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

I will conclude my questions by dragging it all back to individual examples. The Department deals with legislation, the law, how it should be framed, the context of the wording and so on. I deal with practicalities for whistleblowers and their experiences. In most cases, whistleblowers will say that if they had known this was going to happen to them, they would never have informed their boss or made a protected disclosure. That in itself is shocking and needs to be corrected. I will ask some questions and leave them with the witnesses. These are names that are known publicly because they have been before the committee.

Mr. Keane answered about Noel McGree. He said that the award was made. It was never paid. Reports that are outstanding in his case have never been concluded. Only some were given to him before he last appeared before the committee. There has been dragging of heels, at least, with regard to his case. He told us that he lost his house and everything. He blew the whistle and made a significant contribution in what he did and said. The witnesses will understand why people would want to be able to make an anonymous protected disclosure. A balance has to be struck between those that are nuisance, mischievous and all of that, and the ones that stand out. I would like to see, where awards are made, that they are actually forced to honour those awards without the whistleblower having to pursue the matter further. This comes after years and years of fighting with whatever organisation might be involved. Noel McGree is out of his job.

In the case of the Grace report, the person who came before the Houses of the Oireachtas for assistance is no longer in her job. Due to a confidentiality clause, we cannot find out any more about it. The State did that, and did it to Noel McGree too.

I ask the witnesses to look at what happened to Maurice McCabe and John Wilson. Within their stories and the experiences that they had are issues that should be corrected with legislation. The witnesses are best positioned to look at those and devise some way or some wording that would correct the difficulties that they have in the course of bringing their case forward and making it easier for others to address such cases in the future.

Another name in public is Seanie O'Brien. He made his protected disclosure to the Department of Justice and, more recently, to the Taoiseach's office. It has never been dealt with. He has never been communicated properly with about what he has to say. There has not been closure to it. I do not want the witnesses to comment on these cases. I am simply highlighting them to determine if there is some way that they can be dealt with or if what happened can be dealt with in a different way through legislation. There is a similar issue in the Committee of Public Accounts, where a whistleblower was outed in correspondence from a legal firm to the Committee of Public Accounts. If the law was broken, why could the Houses of the Oireachtas not take them to task about it rather than leaving it to the whistleblower to raise whatever they wished to raise over being outed? It is something that should not be done under the current legislation, yet it happened. It happened in the place where the law was made. I think the place where it happened did not act as it should have acted in the context of the outing of that person.

I have mentioned the John Wilson case. What happens to these people is a tragedy.

The Women of Honour is another issue in the Army. Individuals have come to me who have been sexually abused in the Army. It took years to get that out. It damaged many lives. We have to find a way for the State to deal with those issues and make whoever is a line manager, or whoever it is reported to, deal with it.

This brings me to the point of the protected disclosures office. It is fine to have proposed legislation, which states that we should have a protected disclosures office and that this is how it should function. I would like to see examples, however, from other countries of how their protected disclosure offices function. The details that Mr. Menton could provide to the committee include how many people are employed in those offices, the costs of running such offices and the overall general costs involved. I ask that because if such an office were to be established by this proposed legislation, then a large number of people will come forward, at least in the beginning until those considering making protected disclosures figure out if the new office is worth its salt.

On the private side of things, the cases we have had have included Allied Irish Banks, AIB, and the EBS tied agents. Those tied agents are just worn out and some of them have died. Private companies that are large and well capable financially of dealing with issues such as this can easily brush off even an organised group similar to the EBS tied agents or, indeed, individuals such as Tony Lawlor and Jonathan Sugarman, who also appeared before this committee. It is an issue in respect of the Central Bank of Ireland and what it does following a protected disclosure. It will say that it has dealt with the protected disclosure, but that it cannot reveal what it has done in that regard because that is a matter between the Central Bank and the regulated bank concerned. Proposed legislation in this area should allow for the naming of a bank, an individual or whatever it might be to bring a conclusion to an issue. Legislation regarding the Central Bank is involved in that area, but this proposed legislation should overlap with it.

Regarding local government and the case of Ms Julie Grace, a report was requested and she went through the various processes. The case has gone on for years and years. It is not an individual that is stopping progress being made, it is the State preventing the case from being resolved. In that instance, as with all the others, Ms Grace has brought something positive and truthful to the attention of the State and yet it is people like this who get penalised. I cannot figure out why that is. Culture was mentioned by the witnesses and it takes a while to root out that culture, but if we do not start speaking openly, honestly and directly about those who are a part of that culture, then it will remain in place forever. That is why I am relying heavily on this proposed legislation to change the course of all that. I am not asking for answers to all of these. I am just using those points to explain in layman's terms the experiences of those people who have come to me. Those experiences have never been good. They have always been terribly negative, divisive and destructive in respect of families and individuals. That State does not speak for me. That is not my State.

On the political front, I hope that a whip will not be imposed during the passage of this proposed legislation. I hope the Members of this Dáil will be allowed to consider all amendments and any proposals from the Minister and the Department regarding this proposed legislation in a way that is constructive and without the divisiveness of a whip. I will deal with that in the political arena. I consider this legislation to be important for everyone who needs to come forward in respect of allowing them to obtain the requisite protection to enable them to tell their story. I am sorry for having gone a bit, but I have just heard too much negativity around this matter. I want to see this proposed legislation being right. We are at the end of the meeting and any of the witnesses can comment if they wish.