Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator and her colleagues for proposing the amendment, which would insert a new relevant wrongdoing that could be reported upon for the purposes of making protected disclosure. The amendment would add to the list of relevant wrongdoings set out under section 5(3). Having carefully considered the wording of the proposed amendment, I am satisfied that the issue of the exercise of undue influence by public officials, which the Senator wishes to crystallise and focus on, is already more than adequately covered by the current definition of a relevant wrongdoing set out in section 5(3).

Given the wide categories set out in the Bill, I have taken the view that the amendment is not necessary. One could craft and specify many other possible types of wrongdoing in the legislation. Having spoken at great length to my officials, I have decided that we will have crafted all-encompassing terms, rather than narrow or specific terms. We could all come up with half a dozen types of wrongdoing that could be specified in the Bill. However, the more one specifies, the more one weakens. We need an overarching concept that will ensure that when these matters are tested in the courts, the overarching definitions are sufficiently robust to capture them. The advice I have been given is that the more one specifies, the more it is open to argue in the courts that a particular category must be excluded on the basis that it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill. The general approach, therefore, is to have broad definitions to capture as much wrongdoing as possible. I am advised by the Attorney General that the issue of undue influence by public officials is specifically captured in the definition in section 5(3).