Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

All Members of the House share a common objective in principle as regards the whole issue of whistleblowers. There is legitimate difference of opinion as to how we should achieve the ideal method of their protection, but there is no doubt that we share a common overall objective. For this reason I welcome the tabling of this motion by the Labour Party to provide, at the very least, some clarity for everybody as regards where we are going, not least the employees of State bodies, civil servants and private companies throughout the country. There is a shared commitment among all Members of the House that legal protection should be afforded to persons who legitimately and in good faith convey sensitive, sometimes damning and sometimes criminal information to appropriate authorities that has been obtained during the course of employment. It is worthwhile quoting from the original Bill as initiated by Deputy Rabbitte in 1999:

The purpose of this Bill is to provide protection from civil liability to employees who make certain disclosures ''reasonably and in good faith'' in relation to the conduct of the business and affairs of their employers. The Bill also prohibits penalisation of employees by their employers in such circumstances. It sets out the persons to whom disclosure may be made and the categories of matters in relation to which such disclosure is permissible.

The initial Bill as initiated by Deputy Rabbitte sought to give effect to this laudable intention, with an over-arching one-size-fits-all approach. It is one thing to set out a laudable objective in draft legislation, which meets with the universal agreement of this House, but it is an entirely different matter to provide an effective legislative framework that works in the real world and achieves the objectives intended at the outset. I am trying to think of a suitable analogy outside the whistleblowing draft legislation.

One could possibly introduce legislation with the over-arching objective to eliminate greenhouse gases, and that would meet with general approval — certainly, the Green Party would welcome such legislation — but the question is whether that legislation could achieve the objectives for which it is intended, or could this be done by the introduction of numerous measures, in different various legislation. For example, the budget and the Finance Bill this year began a definite process towards incentivising the increased use of biofuels. The appropriate place for this legislation was in the Finance Bill, not in a greenhouse gases Bill. In the same way, it would be a laudable objective to have a clean environment Bill. However, the practical method of achieving this might involve legislation to deal with plastic bags or a regulation to reduce nitrates or phosphates in ground water. It might involve separate legislation to introduce an environmental protection agency. All this legislation has been enacted in separate laws, but the difference is that they contribute in a very effective manner towards providing for a clean environment.

These are but two examples of how common objectives can be achieved in different ways. The old adage says there is more than one way to skin a cat. The Minister set out extensively last night how the Government and the relevant Departments, including the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, made a bona fide genuine effort to give practical effect to the general scheme of the Bill as initiated by Deputy Rabbitte. The reality is that in endeavouring to bring forward full and comprehensive legislation, it did not work. That is nobody's fault, not even the Government's. Other countries have tried and had a similar experience. Another adage says do not shoot the messenger if you do not like the message.

The question now is how the objective may be achieved speedily and as effectively as possible. I believe there is only one alternative, to adopt what is now known as the sectoral or case by case approach rather than the one-size-fits-all approach. No doubt some Members of the Opposition, particularly in the Labour Party, will not be satisfied that this can be achieved speedily enough or in the manner in which they would like. However, I would much prefer to have an overall legislative framework that works than one item of legislation that does not. I commend the amended motion to the House.

See this speech in context