Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Members who contributed. I believe this is the fourth occasion the Bill is before the House, which is because it is important legislation. I suppose events of recent times have underscored its importance and topicality but also its centrality in the reform agenda the Government is putting in place. I thank all Members for their very varied and interesting contributions, some straying well beyond the environs of the Bill itself, but that is the way debates happen in this House, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I have noted all the remarks made. I believe I have been present for all of that debate. I look forward to having more detailed discussions with Deputies on Committee Stage, and I know there will be a good debate at that level also.

I want to respond to some of the points made by Deputies during the course of Second Stage contributions. There is a particular and understandable focus in the contributions of a number of Deputies, continuing today, on how the legal framework will accommodate whistleblowing involving members of the Garda Síochána. Section 19 of the current Bill relates to the regulation made under the Garda Síochána Act 2005 in regard to the making of protected disclosures by members of the Garda Síochána. I would like to advise the House that work is under way involving officials from my Department, together with officials from the Department of Justice and Equality, to determine how best to ensure a legal framework for Garda whistleblowing under the 2005 legislation is fully aligned with the principles enshrined in this new, modern Bill. This relates to both internal disclosures by members of the Garda Síochána and those made to a prescribed body which, as has been announced, will of course be the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC.

The intention is to expand GSOC's remit by making a specific amendment to this Bill which would allow GSOC operate within the architecture of the Protected Disclosures Bill and accept reports, complaints or observations from Garda whistleblowers or members of the Garda Síochána. The new system will replace the system that was put in place by the existing 2005 Act. Deputies will, I am sure, concur with my view that the priority must be to ensure the legal framework for Garda whistleblowing is fully effective, that it works, that it protects members of the Garda Síochána and that it is consistent with the principles of this Bill, which is regarded as world class. For that reason, I was invited to make a presentation on it at the Open Government forum last year.

In regard to the comments made concerning the creation of an oversight role to monitor ongoing operation of the Bill, as I stated in my opening remarks, that is something we discussed at some length in the Seanad. I believe it is important that an appropriate period be allowed to ascertain whether the legislation fully meets the objectives and the ambitions we have set for it, and we are ambitious in this regard. This is an innovative and, as many Deputies have acknowledged, by necessity a complicated framework we have laid out to strike the balance for which Deputy Healy-Rae has quite properly asked, namely, that an accusation is not a fact until it is properly weighed and analysed. We need to have a robust, accurate framework for protecting somebody who identifies wrongdoing and wants it rectified, but also to protect people against whom accusations are made to ensure false and damaging accusations are not allowed to be untested. As with the normal balance of justice, we have to ensure an accusation is not definitive proof. We have, I believe, in this complicated mechanism, struck the balance right in terms of best practice in the most progressive regimes we have looked at, and then migrated it into this legislation.

I will approach any amendments submitted on Committee Stage with a completely open mind because, as the Deputies opposite know, I claim no complete wisdom on these matters. Everybody will come with their own ideas and where good ideas are proffered, the Deputies will find in me a willing ear.

The processes involved will take time to establish themselves. We had this debate in the Seanad. There will not be a huge number of definitive cases in the first year, given that is the practice we have had. We need to have a representative sample before we review, but we need to have a proper review and that is what will be done. It would seem premature to establish a monitoring body at the outset. I have provided, however, for a detailed review of the operation of the Act to be carried out within a five year framework, which, from talking to colleagues abroad, seems to give sufficient time to have a real feeling for the operation of the Bill. Needless to say, if any serious issues emerge regarding the efficacy of the legislation at any stage, I would certainly be very happy to return to it, and there will be a role for the legislative committees in that regard.

Deputy Pringle raised a concern regarding a disclosure which might be made to the wrong person and whether the whistleblower would be entitled to protections on how the matter ought to be handled by the recipient in such circumstances. The code of practice being prepared by the Labour Relations Commission will clarify procedural arrangements for the making of protected disclosures by workers and the manner in which they should be handled by employers. It would be a matter for the relevant Houses to decide how disclosures made directly to Members of the Oireachtas, for example, might be handled. As was explained on Second Stage, the Labour Relations Commission is working right now with employers and trade union representatives to have an agreed code of practice. We need to educate people in the operation of this because having a legislative framework that nobody knows about would be worthless. We need to have trade union members, workers who are not in trade unions and employers all familiar with this new architecture. That will be the cultural shift I have talked about, which will ensure people respond properly, effectively and quickly to concerns expressed by workers in the workplace.

It should, of course, be noted that in regard to disclosures under section 17, which deals with matters relating to law enforcement, there is provision in the Bill for procedures to be established by Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas as to how Members are to deal with such information disclosed to them under that section. There will be a job of work for the Oireachtas itself to define its own Standing Orders and procedure. Therefore, should matters of law enforcement be presented to, for example, Deputy Mathews, he would be sure in his own mind how to deal with that.

I know this from personal experience. When I was presented with very concerning evidence in regard to the operations of some gardaí in Donegal, my choice was to go privately to the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, although I was advised later that I would have much more protection if I stood up and made the allegations on the floor of this House. I had no protection, as I discovered, by simply giving them to the Minister. We need to see the Standing Orders of the House clear in order that Members can be sure-footed in how they deal with any significant information that comes to them in future.

It is an unfortunate fact that the need for whistleblowing protections arises as a consequence of the ability of employers, both in the public and private spheres, to penalise, sometimes to the point of dismissal, employees who bring wrongdoing in the workplace to their attention. The scope of employers to strip an employee of their livelihood or their potential for promotion, or just to make their life miserable, leading to permanent disadvantage in the regaining of employment, has long been recognised as a significant disincentive to workers to report wrongdoing. That is the cultural shift we have to address, and I have tried to address it in this legislative framework.

See this speech in context