Marc MacSharry (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am sure they are not anxious for us to have another hearing on this. I note what the Chairman has read out. I note that it included words like "guidelines" and "internal, independent". If that is not an oxymoron I do not know what is. How can we have an internal independent person, without prejudice? It is an impossibility. Nobody internal can investigate or be part of the investigation of allegations against that institution - work colleagues, golf buddies, drinking buddies, friends. That is not there. Guidelines are optional, as we all know and have learned at our expense at different times.

I wish to make a proposal which will need a seconder. That will have to be the Chairman unless Deputy Alan Kelly wants to second it. I propose, whether it is a matter for the Department of Education and Skills in this instance or DPER in general, that we need a whole new set of guidelines. It is never acceptable to have an internal independent party because that is a conflict of interest in itself. Even if what the Chairman read out is now the gold standard that can prevent and give absolute confidence to whistleblowers, the public and everyone that everything is independent and there is going to be a full and complete investigation and consideration, it is not retrospective. In that context, there should be a re-investigation independently overseen by the Department of the anonymous disclosure that has been referred to, any letters that are judged to be disclosures or not pre-2017, and the ones currently before them.

I do not believe it is appropriate - without prejudice - for their own protection at a very minimum that executives, staff or certain people within the institution that is the subject of a protected disclosure are in any way associated with the management, oversight, facilitation or otherwise of a protected disclosure. I ask that we write to the Secretaries General or the Ministers at DPER and the Department of Education and Skills because it is in this context that there would be a re-investigation of this. I think I have proven beyond doubt this was not independent - again without prejudice - because of the involvement of people who were named in allegations, however false they may have been or vexatious. That is not transparent. It is not good governance and it is a clear conflict of interest. I formally propose that. I ask the Chairman to second it. I know the clerk is talking to him there.