It has emerged that a whistleblower made a very serious protected disclosure to the Minister for justice in September 2023. It alleged that the gun holsters being used by An Garda Síochána were faulty and dangerous. The whistleblower said that the warnings about the unregulated gun holsters had been ignored. The faulty gun holsters are alleged to have contributed to the murder of one garda because it was so easy for the killer to slip the garda's gun from the holster, and the serious injury of another because the holster effectively triggered the trigger when it was being pulled.

The disclosure alleges that Drew Harris stopped an independent safety review into the holster from taking place. As this disclosure directly implicated the Garda Commissioner, it was legally routed to the Department of justice. The Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner ruled that the Department of justice was the appropriate body to investigate the disclosure. However, the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Helen McEntee, directly intervened and told her officials to send the matter back to An Garda Síochána to investigate. We have documentary evidence to show she blocked the Department from investigating.

When this was returned to An Garda Síochána, the whistleblower himself was named. The Minister for justice broke the law in relation to this. The whistleblower's identity should have been protected. Instead, the whistleblower was exposed to the same employer against which he was making the allegations and, consequently, his life became hell. When the matter was referred back to An Garda Síochána, the two people responsible for looking into it were so outraged that they themselves blew the whistle and subsequently submitted protected disclosures. The Garda Commissioner responded by effectively shutting down the protected disclosures unit, leaving the new whistleblowers without a job.

This is a massive scandal and, in many ways, it is even worse than the Maurice McCabe scandal a number of years ago. Does the Tánaiste accept that the Minister for justice broke the law in her handling of the situation? When the Tánaiste was Minister for justice, a protected disclosure landed on his desk in relation to faulty ammunition. What role did he play in the decision to refer that disclosure back to An Garda Síochána?

As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows, the Oireachtas must always uphold the laws within which we all operate. The legislation passed by this House in 2014 was very clear. It was to remove politicians from the investigation of complaints surrounding wrongdoing in the workplace of State agencies. This resulted in the passage and signing into law of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. The Act puts in place measures to support and protect people with concerns about actions or omissions in their workplace who wish to speak up and to do so confidentially and safely. It is very important that robust legislation is in place in relation to that because whistleblowing plays an important role in our democracy and in democracy more broadly.

A review of the operation of the Protected Disclosures Act is due to take place in the coming year. This will begin with a public consultation in which I would encourage all stakeholders and wider society to participate. When we passed the law in 2014, it specifically committed to a review of the legislation. That is timely and important.

As the Deputy alluded to, a number of concerns expressed in the RTÉ programme are subject to the legislation and have been subject to actions under it. This restricts what can be said, despite the ability of complainants to openly outline their concerns. We have legislation that seems to openly allow complainants to speak, which is absolutely appropriate, but there are restrictions on what officeholders can say in response. In light of the comments made in that programme, and some of the comments the Deputy has reiterated here today, as is his right, the current Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, has sought legal advice in relation to the restrictions imposed under section 16 of the Protected Disclosures Act. This is helpful. The Minister will consider the advice on receipt of it. It is important that anything that can be said and shared should be said and shared.

There are robust structures, policies and procedures in place across the criminal justice system to ensure the effective management of protected disclosures and to provide support to people who make disclosures under the Act. I am very confident that all Ministers in the Government, and all Ministers in governments, follow advice from officials and legal advice in relation to these matters.

In relation to due process and fairness, where critical processes are ongoing in response to a protected disclosure, they must be allowed to progress and conclude. This includes matters currently before criminal courts, civil courts or the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, or which are the subject of current investigations by Fiosrú, the Office of the Police Ombudsman. I understand that this applies to many or all of the matters raised either in the RTÉ programme or here today. The people concerned may choose to comment on a range of matters, as is their right, but it is very important that nobody else says anything that puts at risk the integrity of those essential processes. If there are matters before the courts, the WRC or Fiosrú, we as an Oireachtas should be conscious of that in our commentary.

I am very disappointed with that response. I have met the whistleblowers and noted the moral courage they have demonstrated in raising really important issues, such as defective ammunition and holsters that have possibly contributed to the murder of one member of the force.

I am asking a very simple question. It is very clear from the evidence I have seen that the Minister for justice referred this issue back to An Garda Síochána and did not follow proper protocols. As a result, the individuals were jeopardised and their lives were effectively made hell. The identities of the individuals concerned were not even concealed. That is unacceptable. The question is very simple. Did the Minister, in the Tánaiste's view, break the law in relation to it? The identities of the individuals were revealed and the matter was sent back to the very force, the very same employer, that the individuals were making the allegations against.

It nearly seems as if the Deputy is endeavouring to be the investigative body himself on the floor of Dáil Éireann. The House – it is not my decision – took a decision in 2014 that this should not be how this works. There are robust structures in place. People can and should highlight information in relation to wrongdoing in a workplace. That then has to be investigated robustly.

It has not been. That is the point.

Please, Deputy Lawless.

That is the Deputy's view and opinion-----

No.

-----which he is perfectly entitled to have.

Is it not yours?

What he is not entitled to do, in my humble opinion, is be judge, jury and executioner, deciding everything according to what he believes to be the case. You either accept that in this country we have criminal courts, civil courts, the WRC, the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner and Fiosrú, the Office of the Police Ombudsman, and that they are carrying out investigations-----

They are not, though. That is the problem.

-----into a number of these matters, or you do not. If the Deputy wants to introduce amendments to the legislation-----

This is not happening. That is the point.

Deputy Lawless is out of order.

That is the point.

The Tánaiste must be allowed to conclude.

I would be delighted to conclude. If the Deputy wants to introduce amendments to change the laws in this country in relation to the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, he should please do so. In the absence of that, the Government is committed to reviewing the full legislation and making sure it is working robustly. If there are areas where it needs to be improved, let us address them. I have full confidence that not just the Minister in question but also all other Ministers in the Government comply fully with the law and advice of officials.