Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I commend the Minister on doing this. That individual had great foresight to know what the Minister was planning and to do it in advance of what the Minister was planning. Perhaps he took note of Members' discussions last year on whistleblowers. It is probable that if he was interested in the subject, he watched the debate and saw this issue. He did precisely what it says on the tin in this legislation and that is important.

The next paragraph deals with how, in certain cases, admissions can be made to Members of the Houses of Oireachtas, which is fine. The Minister will appreciate there are other cases, which probably relate to matters concerning the administration of law courts, prisons and other functions, that do not come under the normal procedure. Schedule 3 of the Bill provides, "The Taoiseach shall appoint as the Disclosures Recipient a person who is a judge or retired judge of the High Court". That is fine and I am happy with that. Schedule 3 concludes by providing that, "No later than 31 March in each year the Disclosures Recipient shall submit to the Taoiseach a report on his or her activities in the immediately preceding year". While this also is fine, I believe this report should be published. It should be anonymised or whatever phrase people wish to use. I would go as far as to state it is unfair to the Taoiseach if such things are going on, it all lands on his or her desk and he or she is unable to tell anyone about it. It would not be good for the Taoiseach's karma to keep it all to himself or herself. Consequently, there is a case for publication with appropriate protections for those involved, to prevent them from being in any way identifiable. The legislation should be amended for this report to be published.

The point has been well covered that disclosure under this legislation can be made by a worker who must reasonably believe that his or her disclosures tend to show more than one wrongdoing. In general, it will not be a single incident issue. The information must come to the attention of the worker in connection with his or her employment and the worker must decide to whom to make the disclosure. Members have mentioned a variety of channels, in that it can go to the Minister if it is a public body or to an employer and the procedures for the Garda and for the courts in respect of what will be presented to the Taoiseach also have been covered. As people will be interested in the practicalities of what this means, the Oireachtas Library and Research Service has helpfully provided Members with a few examples. It will only take me a few seconds to outline who will and will not be covered. One example provided is a scenario in which Siobhan worked in the marketing department of a supermarket chain. She suspected that misrepresented promotions amounted to overcharging and reported her case. The outcome in this case would be that Siobhan would enjoy the same protection as any worker reporting wrongdoing under the Bill and would be covered. Another example concerns a garda who suspected wrongdoing among colleagues interfering with evidence. As for the outcome in this case:

the provisions of the Bill will apply to members of An Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána Act will be amended to provide for redress provisions specific to the force.

The Minister should make the amendment pertaining to the Garda Síochána in this Bill and should not leave it to another Minister. I trust the Minister, Deputy Howlin, more in this regard. I will conclude with a final example of Brian, who is a care worker who has had a gripe with one of his co-workers and who made a malicious complaint. He clearly is not covered and rightly not. These are some specific examples.

I support the Minister in bringing forward the Bill. Fianna Fáil will table amendments on Committee Stage and I look forward to discussing them in detail then.

See this speech in context