Tom Clonan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Ireland has a very particular and toxic culture when it comes to whistleblowing. The 2014 Act, for example, contains within it the assumption that the person who calls attention to wrongdoing will lose his or her job. We need to think about that. There is no mention in this legislation of those who engage in reprisal against whistleblowers. My sin or crime was calling out sexual violence and sexual assault. If that is a crime, take me out and hang me. The people who actively engaged in that reprisal have now been promoted to very senior rank in our Defence Forces. They have never faced any scrutiny, questioning or interrogation about their actions. There has been no sanction, only reward. In Ireland, if you tell the truth and speak out about wrongdoing you will be punished. If you defend the organisation, whether in health, the voluntary sector or any other area of Irish life, you will be rewarded and promoted, perhaps even given a big job in Europe. That sends a very mixed message to our children and our youth. If one of my children or a neighbour came to me and said he or she had experienced wrongdoing, my advice would be to see a solicitor immediately and protect himself or herself, notwithstanding what is contained in this legislation.

Back in 2001, I was threatened with criminal prosecution for breaching the Official Secrets Act. I was told by my former comrades that a file was being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and that I would face criminal prosecution. Press statements were released saying I had fabricated the research and falsified its findings. Ireland is not a safe place to tell the truth. I have to disagree with the honourable Senator who said so. It is not a safe place. Ask Maurice McCabe, Peter Behan or Noel McGree. Ask their families about the suffering they endure. The people who engage in the reprisal face no sanction. There is nothing in this legislation to deal with that and there ought to be, instead of criminalising people for making allegedly false disclosures. What saved me was Michael Smith, the Fianna Fáil Minister for Defence at the time. When I approached him directly, he put in place an independent Government inquiry. He did not allow the Defence Forces to investigate themselves. That is something every person who brings forward a disclosure should be able to rely on. Such people should be able to talk to the Minister . What else are we here for? Why is Deputy Smyth a Minister? Why would anybody be a Minister, save to take responsibility for what happens within his or her Department?

The other provisions I have concerns about are those exempting relevant organisations from accepting anonymous disclosures in the proposed new section 5A(1). After what I have said, and after what my good friend Maurice McCabe experienced, where they not only tried to destroy him existentially but tried to destroy his relationship and his family, the Government expects people to dispense with their anonymity? The Government must listen to whistleblowers and to Transparency International because we are the people who know what we are talking about, notwithstanding any advice the Government may have been given, legal or otherwise.

By removing wrongdoings involving interpersonal grievances, organisations will be able to use these as a stick to beat people who bring forward disclosures. Whistleblower reprisals involve a very personalised, systemic and systematic attack on a person to completely destroy his or her character, reputation and identity. In my case, they tried to destroy my reputation as an ethical researcher, as an officer with service overseas for my country and as a citizen. They tried to take my job as a lecturer on probation in the institute of technology sector away from me. I was informed that because I had fabricated my research, I was going to lose my job. I thought I was going to lose my job and my liberty. That is personal. Consequently, by putting in a clause removing anything involving interpersonal grievances, the Government is providing organisations engaged in wrongdoing with a defence and a stick with which to beat vulnerable whistleblowers. That must be removed.

Introducing criminal penalties for knowingly making false reports will also be used as a mischievous way of targeting whistleblowers. It is, by definition, what constitutes whistleblower reprisal. Irish organisations will accuse the person who brings forward disclosures of wrongdoing of making false allegations. That was the case for me. Katie Hannon's documentary, "Women of Honour", which was broadcast on 11 September 2021, showed that, 21 years after I made my disclosures, there is still the same problem in our armed forces. That is even though oversight was imposed on them. This is typical of Irish organisations. I have been contacted over the past two decades by whistleblowers from all aspects of Irish life, including the Law Library, charities, An Garda Síochána, religious orders, hospitals, the ambulance and fire services, corporate entities and banking. It is everywhere in Irish society. This legislation does not provide people with the proper protections to make a disclosure and be free from the type of reprisal I experienced.

While I welcome this Bill, I urge the Minister of State to listen to whistleblowers and to Transparency International and other international whistleblowing expert groups. I ask him to please remove the provisions I have mentioned because I am still experiencing the existential harm of reprisal 22 years later. In the aftermath of the "Women of Honour" broadcast, over 30 young people - mostly women and some young men - made fresh disclosures to me of the full spectrum of sexual harassment, assault and rape in the Defence Forces, that is, in the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps. The level of pushback is indicative and symptomatic of a culture that has a problem with truth-telling and naming harm. We have to change the culture and the narrative. The four issues I have raised breach Article 25.2 of the EU whistleblowing directive, in that they reduce the level of protection already afforded by member states in the areas covered in this directive. I thank the Acting Chair for giving me leeway. I apologise to the Minister of State for having to hear this level of emotion but I wanted to communicate that it is a categorical imperative that he deals with this. I ask him to please listen to us.