John Gilroy (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, to the House. I also welcome the debate on this Private Members' motion and the forthcoming legislation on this area which I hope will come to the House shortly. It will be a welcome addition to the employee protection law and it has wide implications for our society. In a country where the stroke and the shortcut is all too common - we saw a little of that not too far form this House recently - the proposed legislation will be particularly welcome.

We have seen repeated instances in nursing homes of staff who should be praised for having risked their careers in speaking out. The report by Ms Justice Maureen Harding Clark on the Neary case in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda, to which Senator Mullen referred, found that concerns were being continually raised as early as 1978. It was not until nearly 20 years later that two midwives risked their careers to highlight their concerns. At that time, and it is still probably the case although to a lesser extent today, the authority of some senior medical staff was seldom questioned and the devastating effects that had on the lives of hundreds of women are all too clear to us. This reluctance to speak out was shared by hospital managers, junior doctors, anaesthetists, surgical nurses, general practitioners and many more.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to whistleblowers legislation because the Public Interest Disclosure Act in the UK has been seen to work rather well. In its passage through the parliament in the UK it received cross-party support and was supported by trade unions and business organisations because it was seen to be in everyone's interest that such legislation would be forthcoming. It should, therefore, be welcomed here across parties and by all sectoral interests as well.

In the UK it has created greater awareness of employee rights, greater willingness to speak out about wrongdoing and more positive public attitudes towards speaking out. It is seen as a model that many other countries have adopted as well. I do not want to give too many statistics but a survey in the UK found that 86% of senior executives senior executives feel more free to report a case of suspected fraud or bribery compared with 54% of similar grades in European countries that do not have whistleblower protection legislation. However, the UK model is not without its problems. One of the concerns raised is the issue surrounding the definition of what is reasonable and in good faith. Several court judgments have clarified this in the UK and it is now recognised that the words "without maliciousness", when added, are sufficient. That would go some way towards addressing Senator Quinn's concerns in regard to the cranks charter. I agree with Senator Quinn in that regard.

Another matter for concern highlighted in the UK legislation has not been addressed, namely, the extension of protection to apply to proceedings before a professional body when an individual may be at risk not alone of losing his or her job but his or her career. I refer to a case in the UK, Harwood v. the Central Council for Nursing and Midwifery, involving the removal of the principal from the register of nursing, thereby ensuring she lost her licence to practice. The facts of the case relate to a secret recording of neglect of a patient. While the fitness to practise committee balanced the rights of patient confidentiality with the whistleblowers legislation, it conceded that this was a case of exceptionally serious concern. The nurse's name was subsequently removed from the register, resulting in her losing her job and career. This issue has particular reference to a professional body and organisation.

While the proposed legislation goes a long way towards offering protection to whistleblowers, it is not a panacea for all problems. It has proved difficult to protect persons after the event from victimisation or unscrupulous or vindictive employers. More than 15% of whistleblowers in the UK were dismissed from their jobs before their cases came before the UK equivalent of our appropriate officer. We can learn a lesson from this. There is no mention of whether the findings of the appropriate officer would be made public, which I believe is a serious weakness of the proposed legislation on whistleblowers. It is strange that a law on the promotion of transparency and accountability would not itself be accountable and transparent, which is the least we would require.

While clearly no one wants the establishment of another quango, I would like to see in place a body similar to the Public Concern at Work Organisation in the UK, which offers support for people availing of this type of legislation. This body could be attached to an organisation such as the citizens advice centres. The four main areas in the UK where the Act is seen as being particularly successful are, in Government, financial services, health and social services, all of which hold a particular resonance with people in Ireland. This motion is timely, important and not dissimilar to the proposed legislation or proposed amendment to the motion. With some caveats, I support the motion. I hope to put forward some amendments to the legislation when it comes before the House.