Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

In principle, I welcome the Bill, in that it certainly is an attempt to address a long-standing problem for many years. The Government has made an effort to fulfil a commitment it made. It has been many years since a man by the name of Eugene McErlean came to my office in Leinster House when I was a Senator. He had been a whistleblower in AIB, although I believe he does not like to be called that, and, rightly, was unhappy about the treatment he had received during the years. He had lost his job and been obliged to sign a confidentiality agreement that muzzled him forever on the subject of his whistleblowing. I believe he thought it was time that some of the problems he had identified were brought out into the open. I was keen to do this because there had been a wall of silence from the Central Bank and AIB, which was central to the problem he had addressed at the time. It was very difficult to do very much at the time and very hard to get him in front of an Oireachtas committee. In that context, I pay tribute to Deputy Fergus O'Dowd who at the time was in opposition, as well as to Deputy Michael Moynihan, whose party was in government at the time and who was Chairman of an Oireachtas joint committee of which I was a member and who eventually managed to bring Mr. McErlean before that committee. They did so in the face of huge pressure, not just from the banks but also, to its shame, from people whom I will not name in the regulatory authority. Eventually, the chief executive of AIB made an apology of a sort to Mr. McErlean in front of an Oireachtas committee, which was many years overdue. However, it still took a long time for this problem to be addressed by any Government.

The problem was touched on by Deputy Thomas Pringle, when he stated there was a need for a change in culture. The Bill is good in many ways, although it is incomplete and I disagree with some of its clauses. However, the problem is that it is no good having in place such legislation unless it is actually welcomed and worked by the institutions. I can discern no change in the institutional attitude, particularly among the banks and the Central Bank, to whistleblowers. They will live with the Bill, but my guess is that they will try to bypass it. The culture within these bodies is anti-whistleblower and antagonistic to whistleblowers. There was one mysterious case of a Central Bank whistleblower who blew the gaff in the last stress tests. When one approaches the Central Bank - I note the previous Deputy Governor of the Central Bank was asked about this matter in one of the Oireachtas committees - its officials are very unhelpful in revealing anything that happened at that time. However, it is known there was a whistleblower and that, ultimately, that whistleblower did not go ahead. However, the circumstances surrounding the case were mysterious to say the least, were highly disturbing and remain so. While it is a mystery that has yet to be solved, there are people who still are determined to solve it.

As for the Bill, given the time constraints, I will only address on aspect of it, namely, what are called the special cases and the issue of the Garda. The Bill is not satisfactory in respect of the Garda and whistleblowers within the force. In section 19 which addresses the issue of the Garda it is proposed to amend the Garda Síochána Act 2005 by adding a clause that in the case of whistleblowers emerging within the Garda, will give the Minister the power to set regulations after consultation with the Garda Commissioner, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and the Inspectorate, with the approval of the Government. I do not believe this is satisfactory because within the past week there has been a case of a whistleblower within the Garda and the regulations would not sort out the problem that arose in that case. The regulations would cement the problem because the last person who should have been consulted about the man who appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts last week was the Commissioner. Moreover, I am unsure whether the Inspectorate should be consulted either. It was quite obvious last week that what happened then could happen again.

Last week, when a whistleblower sought to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts, the Commissioner threatened to take the committee to court and then started mouthing about subordinates usurping his authority. This is neither a friendly nor a warm climate into which a whistleblower is likely to enter. Moreover, the remarks of the Garda Commissioner were fascinating. The Commissioner who had the right to a public hearing which the whistleblower did not asked whether it was not extraordinary that of the 13,000 members of the Garda, only two were whistleblowers. He was absolutely 100% right. He was saying this was because there was nothing about which to complain, whereas the truth, of course, is that they felt they would not get anywhere, that they felt intimidated and that their jobs might be under threat and, consequently, they did not go ahead. If my interpretation of the Bill is correct, it appears as though the same or a similar system will be in place after the legislation is put into effect. This is not satisfactory and there will be a repeat of what happened last week. The last whistleblower who incidentally turned out to be an outstanding witness had tried that system of going to the confidential recipient and found it to be completely unsatisfactory. When he came to the Dáil, he found that he was obstructed at every single turn.

See this speech in context