Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I listened with considerable interest to the points made by Opposition Deputies on this motion. Both sides of the House have a commitment to address the situation but have major differences on the style in which that might be done. I can only account directly for the time in which I have been involved in the Department. I had discussions with the senior Minister on this issue during which we tried to come up with the best system to address such a major issue.

Initially, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, and I believed it would be possible to introduce all-encompassing legislation which would effectively deal with the issues. However, for the reasons I outlined, that became more and more fraught. Major legislation on whistleblowers was on the side and anybody bringing through legislation could state it would be dealt with by that legislation, while others were aware of the difficulties with it and were including direct reference in their sectoral legislation.

Equally strong arguments can be advanced for taking the approach proposed by Deputy Rabbitte and for taking the sectoral approach. My judgment is that it seems sensible to adopt one or the other. On the basis of the information available to me, I felt the sectoral approach stood a far better chance of being successful, because of the complications and legal issues raised and because each ministry introduces quite an amount of legislation, as Deputy Eamon Ryan stated. Opportunities were lost because some people were of the view that major legislation would be introduced.

Deputy Neville raised a number of interesting points on support for employees' obligations. That issue was raised recently through a question to the Minister for Finance. Some interesting information emerged on what type of support people might require. Deputy Neville also mentioned the situation pertaining to students which, perhaps more than others, illustrates the need to act on a sectoral basis because each sector has different requirements. One of the difficulties which most concerned me was that all-encompassing legislation was likely to create difficulties in some areas and unlikely to address the peculiarities of others.

Deputy Rabbitte made the reasonable point that he was promised regular contact with Ministers in this Department. To be honest, I was not aware of that commitment. Perhaps some of my predecessors were not. If I had been aware that Deputy Rabbitte wanted to have a meeting or a discussion, I certainly would have been prepared to do so.

The Deputy was also promised maximum co-operation. A large amount of work was done when the view was held that this could be proceeded with on the basis of Deputy Rabbitte's Bill. Ultimately, it seemed difficult to surmount the issues raised. I did not find it was possible to address them and gradually came to the view the sectoral approach was likely to be far more successful. It was not a change of political will, it was a gradual realisation that neither the sectoral approach nor the all-encompassing approach was happening and we needed to come down on one side or the other.

There is confusion about what whistleblowing provisions would achieve. While provisions in either approach would provide protection for a whistleblower, the sub-text of what some Members stated would require mandatory reporting in many circumstances. That is a different principle and may need to be addressed. However, it would not be dealt with in the context of whistleblowers, which is protection for someone who voluntarily comes forward with information to have a difficult situation addressed. Any example raised by Deputies shows there is no doubt of the need to support people who are brave enough to come forward in that regard. I believe the sectoral approach will do so far more effectively.

Deputy Ó Caoláin made reference to legislation in other states. We examined legislation in other states. It came down to a choice between adopting legislation for the sake of being able to state we had whistleblowers legislation or doing something that would work. Our judgment was that a sectoral approach would be more effective. In electoral, or ordinary political, terms it would be wonderful to state we adopted the whistleblowers Bill provided by Deputy Rabbitte or that we dealt with the whistleblowers issue in a comprehensive fashion so it could be taken off the electoral agenda. However, we made a judgment that the other method was likely to be more successful and that requirements in certain areas would not be met by all-encompassing legislation.

Deputy McHugh made the point that it took seven years to reach this stage and appears to be under the impression that no work was done during that time. A considerable amount of work was done on both approaches, such as the 45 amendments to the original legislation and the provisions made in some sectoral areas.

Deputy Connolly summarised the Opposition's view when he stated that any legislation is better than none. That is a widely held view. I strongly hold the view that legislation put through the Houses ought to be effective and deal with issues. In many circumstances, a smokescreen of some type of legislation does more harm than good.

Deputy Eamon Ryan raised the point on foreign direct investment companies and multinationals, also mentioned by Deputy Rabbitte. I am not aware that was an issue at any stage in the discussions I had. I do not even remember it being mentioned. What we discussed was which approach would work best. We approached it from the view that clearly action needed to be taken as quickly as possible but in an effective manner.

Deputy Ryan also made the reasonable point that the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Bill did not include a whistleblowers provision. I do not know whether it would have been appropriate. I suspect it would have been. However, the chances are that the Bill was published long before the decision was made to take the sectoral approach.

One of the difficulties faced during the past six and a half years was that neither approach was taken as comprehensively as it should have been. One may have stated that comprehensive legislation would be put in place when Deputy Rabbitte's Bill was passed or stated that legal difficulties arose in that regard and so implemented provisions on a sectoral basis. It was not being done on either front as effectively as it might have been for that reason. It is open to Members of the House, now that the Government has made this decision and if the motion is passed, to remind each Minister at each Stage of legislation. They have been formally informed this is the Government's view and they ought to include it.

A number of other points were also raised on recent scandals, and opportunities arise to address these on a sectoral basis. Members are probably aware that since the Private Members' motion on 7 and 8 March, the HSE chief executive, Professor Drumm, stated the issue of a whistleblowing provision for workers in the health sector may need to be given serious consideration. In May 2005, the Health Service Executive welcomed the Irish Nurses Organisation's publication of a position paper on whistleblowing and how employees may air any concerns they have about their workplace.

I consulted with the Department of Health and Children and the Tánaiste is well-disposed to having issues regarding disclosure of confidential information examined in the overall context of ensuring patient safety and quality of care in respect of the code of governance to be drawn up by the Health Service Executive under section 35 of the Health Act 2004, the guidance governing professional conduct issued by the professional bodies, namely, the Medical Council and Bord Altranais, and the regulatory regime for all professionals involved in health and social care.

Ultimately, the sectoral approach will require the commitment of Ministers in various Departments. It will also require the Opposition to draw attention to the fact that these issues are important and the decision to include them on a sectoral approach must be examined in the case of each Bill or, at a minimum, in the various areas under the control of each Department. I do not doubt from what Members stated that they will be extremely forthcoming in ensuring each Minister makes that inclusion if it is appropriate at the time.

See this speech in context