Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am picking up on where I stopped the last day. We are looking at the whole area of protected disclosures, which includes whistleblowing and bullying in various places, including workplaces, schools, homes, the Dáil and the Seanad. It is all a symptom of the same disease. It is timely for the various components of that disease to be addressed. On the face of it, one would welcome the Bill before the House. It shows an urge or an appetite to do something about something that is very wrong. At its most extreme, is it not really sad that for 15 years, Louise O'Keeffe had to keep enduring the exact same evidence that was heard in the High Court and the Supreme Court? Her case was covered over and blanketed down and findings were made against her. When it reached Europe after 15 years, this grave injustice and shocking abuse was properly understood for what it is. This suffering was caused by the atmosphere of pervasive fog that lies across this country in establishment areas, in professional areas, in religious areas and in political areas. The little person is always expendable and is always hurt.

During his contribution to this debate, the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, Deputy McGuinness, provided four excellent examples of justice being obstructed in an absolutely and totally unreasonable manner. This country needs to have its conscience awakened at its core. That is why a Private Members' Bill that consists of just 27 words is now in the draw to be considered on Second Stage. It seeks to awaken the conscience in this House and in the Seanad. It proposes that "the members of each House of the Oireachtas shall be representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience". That is why we have to get our consciences awake. One could say that the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013 merely plays with the edges of conscience. The other Bill I have mentioned, which could and should become part of the Constitution, is identical in its wording to the second sentence of Article 38.1 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany and would serve us extremely well. It is based on the principle that underlies policy-making within parties and party discipline. It gives people the assured liberty of citizenship to do things rightly, openly and honestly, without fear of consequences.

I know people might cynically think I am taking the opportunity presented by the debate on this Bill to present a warm-up awakening for the next Bill, which is far more important. I have experience of what can happen with certain matters that need legislation, or do not need legislation as the case may be, in the absence of absolute respect for the dignity of the individual consciences of elected representatives and those who are appointed to the Seanad. Our system is a little different from the Bundestag system in respect of the Seanad. We have given a bad example to the rest of this country by having these orders and Whips, etc. Of course people can come to agreements on policies, as long as the underlying fundamental principle of conscience applies to those who have a platform as representatives of the whole people. That is what Burke talked about. Jesse Norman's book, which was written in the early part of last year, is a very timely work for us all to read in that context.

In recent weeks, we have spent a great deal of time trying to grapple with issues of whistleblowing and bullying. We have been skirting around what we all know needs to be done. It is obvious that a full inquiry is needed. Children could tell us that.

Children would tell us that as responsible adults, particularly as elected representatives debating and making law, we should have the full freedom of conscience to do things properly. It takes my breath away that Ms Louise O'Keeffe had to experience what she did through the legal process.

The Protected Disclosures Bill sets out a formula, calibrating what is included and what is not. We all know when something is right or wrong. When something does not feel right, it is probably wrong. I got that feeling on two occasions in this House last year. First was the absurdity of the debate on the abolition of the Seanad. People argued that it was not the right proposition and then pressed the voting buttons in accordance with the Whip. It would be wrong to ask our children to do that and yet leaders of parties insisted that it was the right thing. It beggars belief. I heard good speeches supporting the idea of a second House for debate purposes, for new and fresh ideas, for courage and all those things, and then they voted it down.

What does the Government want? Does it want oppression of minorities, oppression of ideas and oppression of conscience? Where does it stop? The Members of each House of the Oireachtas shall be representatives of the whole people, not bound by orders or instructions, and responsible only to their conscience. I am glad the Minister seems to be thinking about it. He should think and reflect, and do what is necessary.

I wish there had been 166 signatures to the Thirty-Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas) Bill. I do not particularly want mine to be the only signature. If it happens, I will be delighted take my name off and just be carried by the other 165. That is what it should be. Who is afraid? If somebody is afraid of it, then things are even worse than I thought.

See this speech in context