Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)

I support the principle behind the motion. Having served on the Government side of the House also, I know it is not unusual to receive cross-party support for a motion, although an amendment may be tabled. When I was on the Government benches, I was often perplexed that we were inevitably instructed to table an amendment to good, non-controversial motions, even though the principle was broadly accepted by the Government of the day. The Government, with its fresh ideas, might consider supporting good, well meaning motions which would then have the unanimous support of the House.

Senator Rónán Mullen has made his points well in support of the introduction of whistleblowing legislation. The last Government did not ignore this matter, but, rightly or wrongly, previous Ministers for Justice and Equality were advised that a sectoral approach was the correct one to take. I do not think it was, however; a universal approach should be taken to setting out our strategy to protect whistleblowers. The Government's commitment to achieving this objective should be commended and supported.

The Taoiseach recently mentioned a proposal to hold a referendum on this issue which might be held on the same day as the Presidential election. I would not have a great difficulty with that, except that the most important referendum we need to hold, sooner rather than later, is that on children's rights, a subject which has been on the agenda for over a decade. It should be fast-tracked. Such a referendum will be complex, serious and important; therefore, it should not be held in tandem with any other.

The last Government and its predecessor introduced some whistleblowing provisions in a piecemeal fashion adopting a sectoral approach, including in the Health Act 2007, the Communications Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007, the Labour Services Act 2009, the Charities Act 2008, the Chemicals Act 2008 and the Employment Law Compliance Act 2008, among others. Therefore, a serious list of proposals were introduced by the last Government.

If one takes the Rostrevor House Nursing Home case, it is interesting that there seems to be a stigma in Irish society in that we are slow to come forward to expose wrongdoing within particular organisations. I am not sure if it is just a fear of being exposed. Perhaps there is something in the Irish psyche that we hate grassing on others, as a result of which, with or without protection for whistleblowers, people are slow to put up their hands and come forward with information. Senator Feargal Quinn said somebody had come to him directly and that he had two options. It was appropriate that he went down that road, rather than going to the media to expose the matter.

While we obviously wish to protect whistleblowers, we must be careful because we do not want to end up with a crank's charter. I was impressed by the latter phrase. As a member of the legal profession, I am aware that a number of years ago a number of individuals who were paranoid about solicitors and the legal profession in general set up websites. In most instances, they were extremists. In a recent case, in which an engineer was blatantly wrong, six firms of solicitors and 19 defendants ended up in the High Court. Therefore, one must be careful in dealing with such issues because it was obvious from day one that he was a crank. I am not saying, however, that there is no wrongdoing in the legal profession. There obviously is and it should be weeded out, but there are also extremities. I ask the Minister to ensure that when the legislation is introduced, there will be balance. By all means, we should protect whistleblowers - 90% of them are decent people who want to expose a wrong in their place of work - but at the same time we must ensure there will be some safeguards in place to ensure we do not end up with a crank's charter.

I cite the case of a medical person who had 5,000 or 6,000 leaflets circulated about them in a particular town. Damage could have been done to this decent person by somebody who had a personality difficulty with the medical doctor in question. We must ensure this activity is curtailed also.

I welcome the thrust of this laudable motion and thank Senator Rónán Mullen for introducing it. I also welcome the tenet of the Government side in stating it supports it but wants to do its own thing, although I would like to see the day when we can adopt a reformed approach. As I said, when I was on the Government benches, we inevitably opposed Opposition motions, but we should take a broader view in the future. If a motion receives all-party support in principle, perhaps the Government might take it on board and deal with it when the relevant legislation is brought before the House.