Dáil debates

Tuesday, 27 March 2007

Communications Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2007 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage

 

10:00 am

Photo of Tommy BroughanTommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

This section is clearly welcome, amending the principal Act of 2002 to include these new sections 24A to 24C, relating to whistleblowers. As I stated on Committee Stage, the Labour Party would have preferred if Deputy Rabbitte's Bill, which was brought before the House to Committee Stage a number of years ago, had been brought forward as a whole. In other words, whistleblowers, in certain circumstances where it was believed serious wrongdoing was evident by a company, agency or other organisation, could speedily and safely bring the matter to the attention of the relevant authorities.

These are the kinds of developments we have had over the past 15 years of politics, from the beef tribunal through the other tribunals, including the Moriarty, Mahon and Flood tribunals. There would have been comprehensive legislation to protect people in general terms.

Through the years the Taoiseach and Deputy Rabbitte have had a number of discussions on this matter across the floor on the Order of Business. The Taoiseach has indicated it is the intention of the Government to proceed in a sectoral way but this is not the right way to proceed. We could have moved on the issue in general terms and we had legislation in Deputy Rabbitte's name and on behalf of the Labour Party which the Government thought to be fair, reasonable and adequate. Perhaps that legislation could have been brought through. We are left with the whistleblowers' protection through this Bill, which I welcome.

Everybody wants the whistleblower to be protected. It is indicated in the Bill that ComReg has discretion in pursuing an investigation and would have to believe the matters brought to its attention to be serious and important. I have sought to amend this. In response, the Minister might argue that I am trying to narrow the grounds.

The relevant section is 24A(2), which states:

For the purpose of subsection (1), a person makes an appropriate disclosure of information about the conduct of an undertaking, or an associate of an undertaking or an association of undertakings only if—

(a) the conduct relates to the provision of an electronic communications network or service or an associated facility, and...

That could include everything. My addition is "where a whistleblower believes on reasonable grounds that an undertaking, an associate of an undertaking or an association of undertakings are involved in anti-competitive practices or collusion". We should spell this out, as it is the key concern of the Bill. Some telecommunications companies engage in the anti-competitive practices outlined in earlier amendments. Some people have made allegations of collusion in the mobile telephone sector, which we should highlight in the legislation.

While whistleblowers could bring other matters to the attention of ComReg and the general public, I wanted to refer to these areas specifically. After the Bill's passage through the Oireachtas, powers will be exercised under the Competition Authority in this regard. From that point of view, I believed the Bill could be improved. I would prefer a whistleblowers Act because there are many areas in which this Bill's provisions will not apply. In local government and elsewhere, some believe the business of the people is not being carried on transparently or in an accountable way. Anyone who wants to bring such a situation to the public's attention should be protected. I welcome the Bill's provision, but I wanted to make a simple improvement.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.