Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The effect of the amendment is to include officeholders and Members of Dáil and Seanad Éireann as workers under the legislation. That is its import and intention. In considering the amendment, I believe it is worthwhile to take a step back and reflect briefly on the fundamental objectives of the legislation which, as Senator Byrne has said, is to safeguard workers in the workplace. Councillors would not be covered by the amendment and, therefore, I shall just deal with officeholders and Members of these Houses. A constitutional privilege is available to Members of the Oireachtas in respect of utterances in the Houses, so the outing of wrongdoing is uniquely protected to a degree that no other worker in the State would have. Let me clarify that officeholders are as defined in the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 which states:

(a) a person who is a Minister of the Government or a Minister of State,
(b) a member who holds the office of Attorney General,
(c) a person who is Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Dáil Éireann or Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Seanad Éireann, and
(d) a person who holds—(i) the office of chairman of a committee of either House .... , or
(ii) the office of chairman of a joint committee of both Houses, or the office of chairman of a joint committee not currently designated as officeholders by resolution of the Houses.

These are very privileged people. I think that they do not need workers' protection because I cannot envisage a situation where the employment rights of a Member of the Oireachtas or the Government would be affected by whistleblowing. One might be dumped by the electorate but I do not think this legislation can protect against that happening.