Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)

Tá áthas orm páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht tábhachtach seo ar an mBille um Chosaint Sceithirí 1999. Cúis bhróin í go raibh ar cheannaire Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre, an Teachta Rabbitte, an Bille seo a thabhairt os comhair na Dála don dara huair. Tá achtú an Bille seo chomh tábhachtach anois, nó níos tábhachtaí, agus a bhí nuair a aontaíodh an Dara Céim den Bhille sa Dáil ar 16 Meitheamh 1999. Is beag dul chun cinn éifeachtach a tharla ó shin le cosaint dhlí a chur in áit do dhaoine a dhéanann nochtann eachtraí áirithe i ndáil le gnóthaí a bhfostóirí. Leag an tAire agus é ag caint sa díospóireacht aréir an-bhéim ar chur chuige earnáileach agus go raibh sé chun treoir a thabhairt don Phríomh Aoire dul i mbun oibre le Bille um Chosaint Sceithirí 1999 a bhaint de Riar na hOibre sa Dáil. Céim mhór siar atá i gceist a léiríonn nach bhfuil an Rialtas i ndáiríre ar chor ar bith ó thaobh cosaint a thabhairt d'fhostaithe atá cróga agus macánta gnóthaí mídhleathacha a nochtadh ar mhaithe le leas an phobail.

In last night's debate the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, laid great store by the sectoral approach to dealing with the issue of whistleblowing. This could be more accurately described as an incremental approach. He outlined four main areas which eventually led the Government to embrace the sectoral approach and the proposal of the Minister to instruct the Chief Whip to seek to remove the Whistleblowers Protection Bill 1999 from the Dáil Order Paper. These areas were trade secret type industrial processes where they overlap with intellectual property rights, protections under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1997 to 1993, the Official Secrets Act 1963 and obligations on designated bodies and the Central Bank of Ireland to report certain suspected money laundering activities to the Revenue Commissioners.

The problem with the drawn-out nature of the incremental, sectoral approach is that it will take forever to fully implement. No one knows this better than the Progressive Democrats-Fianna Fáil Government which, thankfully, will soon leave office. What the sectoral approach will achieve in terms of whistleblower protection in the interim will be restricted, to say the least.

If we accept that the four major areas outlined by the Minister require more considered attention, why not amend the Bill on Committee Stage and insert enabling provisions to deal with more complex areas by way of statutory instruments or other primary legislation? The Whistleblowers Protection Bill 1999, as amended, would have provided protection to the vast majority of whistleblowers.

For a whistleblower strategy to achieve maximum success in an economy in which money laundering is a significant feature, whether carried out by criminal gangs or subversive criminals, greater protection than can be provided in this Bill would be required. When such proceeds of crime are either invested in or laundered through legitimate business, whistleblowers in these areas are open to intimidation, threats of violence and even death. How can the State protect such whistleblowers in an area that is, unfortunately, a growing feature of the Irish and other European Union economies? The onus falls on the Government, in particular the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, to urgently develop effective measures to protect whistleblowers where crime and business interface. While this is probably the area in which whistleblowing would be of most benefit to society, it is also the one in which it is least likely to occur.

Another aspect of whistleblowing is the possibility that the civil rights of whistleblowers would be infringed when, for instance, a known whistleblower becomes redundant or wishes to leave his or her employment to seek alternative employment. The trade union movement is well aware that it is exceedingly difficult to prove the existence of blacklists. Although the purpose of the Employment Appeals Tribunal is to deal with unfair dismissals, it is much more difficult to determine the extent to which equality legislation can be used to protect whistleblowers from unfair but well concealed recruitment practices.

Difficulties undoubtedly arise in fine-tuning this legislation. The Oireachtas frequently seeks to address issues which must be omitted from legislation due to insurmountable constitutional or legal reasons. The Government has come full circle on the Whistleblowers Protection Bill, which it initially embraced but now proposes to remove from the Order Paper. Last night the Minister stated that the important public issues which gave rise to Deputy Rabbitte's original proposal have not diminished in relevance and added that while "appropriate provisions to address these issues have been included in a number of statutes, there can be no sense of complacency". What nonsense and hypocrisy. What a phoney salute to the cause of accountability and transparency. The decision of the Government, through a vote tonight, to substantially put back the cause of accountability and transparency will not surprise Deputies on this side.

It has been seven years since the Bill was accepted by the House and all sorts of prevarication has occurred in the interim. For example, a number of cases to emerge have demonstrated that if whistleblowing legislation had been on the Statute Book, wrongdoing would probably have been identified and addressed much quicker. A number of such instances were outlined during this debate. Earlier, the House debated the Lourdes hospital inquiry report into the Dr. Neary affair. The background to that case clearly illustrates that if people, particularly those in what are described as junior positions, had been able to raise, without fear of repercussions or losing their jobs, their concerns about practices they had witnessed, some of the unfortunate women affected by malpractice might have been saved the horrors they were put through. It is awful to have to make this point.

If people had been in a position to speak out in several cases and reveal what they knew about wrongdoing or denial of justice, the State would be in a much better position. The Government parties, particularly the Progressive Democrats, made an enormous play of the need for accountability and transparency both in Government and Opposition. They have shown their commitment to these concepts by significantly emasculating the freedom of information legislation introduced by the rainbow coalition.

See this speech in context