David Norris (Independent)

There was a little confusion earlier which I said I would explain. I mentioned to our Whip, Senator O'Toole, that I was interested in this matter and he asked me to lead off. I had agreed to share time with Senator Quinn but then I discovered Senator Ross had a particular interest in the matter and I was happy to yield to him. That was the source of the confusion.

The reason I have an interest in the debate is I have tabled motion No. 16 on the Order Paper which has been seconded by Senators Bacik, Quinn and Mullen on whistleblowing, a serious issue. I have also had direct involvement with two whistleblowing cases and, on both occasions, the persons involved lost their jobs and were not protected, to which I will refer again.

The Minister of State's contribution was bland and he made a number of worrying comments. He stated, for example, in trying to define "whistleblowing", it is "usually interpreted to mean the reporting in good faith of a breach or potential breach of the law...". However, there are other standards such as good governance, morality, the protection of children and so on and they are inadequately covered because the Government parties have withdrawn and retreated from their original position which was to introduce general legislation. They gave a commitment in this regard but then withdrew it under pressure from now discredited financial sources. The Minister of State said, "while one grand-slam piece of legislation to provide blanket protection would be desirable, there were considerable legal obstacles...," which he did not specify. Perhaps he will mention what these are. Is it not curious that these fanciful objections have not obstructed successful engagement on the neighbouring island, the United Kngdom, where for the past ten years a comprehensive whistleblowing law has been in place and operated without once dragging the system into court? There has not been the slightest legal hitch, which is interesting.

The Minister of State then recited laws that provided a degree of whistleblowers protection. There are 15 in all, but they are patchy and irregular. There is no harmonisation and they do not give the degree of protection required. I will refer to a number of specific instances later. He stated blandly, "Generally, disclosures are protected where they are made in good faith...," but that is not the case. That is simply not true and it is dangerous to give people a false sense of security that they are protected by legislation when they simply are not. That is where I would start from.

This issue has arisen in the aftermath of a direct call by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. James Hamilton, for the introduction of legislation in this area. It is in my experience highly unusual for an officeholder such as this to engage with the Government in this way. Therefore, it is appropriate to take action. It is three years since a body called the company law review group lobbied against such a proposal. This was an interesting group as it was chaired by Dr. Courtney, a partner in the leading firm of lawyers, Arthur Cox, which does quite a bit of government work. It rejected the idea of a law on whistleblower protection in 2007 stating, '"One cannot say that there is any evidence of endemic failure in relation to corporate governance or its enforcement in Ireland that negatively affects the investment climate and which requires enhanced 'whistleblowing' provisions." It is interesting that the group stated there was no evidence of corporate governance queries or problems. Perhaps its members had not heard of the Ansbacher bank, about which I wrote an article in the Evening Herald at the time. Therefore, I knew about it, but, apparently, this group was unaware of it, which suggests a degree of ignorance that might not place its members in the best position to advise a Minister. What about National Irish Bank, Allied Irish Banks, Irish Trust Bank, PMPA and ICI which resulted in the taxpayer bailing out a major financial institution and so on?

A series of whistleblowers in AIB paid the price prior to 2007. Mr. Tony Spollen, group head of internal audit, had to leave after preparing an internal report that the bank faced an estimated €100 million liability over its failure to collect DIRT and he was proved completely right. Whereas politicians and bankers have been asleep on the jobs, there have been useful contributions by commentators in the press recently, in particular, Kathleen Barrington in the Sunday Business Post and John Devitt in The Irish Times. In 2001 Mr. Rupert Walker was sacked by the British subsidiary of AIB, Govett, because he had blown the whistle on dodgy practices within the bank. Former AIB group internal auditor, Mr. Eugene McErlean, was not fired but his contract was not renewed. Senior officials in the bank tried to pin the Rusnak scandal on him in revenge because he had brought to the attention of the board matters, including overcharging and peculiar offshore trading in the bank's shares. He also brought them to the attention of the Financial Regulator and paid the price.

I raised two cases in the House, one of which related to the former head of ISME whose civil rights have been completely violated. People in Departments lied and suppressed information that was necessary and the Garda obfuscated and they are continuing to do so, despite questions being raised in both Houses. He cannot get justice and lost his job. I also raised the case of a whistleblower in the IFSC who had brought to my attention and that of the House a serious situation regarding a major bank in the centre. Nobody took him up on it until Süddeutsche Zeitung got into it. Where an employee in a bank reports dodgy loans, for example, he or she will not be protected under the proposed legislation. If a nurse innocently and honestly makes a report on bad conduct, she could be sentenced to three years in jail. Does the Minister of State think that is a serious response? He referred to good faith, but I am outlining what is the actual situation. My niece is in a school for special children and assumed to have reported certain bad practices to the HSE. At this moment she is probably in floods of tears in that school in north Dublin as she is being punished for being a whistleblower. Let us not pretend that this legislation is anything other than a farce. It does not do what it states it is going to do and it is clear we should introduce such comprehensive legislation as has successfully worked in other jurisdictions in the past ten years.