Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)

I refer to all of the things about which he has been talking. When Senators Ross and Norris speak later in this debate, I am sure they will be able to talk about their experiences and say where this can work. I do not believe the issues mentioned by the Minister of State cannot be overcome. We need to focus on the financial sector. Commercially sensitive information could easily be handled by an ombudsman who would understand the sensitivities involved. If the role of the ombudsman was strengthened appropriately, the issues associated with intellectual property rights could be dealt with. Confidential and personal data are constantly protected by many organisations across the country. If a specific whistleblowers ombudsman were given responsibility for such information, he or she would treat it with the confidentiality it required.

Members of the Oireachtas have always been excluded from the limited whistleblowers provisions included in legislation. As we have parliamentary privilege, we can say what we like about anybody or anything. In my eight years of experience across both Houses, I have never seen that privilege abused in a major way. Members of the Oireachtas are capable of handling sensitive information and deducing whether it needs to be highlighted. We can use our contacts - Oireachtas colleagues and officials in the public service - to clarify much of the information given to us. We are able to check whether it is authentic. On the basis of my experience as a Member of the Oireachtas and before that as a medical professional, I see no reason robust whistleblowing legislation cannot be enacted. If the Minister of State gets an opportunity to respond to us, perhaps he can speak a little more strongly and forcefully about why it is not happening. Perhaps we should examine the UK legislation in this regard. UK legislation can often be relatively easily transferred into the Irish context because our legal systems are so similar. I ask the Minister of State to give me an answer on that issue. That is what we really need.

This debate which consists of statements on whistleblowing in the financial sector is happening as if this issue had just fallen out of the sky. If we have to continue to come into the House to listen to statements, the role of the Seanad will be demeaned. We know that more could be done. When the relevance of the Seanad is being discussed, we can say we raise issues in the Chamber on a regular basis. Statements in the Seanad have a role to play in the context of dealing with topical, complex or changing issues. It is important that we will make statements on the Gaza crisis this evening, for example, as it will give the Minister for Foreign Affairs an opportunity to update the House on relatively new developments. I suggest, however, that these statements on whistleblowing in the financial sector represent no more than a sop to our concerns, if they involve the Minister of State rehashing some old ideas. All he is doing is acknowledging that there are problems, while suggesting they cannot be overcome. It is clear that they can be solved. I ask the Minister of State to return to the House with something stronger. He should give us the Attorney General's opinion on why the obstacles in this sector are genuine and, ultimately, produce legislation on this issue.