Shane Ross (Independent)

I share Senator MacSharry's last sentiments but little else of what he said. This promise of legislation is deeply disappointing. As the House knows, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. James Hamilton, made a statement on the need for whistleblower legislation on "The Week in Politics" programme. Suddenly, a week later, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform announced he would introduce such legislation. It took the Director of Public Prosecutions, not parliamentarians or members of the Minister's party, to prompt him into saying he was going to take action. There was a welcome response to the announcement and agreement that at least Mr. Hamilton had managed to get some badly needed movement on this issue. The Minister of State's speech today reveals the response is totally and utterly inadequate. I am also slightly puzzled as to which Department is in charge of this legislation. Is it the Department of Justice Law Reform or the Department of Finance?

I had the experience of a whistleblower, of which I have written; therefodre, I am not revealing anything new about any individual. Mr. Eugene McErlean who worked in AIB had blown the whistle on foreign exchange transactions and all sorts of internal goings-on at the bank to the Central Bank. His reward for this was to lose his job at AIB. He has also been before several Oireachtas committees and everyone knows he is an utterly convincing and truthful witness and a man to whom a great injustice has been done which has not yet been properly remedied.

The Minister's whistleblowing proposals will not address these problems. I see his point about various whistleblower protections which have been promised in various places. This addresses solely the issue of corruption, by which the Minister means bribery. To claim we will look again at financial whistleblower provisions is absurd because the real and only issue is financial whistleblowing. To introduce legislation which addresses corruption overall is inadequate. What we need is legislation which protects people in the financial services sector who blow the whistle on unethical, inappropriate and illegal activities. Mr. McErlean would not have received any protection from the promise here today. It is simply not adequate but I do not blame the Minster of State for this; I recognise the hands of the mandarins all over this speech. There is a power play going on in the Department of Finance. It is not adequate to maintain that this has been addressed, that the problem was examined in 1999 and that it is somewhat complex. We know what that means and that it is being put on the long finger. We know that someone has put their hands on this legislation and decided he or she will not address it because it is too complex.

I was in the House when a very complex problem was addressed here. I cannot remember the date exactly but when Larry Goodman went bust there was a complex problem. Some 33 banks and a significant amount of legislation were involved in that case. It was introduced overnight and passed without any problem. The Minister of State has an issue with whistleblowers but no one can tell me that this has not been addressed in the public domain because it has. The Government maintains it examined this issue in 1999, it has considered it very carefully since but that it is somewhat complex. It is not. Blanket immunity should be given to people in the same situation as Mr. McErlean and others such as Mr. Tony Spollen, a man whose name is known to many in this House and who was in the same situation. He blew the whistle on AIB and lost his job but he would not be protected by this Bill. It is inadequate to come forward today and suggest it is too complex to address now but that it will be considered. We should receive the legislation today and not promises of a future date.

I am unsure whether the Minister of State mentioned it and I may be wrong to say otherwise, but he will be aware that this issue was addressed at the Council of Europe some two or three weeks ago. A resolution was passed at the Council of Europe which would address the problems in the financial sector and the problems with which Messrs McErlean and Spollen were confronted. For some reason, we are not up to speed on that development. We introduce a bunch of rhubarb about difficulties here, there and everywhere which is utterly and totally unconvincing. I say as much not to chastise the Minister of State but simply to point out that this is something which could be but has not been addressed. Today Mr. McErlean is in the same situation as he was then. He has not been given the credit or acknowledgement he should have been given for doing a public service to the State and the nation and for revealing what was going on in the financial sector. I refer to what this matter is all about, that is, the main problems faced by whistleblowers in the financial sector. There is documentary evidence of people having been victimised for having told the truth. The Government maintains it is concerned about the matter and it will consider what to do.

I apologise if I am somewhat emotional on the matter but I call on the Minister of State to indicate when and how he will address this subject and to give us a timetable for it because I do not believe he could possibly be content with the script he was given to read today. His reference to urgent reform being necessary is totally unacceptable. We are aware that wide-ranging reform is needed but wide-ranging reform comes from one place alone. The reference to the relevance of key people or roles being changed in the financial sector is complete and utter camouflage. It does not matter a hoot who has or has not been changed or what changes have been made. The issue is protection for employees and whistleblowers.