A whistleblower at a centre providing State accommodation to asylum seekers made an allegation of wrongdoing, but was told it could not be investigated.
The employee made an allegation of wrongdoing at two International Protection Accommodation Services (Ipas) centres to the State’s health services watchdog, the Health Information and Quality Authority (Hiqa), the body overseeing such centres.
However, Hiqa said it had no jurisdiction over the centres in question as these had not been officially designated as Ipas facilities by the Minister for Equality.
Hiqa passed the disclosure to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner (OPDC), which in turn passed it on to the Department of Equality.
Death of Pope Francis: Derek Mooney leads RTÉ’s coverage to intermittently jaw-dropping effect
Plans unveiled for south Dublin winter sports arena to host State’s first ice hockey franchise
Xi Jinping’s refusal to kowtow to Trump now looks like a shrewd move
Brace yourself as world’s leaders make holy show of themselves at Pope’s funeral
In his annual report, commissioner Ger Deering said it was “unacceptable” that Hiqa was not in charge of all centres where international protection applicants were housed.
“There is no reason, in my view, why these centres can’t all be investigated by Hiqa,” he said.
Six complaints were made to the OPDC last year relating to accommodation for asylum seekers.
Overall, the most common source of disclosures last year was related to defence (37), followed by public hospitals (20), education and training boards (15) and aviation sector (13).
Mr Deering also drew attention to a number of privately run disability centres where it appeared neither Hiqa nor the HSE had responsibility for investigating wrongdoing.
“It is essential that there is a mechanism for allegations of wrongdoing to be dealt with efficiently and effectively,” he said.
He criticised some organisations that, he said, “relied on narrow interpretations of the legislation to avoid dealing with reports. I am disappointed to have to report a similar issue with a small group of public bodies in 2024″.
“I would again remind organisations which receive reports to be mindful of the fact that by following up reports of wrongdoing, they are upholding their legal and moral mandate,” Mr Deering said.
He said some organisations would not accept protected disclosures unless these were made by full-time employees.
“Even if that person doesn’t technically match the description of an employee, there is still a serious duty to investigate that matter in any event,” he also said.
Mr Deering said there seemed to be a misunderstanding of the role of his office.
It is there in the first instance to pass on relevant protected disclosures to the bodies in charge. In some cases it can be unclear where to direct complaints, so this requires his involvement.
His office is also an investigator of last resort if no other responsible body can be found.
He said he believed the timetable for passing on disclosures to the relevant bodies was too short at only 14 days and that more time needed to be given to investigate complex complaints.
“We can get reports that are 50 pages long and we have to decide if there is one source we can go to or several,” Mr Deering said.
“We turn most of them around in 14 days, but these are unrealistic timetables. It is our view that providing flexibility to extend the time for consideration in complex cases would be more likely to result in the most appropriate recipient being identified following an objection and in clearer communications with the reporting person.”
The Protected Disclosures Commissioner received 262 reports last year from workers and others alleging wrongdoing in the workplace – slightly down on the 2023 figure of 283, the office’s first year in operation.
During 2024 it sent 247 of the reports to organisations that it considered were best placed to deal with the allegations. Thecommissioner’s office dealt with nine reports.
One person made 27 separate disclosures. There was no other information in the report about the complainant or the nature of their grievances.
