Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Today's newspapers contain reports on the latest developments in the saga around the Rostrevor nursing home. It seems HIQA and its inspectors were rightly praised by the District Court judge when the order for the home's closure was made.

An issue, however, arises as to what protection is available for those who blow the whistle on abuses in nursing homes and other such situations. A further issue arises with regard to the position of migrant workers who may become unemployed as a consequence of their whistleblowing. Is there any protection for these persons from deportation, for example? It would be invidious and unjust that a person could find himself or herself in a vulnerable situation as a result of exposing wrongdoing in the public interest.

These matters can be discussed next week in Private Members' time when I will table a motion on the protection available for whistleblowers in society. We need to have particular regard to the challenge facing migrant workers and the kind of circumstances involved, such as in the case of the Rostrevor nursing home. I am sure many Members are already exercised about the need for greater legal protection for whistleblowers. It is a timely issue and the current story about the Rostrevor nursing home illustrates one of the problems that arises.

Yesterday, in response to some points I made on the Order of Business, the Leader said a preferendum could not be allowed for the public to decide the future of the Seanad. There is, however, a difference between putting the issue to the people for final decision in a preferendum and my suggestion of using it is a first step in consulting the public. There cannot be any constitutional or legislative obstacle to holding a preferendum as a means of consultation. When we are shaping our democratic institutions for the next generation, it is not acceptable to have a three-week debate culminating in a referendum with a "Yes" or "No" question. What is called for is a more extended process of consultation.

One way of doing so would be for these Houses to devise several questions and possible options which can then be put to the people in a preferendum, perhaps coinciding with the forthcoming presidential election. This would allow the people to indicate what they see as preferred choices. One could then have the referendum at a later stage which would lead to a more considered shaping by the people of our legislative institutions.

I welcome the good start made by the national forum on patronage and pluralism in education. It is clear there is goodwill on all sides.