John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

If no other member wishes to contribute at this stage, I will ask some questions. In regard to the draft Bill and the European directive, can Mr. Menton point us to the sections of the Bill and the proposed changes where the experiences and issues raised by whistleblowers have been addressed in a way that might prevent the difficulties faced by whistleblowers happening again? Whistleblowers complain, for example, that the issues have not been dealt with or addressed. How is that dealt with in the Bill? How is the fact that whistleblowers’ experiences to date have been such that it is the whistleblower who is the victim in all of these cases and it is the whistleblower who pays the price? How is that addressed?

One whistleblower in the Prison Service, who was mentioned to us, received an award but that has not been paid to him yet. How do we force agencies of the State or Departments to honour a decision made in the case of whistleblowers, such as Noel McGree, who was here publicly, so I can mention his name? How does the legislation address, for example, the whistleblower from CIT, where the new president of the Munster university refused to meet to try to resolve those issues in terms of mediation?

In the context of the legal process itself, all whistleblowers are encouraged to go through mediation, which can often break down and can be stalled. That can prevent a further court case and it means the conclusion to the particular whistleblower’s case is prolonged. Overall, the experience seems to have been that the legislation was never tested in court, particularly on the public side. Only one private case was brought and that was settled with a confidentiality clause. In the context of confidentiality clauses being applied, we found out at our last meeting that there is no information around that. Surely the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform must know the number of cases that were taken against Departments that were resolved on the steps of the court. If it asked each Secretary General, they could tell the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that they had a case. They need not divulge any names or settlements, but they could say they had a case and they settled it on the steps of the court. Surely, where whistleblowers’ cases are pending, all of those whistleblowers and the taxpayer are entitled to know what the Government agencies and the Departments are doing with their money.

In regard to the legacy issues that were brought before Departments and agencies under the current piece of legislation, what is to happen to the ones that are in a cul-de-sac, the ones that are forced to chase Departments, the ones that are treated badly by Departments and agencies? What is to happen to those in the context of this legislation? Will they be covered by any new sections that will give them a break? Frankly, and I have said this time and again, I think the State has blackguarded whistleblowers in this country and it is shocking to watch the result of that blackguarding on the individual and their families, and there is also the disrespect and cynicism it creates in terms of the political and bureaucratic system in the State. I ask Mr. Menton to comment on those few points.