Seanad debates

Wednesday, 1 December 2010

Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill 2008: Committee Stage (Resumed).

 

1:00 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

I listened with interest to what Senator Mullen had to say. I believed initially these amendments were absurd, dangerous and self-contradictory and the Senator has not persuaded me that they are not.

He has completely undermined his own case, particularly in the context of the words he used. Earlier I urged the Minister to reflect on this matter and was successful in getting him do so. I urge the Senator to reflect on it also.

There might be a tiny margin for arguing about whether something is reckless. However, it is not possible to state anyone who makes an allegation and knows it to be vexatious, misleading or frivolous should be protected. I have always stood up for principles and whistleblowers. I have even blown the odd whistle myself. However, it would be outrageous to protect someone who knows that the allegations he or she is making are vexatious and who makes them merely to upset the person who is the subject of them. That is arrant nonsense and I am 100% opposed to it.

It is wrong to invoke the names of Mr. Eugene McErlean who worked for AIB and Mr. Noel Wardick, a former director of the Irish Red Cross. I have raised issues on behalf of these individuals and it is seriously damaging to their reputations to suggest they require such protection. The allegations made by the two gentlemen to whom I refer made were certainly not misleading, frivolous or vexatious.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.