Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I second the motion. I express my appreciation to Senator Mullen for tabling this motion as it is a topic that needs to be discussed and one that is worthy of debate. I note the amendments which add to the debate. I welcome the Minister of State to the House. It is quite a long time since he was a Member of this House when we worked together.

I have some experience of a whistleblower. Some years ago when I was running my supermarket company I received a telephone call asking me to meet a person who worked for one of our suppliers. I was told the supplier was cheating. The product being delivered to my company was not what had been promised. The supplier was putting a dye into the product to make it look like a different product. The employee had a choice. He was tempted to go to the newspapers and make a disclosure but had he gone to the newspapers it would have done our company a significant amount of harm. Instead he came to me. I went to the supplier and the supplier denied the activity but, suddenly, things changed and the product became a different product. It was not available to us for a couple of weeks and it was clear they were cheating. That employee had a choice. Had he gone to the newspapers and had they published the complaint, the supplier would have been damaged - although deserving to be damaged - but it would also have damaged the customers of that supplier. Therefore, I have some sympathy for whatever decision will be reached in this area.

We have to be very careful. We do not want to find that by setting up a whistleblowing legislation, we set up a legislation which encourages what I call, denunciation, for example, where a person makes a statement. I refer to an incident last week - nothing to do with whistleblowing - where an individual made a statement about a very well-known personality and it turns out to be incorrect. The harm that could have been done by that statement is just a reminder of how careful we must be to avoid encouraging denunciation. When I look back at history I think of two incidences of where denunciation was used. The Gestapo in the 1930s only had to say they had a belief a person had done something and that person's name was ruined. A few hundred years previously in the Spanish Inquisition, denunciation was common-place. A person's good name could be damaged very easily. The mere hint of a slur can do a great deal of harm because people are of the view there is no smoke without fire. We need whistleblower legislation but we need to be careful. Given the experience of the banks in recent times there is little doubt but that we need such legislation. We want to avoid what I would call a crank's charter, where people can go public too easily and do a huge amount of harm. There is merit in having legislation on whistleblowers.

Senator Mullen correctly pointed out that it seems to work quite well in Britain. We have approached the issue in a piecemeal fashion until now in Ireland, going through it sector by sector. Perhaps that is the way to deal with it. We should encourage it. I understand we have it in the areas of health and safety and banking. If we do not, we should ensure we achieve something. I want to ensure that whatever legislation is introduced is acceptable and does not do more harm. Like my colleagues I was shocked by the reports on care homes for the elderly, State and clerical institutions and hospitals. I sometimes wonder why we are surprised at the scale of sexual and physical abuse of the most vulnerable or the prevalence of wrongdoing across society when so little has been done over the years to protect those who speak up.

The whistleblowers working in Rostrevor nursing home and Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, to which Senator Mullen referred, are examples of what has happened. The story of the Rostrevor whistleblowers shows how vulnerable migrant and agency workers are in our health service. Eugene McErlean of AIB and others in the Red Cross demonstrate how vulnerable even the most senior officials are when reporting concerns about financial irregularities or failures in corporate governance. Above all, these stories show that little has been done by the State for those who have served so many in the past. These courageous individuals continue to face unemployment and a life of uncertainty because they dared to act in the public interest. They get little thanks and no compensation for sacrificing their welfare for the common good. Others have blown the whistle and discovered that their colleagues do not accept what they said. Such people have lost out and almost been sent to Coventry.

I fail to see why we have taken so long to introduce some form of whistleblowing guarantees and legislation that would protect workers in the public and private sectors. Such legislation, as Senator Mullen said, has operated without any difficulty in Britain and Northern Ireland for well over ten years. It has protected workers and the reputation of those accused of wrongdoing without much drama. If such a law can enjoy the support of the British business community, why would it face any opposition here? The reason is because of what I said earlier, namely, that business is concerned about an approach that would aim to solve all problems with one broad sweep of the brush. We need to introduce whistleblowers legislation but it has to be done carefully, sector by sector, to avoid the pitfalls into which we could otherwise fall. It is worthy of consideration and the motion and amendments are leading in the right direction to enable us to find a solution.