Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In response to amendment No. 1, proposed and seconded by Senators Barrett and Quinn, respectively, I accept the bona fides of both Senators. The Minister for Finance and I accept fully what has been said by Senator Barrett, whose only objective is to improve the Bill. He seeks not to stand in the way of its passage but to add to it. The Bill, which I took on Report Stage in the Dáil, has been hanging around, as it were, for the past 18 months. It came in as one Bill, but was substantially amendmended on foot of two very significant Private Members' Bills introduced by the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on finance, Deputy Michael McGrath.

These were inculcated into the Bill and it showed a readiness on the part of the Minister for Finance to respond to good ideas on the part of Opposition Deputies and Senators. He has continued in that vein with this Bill.

I take the point that the Senator raises and I will explain the reasons we think the amendment is superfluous. It is important to put this on record because these matters are often referred to in court. Having the opportunity to explain them gives an insight into the minds of the Oireachtas Members in terms of the passage of any amendment to the legislation. Amendment No. 1 seeks to include a new provision into Part V of the Bill, which requires the Central Bank to include in its annual report a statement of the reforms undertaken by financial services providers on foot of whistleblower disclosures. I remind Senators that the Minister introduced an amendment in the Dáil in response to concerns raised by Opposition parties on a similar point. This is effectively section 38 of the Bill, the new section introduced by the Minister on Committee Stage on page 28. The amendment inserts a new section into the Bill requiring the Governor to report to the Central Bank Commission on whistleblower disclosures and the action taken by the Central Bank on foot of them. In this way, there will be appropriate oversight of the Central Bank's responsiveness to whistleblower disclosures. Section 38(4) reads:

(a) The Governor shall provide a report to the Central Bank Commission at least annually on any action taken or not taken in response to protected disclosures.
(b) The Central Bank Commission shall determine the form and content of the report to be provided under paragraph (a).

In our view, what Senators Quinn and Barrett are looking for is already contained in the legislation. The report will be given, in the first instance, by the Governor to the Central Bank Commission and the commission will issue a report on an annual basis.

In the course of performing its function under the Central Bank Acts, the Central Bank receives information through a variety of means, including the provision of information by firms in response to statutory requests, information from authorised officer inspections and information obtained through regulatory returns. The Central Bank also receives information through voluntary disclosures by financial services providers through routine reporting and other engagement on compliance issues. It is a matter for the Central Bank to decide what action, if any, is required on foot of it receiving particular information, whether through whistleblowers or other means. Based on its assessment and on subsequent investigations, the Central Bank may require action by the financial service provider. The action may include compliance with regulatory direction, the provision of customer redress, administrative sanctions or the prosecution of an offence. The Central Bank cannot require action on foot of the whistleblower disclosure alone. It must first satisfy itself there are sufficient grounds that warrant action. The action may only be required following due process and fair procedure. In such cases, financial services legislation already provides for the publication of details of the action to be taken, the nature of the sanction or direction, albeit subject to some ground rules including, for example, ensuring the publication of the administrative sanction does not inhibit the prosecution of an offence. On that basis, I am satisfied there are appropriate measures in place to ensure oversight of Central Bank action and transparency on the action required to be undertaken by financial service providers following due process and fair procedure. This addresses much of the substance of the points raised by Senator Barrett. The Minister for Finance is more than happy that the Senator is raising this issue again this evening.

I agree that what is required is a strong regulatory regime, which is clear and transparent for all to see. Senator Barrett referred to Estelle Feldman, who is a friend of mine and who has written extensively on the topic of whistleblowers. She is also a distinguished academic in Senator Barrett's university. She has done much of the pioneering work in this area and has helped Opposition Deputies in producing legislation. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, would make the following point if he was here. It is firm intent of the Government to produce, for the first time ever, legislation to protect whistleblowers across Irish public administration. It is a key part of what we want to do in the political reform area and much of what Ms Feldman has written about over the course of the past decade and a half in her extensive research has greatly helped the Government and informed it of the legislative approach it should take. We need to protect people who have information and use it in such a way as to act in the public interest. We also need discretion for public agencies to investigate these matters and to come to a view on the substance of the allegations being made. With regard to amendment No. 1, it is already provided for under section 38. The Minister responded to an Opposition Deputy on Committee Stage in this respect.