Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It is important to note that this Bill came about not because of a desire necessarily to improve our existing protected disclosures regime and it was not inspired by the need to give further protections to the many whistleblowers whose concerns have been raised in this Chamber or to set a new standard in whistleblowing protection. The reason the Bill is before us today is to satisfy the transposition of the EU's whistleblowing directive and its mandatory reporting requirements. However, the crafting of the Bill gave us an opportunity to reflect on our whistleblowing regime and to understand what is working well and not working well. Over the course of the last few months, when this was discussed within the committee, it was an eye-opener for many committee members as to the different issues that so many whistleblowers and transparency campaigners face. I commend all of those who came before the committee and who told their very personal stories and told of the personal difficulties they faced as a result of their whistleblowing.

As the legislation is almost ten years old, a review was timely. I take on board that the Minister has said he would welcome amendments on Committee Stage. My colleague, Deputy Buckley, and I had drafted our own Bill, which looked to raise the bar and which could be used to ensure there is no lowering of existing standards. We know that whistleblowers play a key role in society and that is very true when we look at our own history within this State.

Transparency International says that whistleblowing is acknowledged as one of the most effective ways of stopping wrongdoing. For example, many of the cases of corruption and fraud that we know about have been exposed by workers who reported those issues to their employers, regulators or the press. In fact, it is believed that more cases of fraud and corruption are exposed by whistleblowers than by any other actor, including the police and the media. We saw the very difficult situations that people have faced as a result of doing that. Unfortunately, as we know, when a whistleblower does reveal wrongdoing, the primary concern of the authorities can be reputational damage to the organisation and there can be an attempt, as we have seen, to circle the wagons, cast aspersions on whistleblowers’ motivations and engage in retaliation. That means the whistleblowers themselves can suffer greatly for acting in the public interest and they pay a very high price for speaking out, both financially and in terms of their health.

That is why we felt there was a need to remove the cap on awards. We saw the evidence in the committee that people are ostracised as a result of speaking out in the public interest and research shows that people lose over €40,000 in the course of their working life as a result. We felt it should be changed to “fair and equitable” but, as the Minister said, we will discuss that on Committee Stage, when we can go into this further. This is something we need to look at because it can help set the standard on these issues. This kind of information and this work is something we very much rely on. With our own Bill, we were hoping to set a standard that could be used but we will bring that up on Committee Stage, when we can discuss this in greater detail.

All of this work needs to be crafted in consultation with whistleblowers, legal practitioners and academics in order that we can draw on the highest standards of national whistleblowing legislation across the various EU jurisdictions. We see what the Nordic countries have done in this regard. I think we can be the shining light on this, given we owe so much to our whistleblowers.

We had hoped any research that could be done within the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach would have assisted with this Bill being undertaken. We have to give credit to the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach for the massive job of work it did. It gave the Bill the seriousness it warranted, which helped pave the way for the substantial report that was issued as a result. We heard the testimony of many whistleblowers and they worked in the public and the private sector in junior and senior positions and they were from all different backgrounds. They were all united in one factor; each and every one of them spoke out because they believed it served the public interest and that the public had a right to know. Most importantly, they recognised that if the public knew what was going on, it would not accept it, which was the crux of the matter.

The committee also heard the expert opinion of groups like Transparency International and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and we heard from members of the bodies representing the legal profession and those working in mental health services. These people also played a valuable role in helping to shape the 60 recommendations issued in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. The Minister recently said to me that he judges each and every Bill on its merits and so do we. I have to be fair to the Minister and I acknowledge those areas where he made amendments in line with the Bill Deputy Buckley and I brought forward and in line with the recommendations of the committee and that is welcome. It is good to see that co-operative work and to hear the Minister say he will continue to work with us. Section 4 includes the expansion of the meaning of "work", which is extremely important because it includes volunteers and that is an area where there can be concerns. That should have included journalists as well but we will bring that to Committee Stage and we can talk about that in greater detail then. I welcome the expansion of that meaning because it will be of relief to many.

There are also areas we probably could have worked on. I see that, for example, the Minister has included an exemption for organisations with fewer than 50 employees. It is not that costly to put this in place and that is probably unnecessary. We can talk about that in greater detail another time. The Bill will establish a new protected disclosures office within the Office of the Ombudsman. Concerns have been raised about this and we need to be frank about that. Some people have concerns that protected disclosures could be sent to a letter box or a filing cabinet but it is up to us to make sure that does not happen. We need to be clear that this will set a standard and that it does not end up being that kind of thing and we need to make sure that as many people as possible have full confidence in it. We need to be clear that this office is staffed correctly and resourced appropriately. I raised the issue of staff qualification numbers and funding with the Minister at the start of the month and we need to make sure that office is fully resourced and staffed. When I raised that point at the start of the month, the Minister said he was still working on that so we need to make sure we have those details and I had hoped to have them before this Bill was brought before the Dáil. Hopefully we will get that information soon because it is important for the confidence of those past and future whistleblowers in the system. A lot of them, including the ones we have listened to, have been failed. We need to acknowledge that and make sure they know we are taking this very seriously.

The Bill will introduce new and restrictive conditions for public service workers looking to make a protected disclosure to the Minister. Another point on which we raised concern is the so-called emergency situation the Minister is proposing to put on public service whistleblowers for making a protected disclosure to the Minister and that is regressive. Concerns were raised when it was discussed in the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach that this could lower existing standards. As the committee recommended, this should have been removed. It is good to see that penalisation will include vexatious proceedings and attempting to hinder further reporting. That is important and something we had a lot of conversations about during Committee Stage.

My party will support this Bill. We are looking forward to the Committee Stage debate to discuss it, to see what our different recommendations are and to see how we can work together to ensure we do what is best in the interests of everyone and of whistleblowers. When we talk about the best interests of whistleblowers we mean the best interests of everyone because the work whistleblowers do is essential to everyone in this State.

See this speech in context