Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is interesting that the Whistleblowers Protection Bill, which was introduced in 1999, is being debated here after such a long absence. Recent events will have encouraged people to debate the issue.

In 1999, when the Bill was first debated, most Members of the House agreed with the principle and the underlying objectives of what was contained in it. Over time, Members have examined it in more detail and realised that there is more to the issue than just one piece of legislation. The Oireachtas could do nothing worse than to pass legislation which is unenforceable in practice and which would not be able to deal with the issues for which it was intended. I would not like to see legislation going through this House which would not stand up to a rigorous test in the courts when challenged.

Given that the public bodies intended to be covered under the legislation are so diverse, it would not be remotely possible for one piece of legislation to cover all these bodies. In accepting the principle that we must protect people who blow the whistle on their colleagues' shoddy, wrong or systematic abuse within an organisation, the Government has recently been moved to include the protection intended in the Bill on a sector by sector basis. Examples include section 4 of the Protections for Persons Reporting Child Abuse Act 1988. It provides immunity from civil liability to a person who reports child abuse reasonably and in good faith. It is important that the provision "reasonably and in good faith" is included because some people could be mischievous and deliberately cause difficulty for people. Under the Ethics in Public Office Act 2001, the Standards in Public Office Commission is empowered to investigate complaints about alleged contraventions of the Act. If complaints are made by civil servants against other civil servants, where a person makes a complaint in good faith, no cause of action shall lie against that person and no disciplinary action shall be taken against him or her as a result of reporting their concerns to the commission. I understand that in future these provisions will go right down the line to local authorities and other bodies. This will encompass many activities at both local and national level where there are complaints against senior people referred to in the Ethics in Public Office Act.

The Competition Act 2002 provides that a person shall not be liable for damages in respect of a communication when writing to the Competition Authority. The theme which runs through all the legislation is that any complaint must be made in good faith. If one could make a vexatious complaint, it would be damaging to the whole process.

Section 27 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 provides for protection against dismissal and penalisation of employees who in good faith take steps to protect themselves or others in the workplace. The Garda Act 2005 provides for regulations providing for the establishment of a charter containing guidelines and a mechanism to enable members of the Garda Síochána or other persons to report in confidence allegations of corruption and malpractice within the Garda Síochána. In recent years, a number of provisions have been introduced to protect people who make legitimate complaints in good faith. These are important areas that had to be dealt with, and much more needs to be done in the future. I look forward to the Government dealing promptly with all legislation currently before the House so it can be proofed from the whistleblowers' charter point of view.

I draw a parallel between the whistleblowers Bill and the Freedom of Information Act. While there is one Freedom of Information Act, the bodies governed by the Act come under the Act on an organisation by organisation basis. No one could contemplate that one regulation, statutory instrument or section of an Act could possibly cover all the different organisations. When the Freedom of Information Act was introduced, it was done on an incremental basis. All parties in the House were involved in bringing bodies under the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. Several hundred organisations come under the Act and several more must be included, including the VEC and the Garda Síochána. When I refer to the Garda Síochána, I am referring to the administrative aspects of its work and not criminal investigations. It would be unreasonable for people to expect that the details of Garda files involved in a criminal investigation should be subject to release under the FOI.

When we consider these aspects, regardless of whether it relates to more information or protection for people who want to highlight issues under the Freedom of Information Act or a whistleblowers' charter, none of them is a substitute for good governance within an organisation. No organisation should have to rely on someone making an FOI request or blowing the whistle on wrongdoing to highlight malpractice within it. It behoves people who are paid handsome salaries in most State organisations, whether a Department or other State body, who deliver a service to people on the ground to ensure proper internal reporting systems are in place. If such a system is not in place in organisations, there will be a need for much whistleblowing and openness.

If organisations were open in how they deal with business, if they conducted reviews, if procedures were audited by people not directly involved in the area concerned and if there was peer review where people could assess what was being done by colleagues at their own level or within different sections of the organisation, it would be good for everybody concerned. That is the lesson Members of the Oireachtas must learn. We must ensure good practices in regard to the 300,000 people working in the public service, whether in the Departments of Health and Children or Education and Science, in the security services or in front-line services providing facilities. If issues need to be examined, they can be addressed internally.

People can make complaints directly to the Ombudsman if they feel aggrieved by a particular operation. Going to the Ombudsman is not confined to members of the public in that members of an organisation can take their complaints to the Ombudsman or access information under the freedom of information legislation. I appreciate the sentiments behind the motion but it is too simplistic to have one Bill covering the 300,000 people working in the public service. I support a sector by sector approach to this issue.

See this speech in context