Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

The Minister of State's rehearsal of the so-called sectoral provisions which have been enacted is indicative of the Government's attitude to this fundamental legislation. The Whistleblowers Protection Bill was introduced in 1999, seven years ago. Few Bills of such importance have been in limbo for so long. When the Bill was originally introduced, it was endorsed by all sections of the House and regarded as strategic legislation which would dovetail with the Freedom of Information Act 1997, the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 and the Electoral Acts to create a corpus of law that would reform the conduct of business in this country, end some of the awful practices in various sectors and enshrine in legislation the principles of transparency and accountable administration. The Government accepted the Bill or, at least, pretended to do so. However, we have not advanced one iota on this issue since 1999.

The issues at stake are fundamental to one of the most important duties of each Member of this House, namely holding public administration to account. Part of that duty, which we do not always take seriously, is ensuring that private business is conducted in compliance with the laws set down by the Oireachtas.

After seven wasted years, we received a response from the Minister last night. It was not as much an explanation as an apologia for inaction. Apparently, it was decided that 45 amendments would be required. So what? In 2001, the Government approved a replacement Bill which would incorporate these amendments. In 2002, however, the Government decided that further consultation was necessary but that never took place. The Bill fell with the dissolution of the Dáil in April 2002 and was restored to the Order Paper in June 2002. Obviously, the principle could not be abandoned by the Government because it felt it had to pay public lip-service to the idea of enshrining a clear whistleblowers' charter in legislation. The Minister of State has now explained that a new sectoral approach is needed. This was aptly described by my colleague, Deputy O'Shea, as an incremental approach. Instead of putting an overarching Bill before the House so that whistleblowers in all spheres of public and private activity would be protected in reaching out to a proper authority in an appropriate way, the Government will take whatever Bill happens to be in the legislative queue and, if it is suitable, a whistleblowers amendment will be grafted on to it.

I will say two things in this regard. I took the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2004 for my colleague, Deputy Burton. I tabled a whistleblowers amendment to it and it was voted down by the Government. That was only last year. The Minister of State spoke of enshrined public policy to deal with whistleblowers in every legislation that is introduced and he had the temerity to instance the Employment Permits Bill 2005 that is currently on Committee Stage. It was published only a few short weeks ago and it had no such provision in it. That was introduced today by way of amendment, no doubt to cover the nakedness of the approach and the pretence that this was settled Government policy, when it is no such thing.

When will all areas of public and private policy be covered by this so-called sectoral approach? It will never be done. In accordance with Murphy's law, it will always be that area of operation not covered that will be the focus of the next crisis. We have seen it often in the recent past, in such examples as the Neary case and the beef tribunal. It has been relevant to some areas of which I have personal experience, and in the minute or so I have remaining I will comment on this.

As the recipient of information from a whistleblower, I have stated publicly that my informant — I do not like using that word as it has negative connotations — came to me with deeply unsettling but verifiable information on unsavoury practices by certain gardaí in Donegal. That sent a shiver down my spine. Most citizens who wish to bring such information into the public domain would be terrified of taking on a major institution, be it the Garda Síochána or any other large State institution which has endless pockets and might. We have a moral obligation to give such people all the protection we can. The measures in this legislative provision are meagre enough in letting brave people reach out to a proper public authority to blow the whistle on perceived wrongdoing.

There are enough obstacles to an era of transparency that all of us have pretended to want. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We on this side of the House brought in the Freedom of Information Act, which the Government emasculated as soon as it took office. We brought in transparency regulation with regard to the Electoral Acts, and these were also watered down. When the Government has finally been asked to put its money where its mouth is and remove this obstacle to openness and allow some measure of support for people to reach out and report wrongdoing, it refuses to do so. It is shameful and characteristic of a frame of mind that is the antithesis of open and transparent administration.

See this speech in context