Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I wish to share time with Deputies O'Dowd and Timmins. I am disappointed that the Minister has left the House, although I have nothing against the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern. It would be very apt for the Minister to be present in the House for this legislation because he was one of the architects of the current rudderless state of the Irish health service. It would do him good to read the provisions of the Whistleblowers Protection Bill 2005.

Almost since the day it assumed power, this Government has attempted to reduce the amount of information people can obtain about it and the services provided by it. One of the first things it did on re-entering office in 2002 was reduce the strength of the freedom of information legislation so that people could not access information. Pontificating at this stage about transparency and openness in government is, to say the least, somewhat rich. Government codes in respect of disclosure are written in a way that puts people off going down that road. It is almost impossible to follow the codes of governance relating to the HSE. It should be made easy for people to complain about what they perceive as problems within the health service, a matter on which I wish to focus.

The Minister said that he will take a sectoral attitude to dealing with the whistleblowers legislation, which is fine. Does this mean that we can look forward to whistleblowers provisions in a few months' time, when we debate the health information and quality assurance legislation? The heads of that legislation were approved by the Cabinet today and they will now go on a two-month trip to stakeholders who wish to make their opinions known on the legislation. Since the legislation deals with openness and the quality and accountability of systems within the health service, it can only mean that there are whistleblowers provisions for the health services. If not, it means the Minister was waffling and doing exactly what he did during his four-year term in the Department of Health and Children where he was always just one report away from making a decision. Members on this side of the House will be watching closely to see if whistleblowers provisions relating to the health service will be introduced in a couple of months' time when the HIQA legislation comes before the House.

Am I inspired with confidence in the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, to deliver on this, regardless of what I may feel about the previous Minister, Deputy Martin? Last year, I asked the Tánaiste a priority question about whistleblowers legislation. Her answer gave a fair indication of what she thinks about the need for whistleblowers legislation for the health service. She said that she had been in the House for many years but she had never heard of medical staff — doctors or other professionals — being shy about voicing their concerns at any forum. Even though this was before the Neary report was published, we were all aware of what had happened in Drogheda. For the Tánaiste to utter that sort of nonsense means that no one was briefing her on a day-to-day basis as to what might crop up in the Neary report. She appeared to indicate that doctors would always voice their concerns. As a doctor, I am absolutely disgusted with what is contained in the Neary report, namely, that Dr. Neary and the three consultants conspired in some respects to cover up what happened to the women involved. Dr. Neary was allowed to go back to work on the basis of the consultants' findings.

Since the report was published, there has been very little comment from the Tánaiste on who authorised the three consultants to enter the hospital. What happened to the report and when were the findings made known? Who acted on the reports and what was the trail of events following what the three consultants wrote? There are strong indications that the Government is still sound asleep and extremely complacent in this regard. It has no credibility in dealing with the problems in the health service. It acknowledged the report and said it was great, even though there are glaring questions to be answered in regard to the report. We have heard nothing from the Tánaiste since its publication.

I wish to make another point regarding the Tánaiste's reply to me last year. She said that we must distinguish between those who may from time to time express concerns on behalf of patients and those who may have their own perspective on matters. In other words, she is saying that some people, with their own agenda, may set out to destroy one's reputation by using whistleblowers legislation. It is crystal clear from whistleblowers legislation throughout the world that one can include protection so that people's reputations cannot be destroyed by someone using such legislation in a malicious manner. The Tánaiste's answer is similar to that which one would expect from someone at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital who was trying to defend the indefensible. She does not acknowledge patients' rights or their concerns. She is acting as if she is not representing the people. This same attitude is coming from the opposite side of the House tonight. Members are drooling through contributions they have been given by someone in some press office. There is no rigorous discussion on the issue. Members opposite are not standing up for people who cannot stand up for themselves. They should be far more proactive on the issue.

The Tánaiste also replied that it is only someone at my peer level — I assume she is referring to me as a doctor — who could intervene in the interest of patients. It is not reasonable to expect people who are not medical personnel to be able to take action when they feel something is inappropriate in a hospital. That is the greatest rubbish I have heard in a long time. My role as a legislator is of far greater importance in protecting patients than is my role as a doctor. This goes for every doctor, nurse and health care professional in the health service.

Huge mistakes were made but I know what it was like to work in these hospitals. Some of these hospitals have not changed much in the past seven or eight years. Nothing in the Neary report will change the way many of these people operate. These practices will continue in the future unless strong whistleblowers legislation that will allow doctors and nurses to come forward and express their concerns is put in place. It would be better if they expressed their concerns to me as a legislator rather than as a doctor. As a legislator, I can at least come before the House and voice these concerns without worrying about a solicitor or a senior counsel's letter arriving on my desk two days later and being threatened with legal action. We all know what would have happened to the nurse at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital if Dr. Neary got to her before that brave administrator in the north east. He would have sent her a solicitor's letter. He would have threatened and bullied her and the idea of being obliged to face litigation and paying €40,000 or €50,000 to a senior counsel would have buried her. It would have shut her up, as is currently happening to people throughout the country.

This is the reason for the legislation. It is what we are discussing. This matter involves representing patients. One can call them constituents if one wishes but these are the people we are protecting. The Minister, Deputy Martin, should wake up to what this matter involves. The drool in his speech is the same nonsense the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, gave me three months ago.

Members on the opposite side of the House should be realistic. Patients should be given the protection they need. We should not fall back on this nonsense about peer levels because the people who failed the women in the north east were at that level. It was the bravery of a few individuals that saved many other women's lives. This is something that must be taken on board. When the HIQA legislation is published, there must be a section dedicated to whistleblowers which we can understand and on which we can deliver for patients. Deputy McManus and I will be more than happy to debate the issue on Second Stage and Committee Stage. Like everyone else in the country, we will be extremely disappointed if this aspect is missing from the legislation in a couple of months' time and if more lame excuses to the effect that it will be introduced sometime in the future — when the current Administration will no longer be in government — are offered. That will not be good enough. The legislation must be introduced now.

See this speech in context