just about An Garda Síochána but An Garda Síochána is quite literally charged with protecting people in this country and with the security and protection of this State. We need to make sure the structures within An Garda Síochána are such that, if people are not doing things correctly, there are repercussions. We need to make sure there are oversight structures in place. As I have outlined, many such structures and oversight mechanisms were introduced when I was Minister for Justice and many have been followed up on by the current Minister.

Again, I did not ask the Minister whether she was informed of the details of any protected disclosure. We know that section 41 of the Garda Síochána Act requires that the Commissioner inform the Minister for justice if there are incidents happening that have the potential to undermine public trust in the office. Public trust has been very clearly undermined by any number of issues captured in last night's RTÉ documentary. Those charged with looking after whistleblowers, taking on their files and investigating their claims had to become whistleblowers themselves and were then removed from the protected disclosures office. Does the Minister not believe that is an issue worthy of the former Commissioner, Drew Harris, informing her of as the office was changing over? Does she not feel such an issue was incorporated into that Act? Is she satisfied that the information she was given was enough? This goes to the heart of ministerial accountability and Ministers' role of informing Parliament. It is very clear that there was a gross failure and that people were being penalised. What exactly did Drew Harris inform the Minister of when he was making this change?

I know I sound like I am repeating myself but it is important to say that the Act very clearly states that, under the law, it is not an option to comment on or confirm the existence or details of any specific protected disclosure. What the Deputy is referencing, what was highlighted last night and what was spoken of by individuals clearly suggests that is what is being talked about here. I am not trying to be evasive. I am trying to be very clear. Legislation was enacted that very clearly precludes my commenting on the matter. As for the office itself, I was not aware of how the structure was changing or what individuals were or were not being carried over. That is not something that was brought to my attention because it is a matter for An Garda Síochána. The 2005 Act very clearly sets out the roles and responsibilities of An Garda Síochána. My role as Minister for Justice at that time was to make sure that we strengthened oversight mechanisms where we needed to.

To refer specifically to Fiosrú, individuals made a complaint, the complaint went to the ombudsman that existed then and it then went through a process of criminal investigation that might have come to an inconclusive answer. Those individuals then had to start at the beginning and potentially go through a civil process. It took a long time and nobody was getting answers. The process was protracted and was not working effectively. That is why Fiosrú was introduced. It was to ensure we would have a quicker, more efficient and more effective process. That was my priority and focus as Minister for Justice.

I again stress that, at all times, no matter what was going on, I adhered to and followed the rules, regulations and legalities of the 2014 and 2022 Acts. That was my responsibility as Minister. I took it very seriously and still do. I have always adhered to the rules in that regard.