Seanad debates

Wednesday, 13 October 2004

Ombudsman (Defence Forces) Bill 2002: Committee Stage.

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)

There is no protection here for whistleblowers. Compared to many EU countries our legislation is deficient in this area. I can think of a category of civil servants working regularly with the Army who might well come forward on any matter with which they are dealing and bring it to the attention of a new ombudsman which would have a direct impact on how the force is governed and run and the immediate recourse open to them is through the existing Ombudsman. This amendment, albeit with some of its defects modified, would be of benefit to whistleblowers. As the Minister knows, the Government made a commitment to introduce such legislation but has not done so yet. This is the kind of provision that would help whistleblowers tell their stories if they saw something peculiar or irregular.

I am glad Senator Maurice Hayes raised the issue of applicants. A consistent bone of contention for many people is how they can get into the Army and particularly into the senior ranks. Nobody should be concerned if a light were shone on that area. All kinds of allegations were made in the past, most of them unfounded, about political involvement. Applicants form a very important category and should be allowed to make complaints in this area. Senator Minihan said they could go through the existing Ombudsman framework. However, we are now appointing an ombudsman to deal with all aspects of the Defence Forces. Earlier we debated how broad and free-ranging we wanted the new ombudsman's role to be. We still have no whistle-blowing legislation; if we did we would have no need for this amendment, particularly as it refers to the fifth category of a civil servant in the service of the Defence Forces.

Some years ago my colleague, former Deputy Charles Flanagan, chaired an all-party committee of both Houses that issued a report recommending the abolition of the commitment civil servants are required to make under the Official Secrets Act. This is now redundant and prevents people coming forward with information that could be in the public interest. Irrespective of the comments of Senator Minihan, I contend that particularly as it relates to the fifth category, an argument can be made for whistle blowing and this is the vehicle through which it can be done.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.