Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Feb 2022

Vol. 1018 No. 2

Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill 2022: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Government is in possession. I am given to understand from the list in front of me that Deputy McGuinness is scheduled to speak. As he is not present, I will move to Sinn Féin and Deputy Patricia Ryan.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, the purpose of which is to transpose an EU directive from 2019 relating to the protection of persons who report breaches of EU law. The directive provides for a set of minimum standards for the protection of whistleblowers across the European Union. It was supposed to be transposed by December 2021. Given that this time has passed, the State could potentially incur a fine. This is not the first time I have discussed potential fines because of the Government's failure to introduce EU law. We are still waiting on microgeneration to ease the burden on those who can afford renewable energy technology. There are a number of weaknesses in the current legislation which this legislation should address. However, there are concerns that the transposition could be used as an opportunity to weaken existing protections.

My colleagues, na Teachtaí Mairéad Farrell and Buckley, introduced their own Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill last year to address these concerns. That Bill was designed to help inform the finance committee's pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill introduced by the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath. The finance committee report was published in December and was quite critical of the Government's Bill in certain respects. The report makes approximately 60 recommendations, including how the existing framework could be improved, and identifies potentially regressive revisions in the new Bill that should be removed. A number of the recommendations are directly reflected in the Sinn Féin Bill. The Minister has taken some of them on board and has amended this Bill accordingly but he has chosen to ignore others. We have submitted amendments to this Bill and I urge the Minister to consider them. We know the State has serious issues when it comes to accountability. That is especially true of State institutions. We saw that recently when Kildare County Council almost had to take the Department of Defence to court to get answers on dumping in the Curragh, dumping which was committed by the Department. When the council finally got the Department to mediation, in an effort to save public money on a court case, a curtain of secrecy was drawn down.

It appears that a non-disclosure agreement is in place. Prince Andrew would be very proud, I can tell you. Not even the elected members of Kildare County Council know if there are any consequences for the person who ordered the dumping or even if he or she was identified. This is shameful. The Government must learn from the experience of whistleblowers. They have been paid enough lip service and it is time now to take action.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation and outline some concerns, which I hope can be addressed as the Bill passes through the legislative stages. It is often said that the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is strong by international standards but many experts and advocacy organisations have contended that it is very difficult to make such an assessment as there has been a relatively small amount of case law since 2014.

On the ground, however, it is quite clear that those who have made a protected disclosure often paid a very high price for doing so in terms of career prospects, finances and mental health. This was evident in the testimonies of whistleblowers who appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach. Those same issues have also been shown to be the case in terms of research that has been carried out in this area.

The 2016 integrity at work survey revealed that 21% of respondents who reported wrongdoing said they had suffered for sharing their concerns. It also found that the negative impact of making a disclosure on careers and personal life was a major barrier to reporting wrongdoing in the first place. In that same survey, 31% of people said they would fear losing their jobs, while 13% feared isolation from their colleagues. It is clear, therefore, that we need to update continuously and strengthen protections for whistleblowers. It should not take an EU directive to force our hand.

There have certainly been a few cases recently where there have been big concerns about the treatment of whistleblowers. I want to mention one particular case that arose recently with regard to the serious shortcomings in the child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, in County Kerry. While a report was carried out on that, we did not hear anything about what will happen about the whistleblower who really put his neck on the line and ended up leaving the HSE. He was a very well-qualified and very good doctor who spoke out when that was the right thing to do. He stood up and spoke out and yet he was sidelined and eventually felt he had to leave the organisation. We have to learn from this.

Of course, the big case of a whistleblower being badly treated by Government and to a large extent by society was Sergeant McCabe. He paid a huge price for that and was eventually found to be entirely vindicated. There is still an issue in the culture within some of our public departments, organisations and agencies, however, that does not encourage people speaking out when they witness wrongdoing. We have to do that. That culture has to change. It has to be seen as a positive thing for employees to call out wrongdoing. That is how we improve the performance of our organisations and also how we ensure a healthier atmosphere. The opposite of that is something that Mr. Eddie Molloy, somebody who very often gives a lot of very good advice, calls the culture of going along to get along. Too often, senior officials go along with things they should not be going along with. They do not say anything about it just to get along. That culture has to change.

In reviewing the 2014 Act, it is apparent that the definition of "relevant wrongdoing" was quite limited. I welcome the amendment in section 6 that would correct this to include all matters which fall within the scope of the directive such as "public health" and "consumer protection". It is, however, disappointing that interpersonal grievances between workers will not be considered a relevant wrongdoing. Upon initial reading, this may seem to make sense but it is not a black and white issue. I fear this provision could have unintended consequences for workers. As the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, pointed out in its observations and recommendations on the general scheme of the Bill, grievances and protected disclosures can often be intertwined or can overlap. Guidance is already provided under the current framework as to how to make a distinction between grievances and protected disclosures and how to deal with them. I cannot, therefore, see why this needs to be legislated for, particularly in the absence of an explicit definition of "interpersonal grievances". Disclosures pertaining to bullying, unfair discriminatory treatment or dangerous working conditions, for example, could be characterised by employers as such and therefore not be appropriately acted upon. Also, employers could use previous or long-standing interpersonal grievances between employees to dismiss relevant wrongdoings. Why, therefore, is there a need for this decision in our legislation? While it is permitted, the directive does not require it.

All workers should be facilitated to make protected closures regardless of company size, whether it is public or private, terms of contract, pay etc. The term "worker" is quite restrictive in the current legislation, however. It is, therefore, welcome that the definition of a worker has been extended to encompass such reporting persons as volunteers or applicants to an organisation. We should always be striving to extend access to justice to the greatest extent possible. Expanding the definition of a worker in this context will have a positive impact. This will be especially felt by minorities and people in precarious work situations who in many cases have not been adequately protected under the current regime.

I will make a further point in this regard. It is crucial that this change to the definition of "worker" is communicated effectively. My fear is that many people such as volunteers will not make protected disclosures because they may not think the legislation applies to them. In such instances, effective and robust formal channels and procedures for making a protected disclosure will be of the utmost importance. This is a particularly salient point in the charity and non-profit sector, in my view, where there are a large number of people working in a voluntary capacity and often also serving on boards.

Section 8 of the Bill places an obligation on private sector employers with 50 or more employees to "establish, maintain and operate internal reporting channels ... [alongside] procedures for the making of ... reports and for [timely] follow-up". The distinction between employers based on the size of an organisation in my view is problematic. It will mean that a large swathe of workers will not actually be protected. I appreciate the rationale provided in the regulatory impact assessment of the Bill, that is, that a blanket requirement on private bodies with fewer than 50 employees would impose compliance costs on large parts of the economy and could be unworkable in many situations. However, this assessment does not place enough emphasis on the potential impact of exempting all small employers, including businesses dealing with large volumes of funds and personal data. A tech company that has a small number of employees, for example, could be engaged in data misuse or abuse on a very large scale far exceeding its on-the-ground operation. Statistics published by the Central Statistics Office, CSO, in 2019 showed that small enterprises, characterised as those with fewer than ten persons, accounted for 92.2% of enterprises in the economy and 25.6% of workers, while enterprises with ten to 49 persons accounted for 6.2% of enterprises and 20.5% of workers.

This means that close to one in every two private sector employees would not be covered by this provision and the vast majority of private sector employers would have no obligation to adopt reporting procedures. As a result, it is patently clear that the legislation is extremely weak in this regard and needs to be amended. There is a clear imbalance between the interests of employers and employees in respect of smaller private companies. The proposed legislation is too concerned with protecting those employers at the expense of employees reporting wrongdoing. The question must be asked as to what it is we are protecting employers from. Surely having robust internal reporting channels and procedures in place would help to mitigate against legal, financial and reputational risks.

In effect, this decision was taken, I believe, on the basis of cost. While that must obviously be a consideration, particularly after a difficult two years for many businesses, the issue of cost is not insurmountable and should not be used as a barrier to increasing protections for all workers. As Transparency International Ireland highlighted in its submission on the transposition of this EU directive, all employers have legal obligations to protect employees in different areas. Protected disclosures should be no different. For example, it is mandatory, under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, for employers to have undertaken a health and safety risk assessment and have procedures in place to prevent bullying. The Health and Safety Authority provides standard policies for employers to adopt, thus making the process easier and minimising expense. A similar approach should be used for protected disclosures. The code of practice that was established by statutory instrument in reference to the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 already includes a model protected disclosures policy that could be updated and adopted by employers at minimal expense. This is a workable solution that would create the conditions for all employers, regardless of size, to comply. Not only would it provide protection for all private sector workers, it would allow for more reports to be dealt with quickly through established reporting channels, with a lesser need for external reporting. That would be desirable all around. It would also assist in ensuring the new protected disclosures office does not become overrun with cases from companies that do not have the necessary reporting channels and procedures already in place.

Section 14 provides for the creation of an office of the protected disclosures commissioner within the Office of the Ombudsman. I very much support this provision as it should, if resourced properly, create a more efficient and whistleblower-friendly regime, ensuring consistency in reporting, investigation and communication. Aside from whistleblowers' concerns regarding future employment and ostracisation in the workplace, another barrier to reporting is often the complexity of doing so. The new office will have a key role in directing reports to the right place and providing support in assessing and investigating protected disclosures. It will also act as the default authority and de facto safeguard for workers in the event there is not an appropriate regulator to address their concerns. This will be especially important given the increased range of regulatory matters in respect of which protected disclosures can now be made, such as breaches of European law.

Of course, we must not lose sight of the fact that at the heart of this issue is corruption and wrongdoing. While greater protections for whistleblowers and appropriate channels for reporting are absolutely vital, we need a more comprehensive strategy to prevent wrongdoing and corruption in the first place. As in all policy areas, prevention is better than cure. Laws around corruption are scattered across multiple legislative provisions and there is no overarching or consolidated approach to combatting it. We in the Social Democrats have long advocated for a culture of open government and a root-and-branch reform of the anti-corruption regime in Ireland. Key to this would be the establishment of a new law enforcement body - an independent anti-corruption agency - to tackle white-collar crime and corruption in the corporate world and in political spheres. Unless we start dealing with the root cause of these problems, we will continue to stumble into one crisis after another.

This very technical legislation has provided a much needed opportunity to reflect on our protected disclosure regime. It is a regime that certainly needs to be improved to protect whistleblowers from the chilling effect of reporting wrongdoing. However, the Bill, in its current form, will not radically improve the situation. This is because many arms of the State and private companies will continue to be more concerned with reputational damage than protecting the public interest. We have seen this play out in case after case involving whistleblowers, whether in the health service, policing or finance. I do not believe this legislation will create the sufficient cultural shift that is needed to address this. For that to happen, the Bill would need to be stronger in its protection of whistleblowers and the Government would need to accompany it with a commitment to rooting out corruption in public and private life. There must be consequences for people when they are found to be engaged in wrongdoing or corruption. Too often, we have an investigation and the findings of that investigation may be referred to the Garda but nothing else happens. It runs into the sand. We have seen that across a number of different models of investigations and inquiries in this country. There is nothing more dispiriting for people than being aware that individuals or organisations have clearly been engaging in corruption and wrongdoing and there being no consequences for them.

It is regrettable than this Bill is only before the House now, almost two months after it was supposed to be implemented. This matter should have been higher on the Department's agenda given the urgent need for a stronger regime. Notwithstanding that, I appreciate and welcome the Minister of State's commitment to engage with the relevant committee on possible amendments. A shared commitment to creating a gold standard protected disclosure regime has been expressed across the House. I hope the Minister of State will endeavour to improve the legislation. The public and the political system can only benefit by there being such a regime. There is no doubt that the country would hugely benefit from a situation where corruption and wrongdoing are ruled out and there is clear evidence to the public in general that where people engage in such wrongdoing and corruption, they will ultimately have to pay a substantial price.

Fianna Fáil welcomes the Bill. I am confident it will enhance and strengthen the protections for whistleblowers in this country. Ireland has had a legislative framework on whistleblowers dating back to 2014 and we have learned a lot more since that Act came into force.

Ireland is one of a small number of EU countries that continues to have such a regime in place before the EU directive. In many instances, the 2014 Act has afforded vital protections to whistleblowers. Nonetheless, a number of high-profile cases have shown us that we can never be complacent about protecting those who are reporting wrongdoing by public and private sector organisations. It is important, therefore, that we take this opportunity to improve our legislative framework for dealing with protected disclosures.

The most famous whistleblower I can think of, and the person who most of us associate with whistleblowing, is Sergeant Maurice McCabe. He demonstrated great bravery. For many years, this House was used in order to tell his story at a time when it was not being listened to. Since 2014, much of what we have learned about whistleblowing, about its deficiencies and about the ways that needs to be legally tightened up, have come from that old case. I want to pay tribute to him on the record of the Dáil. Arising from Sergeant McCabe's whistleblowing, there was a whole political reaction. I would say that it was a positive one. The man had his name cleared, and rightly so. An Garda Síochána then had to look internally at how it was functioning and how it could improve practice.

Very often, when an organisation seeks to make improvements and straighten practice, it looks beyond its own jurisdiction. In the case of An Garda Síochána, it very much cast its eyes towards the Six Counties to see how the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, operates. In trying to deal with whistleblowing and with some of the inadequacies within An Garda Síochána, it was wrong to look across the Border. It was wrong to look at some of the practices in Northern Ireland. The policing model we have in Ireland dates all the way back to 1922. It is a model of policing by consent. We all know our local gardaí. I see them involved in local GAA clubs and in coaching. They are very much involved with children and with groups in the community. This is about building up a rapport, which becomes evident and important when there is a crime in the locality. People will feel that their local garda is someone they can go to. They can talk to them discreetly and confidentially. It is a way of sharing information. All of that dates all the way to back to the quaint days of the garda pushing the bike through the local village. There was a building of a rapport within the community. I believe that we have wrongly looked at the model of the PSNI in Northern Ireland. Policing there has to be far more robust, because of the environment in which it operates. Armoured cars still patrol streets at night-time. There just simply is not that same ethos of policing by consent that we have always had here, in the 26 counties.

I want to drill down a little bit more into that. When new recruits first attend the Garda Training College in Templemore, they are given various training manuals. One of them relates to the principle of discretion. That manifests itself in many ways. One way that this principle can be applied is when any one of us is driving our car on the road and we lean a little heavier on the accelerator than we should do and exceed the speed limit as a result. An Garda Síochána has full power under the Road Traffic Act in that moment to turn on the blue light, pull us over and ask for all of our details and driving licence. We will then face the wrath of penalty points. However, the individual garda in that moment has the principle of discretion at his or her disposal. This dates all the way back to 1922. The centenary of An Garda Síochána is, in fact, this year. The garda has the discretion to say, “Well, John was going to the maternity hospital with his wife”, or “Mary was going to visit her sick father, so I can square off this penalty notice”. That has happened time and time again, over decade after decade. Was it abused? It probably was, because we have a culture in Ireland where there is perhaps some favouritism shown to some people, such as to the monsignor, the county hurler or whomever. That was wrong but, in general, the principle of discretion has worked for many years in An Garda Síochána. It has been effective and fair.

In recent years, however, we have seen a form of a witch hunt or a McCarthyism of sorts. The Limerick division of An Garda Síochána has looked closely at the squaring of fines. While it is right to look at a practice, in the Limerick division there are now eight gardaí who have been suspended right back since 2018. Some 150 gardaí within the division and in the neighbouring divisions have been questioned. The personal phone devices of 60 gardaí have been confiscated. While this was done to try to straighten practice and do the right thing, it actually made a witch hunt of the entire exercise. I am not here to be judge or jury, but I am privy to enough to know that this is not sufficiently progressing through An Garda Síochána, the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation or the Garda Commissioner. There are many cogs in this wheel that are slowing this investigation down. It has taken eight gardaí off the street. It has brought many under a net of suspicion. A cloud hangs over them. They cannot progress in their careers. Ultimately, the people are losing out. The Limerick city division of An Garda Síochána, which takes in a considerable part of County Clare and my own constituency, is the ultimate loser here.

I do not think that model of policing that we have adopted from the PSNI works. Again, it comes back to the principles of community policing and policing by consent. We should have a really good look at that, rather than adopting this kind of McCarthyism that has existed for the last three years to everyone's detriment.

To return to the PSNI and what we seek to emulate at times, we should also have a proper look at some senior management figures within An Garda Síochána. This is because we had a British Supreme Court ruling just seven or eight weeks ago in respect of the hooded men and how the investigation into the torture of those men was suspended, and wrongly so. That has been borne out in a state inquiry in the UK. Yet, senior figures in the PSNI and in An Garda Síochána presided over that. That matter needs to come under the lens. People are having their contracts renewed or whatever, and that is fine, but we need to have a lens on this. I will keep using the opportunities I have in this House to shine the light on it. While I am not judge or jury, I can certainly see the process. Everyone is entitled to be assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The process has dragged far too many people into a net of suspicion. It is damaging to their lives, to their mental well-being and that of their families, and to their communities. It needs to be brought to a head. I ask here on the floor of the Dáil tonight that Commissioner Harris, whose contract has been renewed until 2025, will now take the initiative to progress this and bring it to the conclusion to which it needs to be brought.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on what is important legislation. As we know, whistleblowing is an essential mechanism for exposing and stopping wrongdoing. We should do everything we possibly can to protect whistleblowers. As the health spokesperson for my party, I have seen far too many whistleblowers in the area of health come forward to expose wrongdoing. They have exposed horrific abuse and neglect, such as what happened in the context of CAMHS in Kerry in recent times. There have been so many examples of whistleblowers coming forward in the Department of Health and in health more generally. In the vast majority of cases, they have not been protected. In fact, they have become victims of the system. Very often, we quite rightly talk about the lack of accountability and transparency that exists in the Department of Health. I often say that if Pontius Pilate was alive and well and living in Ireland, he would probably be running the HSE. This is because it seems to me that in healthcare everybody washes their hands of responsibility. Senior management does not take responsibility. When good people, as we have seen in many cases, come forward to put important issues into the public domain, they then themselves become targets. They themselves become a problem. We saw it in more recent times when there were allegations that were subject to a “Prime Time Investigates” programme on databases of children with disabilities and autism.

There is a long list. I do not have the time to go through the long list of all of those cases of abuse and of neglect. Some of them were well articulated in this Chamber before Christmas. As we know, many of them are horrific. On the one hand, there are victims of abuse, of neglect, of bad policies, of a lack of clinical oversight and of a failure arising from a culture of unaccountability within the HSE and the healthcare systems. On the one hand, there are these victims and, on the other, there are people who come forward to blow the whistle on what is happening and who then become victims.

While I want to give the Minister credit where I can, I also have to be honest and say that the reason we are actually debating this is that it transposes a new European minimum standards policy. This is not necessarily because the Government was motivated to do it. This State and this Government have much more to do to create a culture of accountability and transparency and to better protect whistleblowers when they come forward.

This is important legislation. Insofar as it seeks to improve the whistleblower regime, its intentions seem laudable enough. The provisions seeking to include volunteers, shareholders, those in administrative management or supervisory bodies, and those who have a work-based relationship that is yet to begin or who are involved in a recruitment process, all seem good. The establishment of the office of the protected disclosures commissioner within the Ombudsman seems a good thing, as does enhancing the protections for workers who suffer penalisation as a result of a disclosure by changing the burden of proof in civil proceedings.

However, Whistleblowers Ireland has made a number of criticisms of the Bill, of which officials are probably aware. The first criticism is that legal cases, Clarke v. CGI Food Services Limited and Baranya v. Rosderra Meats Group Limited, established that the guidelines produced in 2015 regarding the operation of protected disclosures under the 2014 Act did not accurately reflect the law. That is important because, at least according to the Whistleblowing International Network, it meant that many of the people who should have been afforded protection fell at the first hurdle, as the actual code of practice employers and others were using to operate the protected disclosures regime was inaccurate. That is pretty elementary stuff. The regulations flowing from the legislation should be accurate and should ensure that the intent of the law is given effect and that whistleblowers have the protections they are supposed to have.

The biggest concern I have, which is reflected by whistleblowers, is whether the protections under the 2014 Act worked at all. Are they acted on? Some people have asked about the private sector. If a business has more than 50 employees, it has to have its own channels and the public sector has to have its own channels as well. I am aware, anecdotally, of people who have attempted to make protected disclosures and they have gone absolutely nowhere. Others have mentioned examples of that as well. Nothing happens, or they make a protected disclosure, very little happens, and then they get thrashed for something completely different. That is a classic tactic. People make a protected disclosure about malpractice, maladministration or wrongdoing, and the next minute they are hauled up for something else. Then it becomes about them and what they have done wrong because the management or some power that be has decided to thrash them, victimise them, blacklist them or whatever. What are we going to do about that? I am just not sure whether this legislation will address that problem. It is a deep problem and I do not have all the answers.

There is a fundamental imbalance between workers and bosses. That is just a fact. In either the public or private sector, if somebody kicks up or calls their employer out on something, the instinct of most senior management is to go for them because they are afraid that it could reflect badly on them, that the buck might stop with them or that they could be held accountable. How do we deal with that fundamental imbalance of power? I want to hear the Government explain how that is going to happen.

I would not mind some hard facts on this matter. Maybe they are available. I am not on the relevant committee, so I apologise if there are a lot of hard facts available on this. I would like to know the details of what has happened with protected disclosures in the public and private sectors. How many disclosures were made? How many were upheld? How many went nowhere? Are these facts and statistics available so we can assess the extent to which the legislation had any effect whatsoever?

It seems to me that, broadly speaking, we need genuinely independent and well-resourced people to oversee this. That is why I welcome the office of the protected disclosures commissioner and the ombudsman. They are needed in order to make sure that whistleblowers are actually protected, that the protected disclosures or allegations of wrongdoing they make with regard to public or private bodies are treated seriously and are fully investigated, and that people are held accountable if those investigations discover that there was merit or validity to those allegations. Maybe the person was just raising legitimate concerns. They may not have been absolutely correct because these things are not always black and white. Where someone has genuine concerns about things that are going on and has made a complaint, even if everything they said did not turn out to be true, if those concerns were legitimate they should be protected and the matter investigated. They should not suffer retaliation, either directly or indirectly. There has to be some mechanism for dealing with that because when management or higher-ups retaliate, they do not do it directly. They do not say they are going to sack someone or blacklist them because they made a protected disclosure. Of course they would not do that. They go for them in other ways, usually by trying to fit them up for something or label them as a troublemaker or vexatious.

What happens to people who feel there is wrongdoing, malpractice, abuse or whatever it might be in a particular industry where the conditions of the workers are deeply precarious? Does this legislation deal with such situations? These people may not even have an employment relationship with the people who are abusing them but they may be part of an abusive industry or sector. Today we heard from representatives of performers in the arts, such as comedians and so on, who appeared before the Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media. There have been similar allegations from people in the trad music scene. These people are self-employed lone traders - sole traders, essentially - but in reality they are dependent for their employment on a relatively small group of people in the arts and culture sector, many of whom are funded by the State and get public money. These people have described a culture of fear in the sector.

I have heard it repeatedly from actors, musicians and all sorts of people working in the arts that if you speak up about abuse, malpractice or whatever, that phrase you will never work in this town again is often used. That is the way it works. What are we going to do about that? Is that covered and how will we vindicate it to make sure that it is effective? Certainly, that sort of thing is widespread.

I would like to know how can we address the following issue, which I have raised in other forums. In some cases, the employer denies that they are the employer even though they are. It is bogus self-employment. What rights do you have if you are being misclassified as a contractor when, in fact, you are not a contractor? You are an employee and you should have the rights of an employee but this is a way of the employer denying their responsibility to you as an employee. Therefore, if you make a complaint, they do not have to process it because they are not your employer. We need to address that.

A particular egregious example that I have raised many times here is going on in the film industry. I do not know how many times I have raised it with the Departments of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, and Finance, where allegations have been made by film crew that the section 481 tax relief is being abused. When they went into a joint Oireachtas committee in January 2018 and made these allegations, guess what happened? They never worked in this town again, having worked for decades in the film industry. The names of some of these people are on the credits of films over the past 20 years but they will never work in this town again after they came into an Oireachtas committee. What is interesting about this example is that all film productions in this country are funded with public money and they are conditional on giving quality employment and training. You are only supposed to get the relief if you provide quality employment and training as a result. Under EU directives, you are also supposed to create a permanent pool of skills in that sector. Notwithstanding the fact that film-making can be somewhat episodic, you are supposed to have rights and you are supposed to have rights under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003, which deals with people who are in these situations of episode-to-episode type employment. You accumulate rights of service under the law, but what happens in this instance is that when workers make complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, that their rights are not being respected, the film producers, who get the public money conditional on the provision of quality employment and training, go into the WRC and say that not only are they not the employer of this person even though they were the producer on the film on which the person worked but, in fact, they could not possibly have an employment relationship with him or her. They are saying this in the WRC as we speak, and they have said it repeatedly. Representatives of Screen Producers Ireland, which also gets public funding, collects the money from Revenue for providing quality employment and training and then, when the crew who are employed on these films make complaints, say that they could not possibly have an employment relationship with them and it is the nature of their industry that they do not have employees. If you say anything, you will never work in this town again. How are we going to deal with that?

I am putting those points out there because I think they are relevant. I am not saying I have all the answers but I think they need to be addressed. You can have all sorts of laws, intentions and all the rest of it but it is no good unless they are actually to be enforced, unless there is a mechanism to enforce them and unless there is a mechanism to stop the abuses.

The nature of the sort of abuses we are talking about, when we are talking about the things that whistleblowers bring up and the retaliation they face, is such that there is an in-built power imbalance. Usually, it is people in powerful positions against whom the complaints are being made who obviously have no interest in acknowledging the truth of those allegations and who, in fact, have a vested interest in thrashing the reputation, and often the livelihoods and lives, of the people who make those protected disclosures.

I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's response. I would be particularly interested in and keen to see the statistics and the facts on the operation and effectiveness of the 2014 legislation. If they are available, the Minister of State might let me know where.

I welcome the Bill. I commend the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach on its work on the pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill and the various recommendations that came from that committee. In his response, I ask the Minister to deal with each and every recommendation so that we know what the standing of the Department is in relation to the report and to the recommendations.

I want to put on record too that there have been many whistleblowers down through the years. The one who should have been listened to at the time of the financial crash was Mr. Jonathan Sugarman. Mr. Sugarman came forward and did what was expected of him in accordance with the legislation and reported to the Central Bank. No one from the State has ever commented positively in relation to Mr. Sugarman but when you examine his case, you will see that as a whistleblower he was poorly served by the State. As a Member of this House and Chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach, I thank Mr. Sugarman for coming forward and for doing what he thought was right. It was right as it was within the law. I condemn the authorities around that case which did not take the appropriate action and did not give Mr. Sugarman the type of respect and protection that he required at that time under law. That is what happens to whistleblowers. The whistleblower makes the complaint and then he or she becomes the victim.

Mr. Maurice McCabe is someone else who blew the whistle extensively. Luckily for Mr. McCabe, he had a strong wife and family who saw him through that crisis. What the State did to Mr. McCabe was a shocking example of how it can beat up its own citizens.

Recently, we debated the Grace case in this House. It is interesting to note that the whistleblower in that case lost her job. She is no longer employed in the agency that she was in. It is also a terrible reflection on the State that the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, would say that there are no prosecutions to be taken against agencies or individuals relevant to Grace and, indeed, the 47 others. What an absolute disgrace that is. In some way, that office must be held responsible in the course of our work in this House. I would ask the Ceann Comhairle, which I did in writing, to bring forward some method by which that can be discussed here because it certainly does not make sense that the whistleblower would be fired and no one will pay a price in the courts for what happened to the woman who was not able to express herself in any way and was mentally and physically challenged.

If you think it has gone away now - the 2014 Bill deals with everything else - you could not be more incorrect. At present, Gaisce, an agency funded by the State, is paying significant sums in legal fees to defend a position it holds on an employee, which is indefensible.

There is no defence for what it is doing, but yet it is doing the usual thing the State does, which is pushing an individual to the pin of their collar and breaking the individual and their family.

I have raised the case of Cork Institute of Technology, CIT, in the House numerous times and will continue to do so because it is an example of the bad legacy of the past being brought into the new structures for the present and for the future. A whistleblower there went to mediation and is now being hung out to dry. I have appealed to the Minister, the Taoiseach and others to please intervene and get it sorted but nothing has happened. That, too, is a shame.

I wish to refer to Noel McGree, who is a whistleblower. He won his case and is still being challenged by the Department of Justice. On the day that we are discussing the introduction of this Bill there are people out there who have been treated in an horrendous way by the State, and the State continues to treat them in this way. It begs the question as to where the political leadership is that will turn around to those who are causing the difficulty for the individuals and say: "Stop, you are not doing this in the name of the Government. You are to treat these people fairly and honourably, and in the way described in the existing legislation or according to the new legislation we are discussing today."

Seanie O'Brien is another man who was badly treated by the State and the Prison Service. He and his family ended up broken and no effort is being made to reach out to him.

John Barrett blew the whistle in the Committee of Public Accounts in terms of the Garda, the numbers and what was happening there. He lost his job. He is gone. The same is true of Julie Grace in Galway. She is another lady who came forward but the Minister will not deal with it. The case has dragged on for years.

It is the same with Shane Kavanagh and the EBS in the private sector. He and others are out of a job and the EBS will not respond to them.

Lucia O’Farrell's son was murdered on the road, but in terms of whistleblowing, she has outlined as part of her investigation the failure of the State in relation to the DPP, the Garda, the courts and so on. It would be a great exercise for the State if it were to examine the case. We passed a motion in this House in the previous Dáil for a tribunal of sorts to be put in place to deal with the case but, typical of the political system, we do one thing in opposition and another thing in government.

I will finish on this point in terms of the generality of the Bill, the Departments have insisted on putting in place confidentiality clauses which prevent the State and us from learning from the failures of the State. I asked the Minister to tell me how many Departments have insisted on confidentiality clauses and what the cases were settled for, because the Government is conning the people and we need to know the truth.

I will follow on from Deputy McGuinness's remarks. We welcome anything that will improve the situation for whistleblowers and people who make protected disclosures. So many have had negative experiences. I have dealt with many people in those circumstances. I have spoken to people who have horrific stories to tell of situations that are happening in Departments in different parts of the country. They want to come forward and talk about it, but they have seen how others are treated and they will not do it. They come to Deputies and whisper about it. We do not know the truth or otherwise of what they tell us, but we trust that they are telling us the truth and we report it. Naturally enough, because we are not the core source, nothing happens. It is a continuous situation, and we are never going to get any sense of justice in this country as long as that is going on.

Maurice McCabe was the big example and John Wilson, and others were in a similar situation. They put their heads on the block and they were ostracised by their colleagues for so doing. A rat nailed to the door was done not just to them but to hundreds of others in similar circumstances around the country in various employments, often for the State as well as for other bodies outside of the State, in private industry. The banking service was one of the big areas where an awful lot of that sort of thing happened. You turned a blind eye and were loyal to the firm even though you knew what was going on was wrong. If you said anything about it, you were in trouble. That is the situation we must get to grips with. There seems to be a problem in that regard. As long as we allow it to go on in State institutions, then how can we possibly tackle it in private institutions? We cannot. While this legislation is welcome, I am very doubtful that it will change one thing in this State because there is no will among the senior people in any of the Departments to change it.

A garda told me once that he reported a particular situation to a chief superintendent. The chief superintendent called him to one side and said: "Don't mess with city hall." That was it. He said: "Drop it, or we'll be sending you to some far end of the country and there you'll stay." There are thousands of magnificent people in the Garda Síochána who do their very best all the time, but the notion that they have to be loyal to each other, even beyond the public good, is a big problem in that organisation. I know work is being done in that regard and there is legislation being drafted, but until the culture changes, we have got a big problem. When that is the situation in the institution that is at the coalface of delivering justice, what is it like in other institutions and organisations? I welcome the legislation. We need to do more in this field, but I am completely at a loss as to how it will change unless heads are going to roll at the very top of many of the organisations in this country. I do not see that happening.

While the provisions of this Bill are to be welcomed, I have concerns over the exclusion of a number of elements of the recommendations of the finance committee, especially the retrospective elements. We sat on the committee week after week, and we listened carefully to what was said by a string of whistleblowers who testified before us. Some of them have had their lives ruined due to their experiences. I have spoken to many whistleblowers who have lost marriages, families, jobs, pensions and homes. Being a whistleblower in this State is a job of enormous personal cost in many situations. I struggle to think of a particular case where it did not involve some significant personal cost to an individual. A few were former public servants. Where whistleblowers suffer a loss, they deserve compensation for the loss. The wording of this Bill has omitted to make elements of it retrospective.

There is a tendency on the part of the Government when it comes to EU directives or legislation to be very slow to amend or change it. The recommendations of the finance committee seek to strengthen the Bill. Surely, as an independent country, we are not locked into delivering only what Europe tells us to do. Surely, we can strengthen any directive to make it better. The recommendations of the finance committee do not seek to water down or weaken the Bill but seek to enhance it. That includes the retrospective element.

I have dealt with many whistleblowers over the years who have sacrificed much to expose wrongdoing. The State's attitude towards whistleblowers leaves an enormous amount to be desired. In many cases, whistleblowers have had mud slung at them by the State and that mud has stuck.

The reputations of whistleblowers have been damaged even by Governments in the past. I have heard Ministers in this Government contradict outright the facts that have been brought to them. It is very common for a State agency to call a whistleblower a liar, to imply they are mad or, worse still, in a famous case, to make accusations of child sexual abuse against the whistleblower. In the case of CervicalCheck, we know the State tried to gag Vicky Phelan with regard to a non-disclosure agreement.

In a recent case that I raised, Ms R received an apology, thankfully, from Tusla after having a number of inaccurate statements made about her on her file. The Tusla file said, among other things, that she was an alcoholic, that Tusla had met with her son and that her son had expressed that he did not wish to return to his mother. Ms R rigorously fought for the rights of her son and her good name. She fought like any mother would fight. Tusla has now conceded that Ms R was not an alcoholic and that the alleged meeting between her son and Tusla never actually took place. It is phenomenal stuff that happened and Tusla has apologised to her.

I asked the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth when he first became aware of these untruths on the file. He said he only became aware of the issues when a politician contacted him on 16 March 2021. However, Ms R has shown my office emails that she sent to the Minister five months prior to that date. When I raised that discrepancy with the Minister in the Dáil, having the documents to hand, he still denied that he knew about it at the time. In effect, the Minister was calling Ms R a liar, even in the face of documentary evidence.

Over a year ago, I had a meeting with CervicalCheck to discuss the various concerns I had about that particular scandal. At the meeting, the clinical director of CervicalCheck told me in no uncertain terms that it was her view that the courts were wrong to rule in favour of women such as Vicky Phelan, the late Patricia Carrick, Ruth Morrissey and Emma Mhic Mhathúna. CervicalCheck told me that these women were not wronged - an incredible situation. When I told the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health about these comments, the Minister said this was not the case. Again, in effect, the Government was calling me a liar in regard to a meeting that I was involved in, where I took notes and when my parliamentary assistant was also there.

On another occasion, I tried to raise in this House concerns about the Covid-19 outbreak in a nursing home in Galway, where the nursing home had asked the HSE for staffing support but had been left abandoned. The Minister responded to me: “That is a flat-out lie.” My source of information was a distraught manager in the nursing home, a report on RTÉ’s “Today with Claire Byrne” and the local GP, Dr. Martin Daly, who was of course a former president of the Irish Medical Organisation, IMO. A month later, I secured documents under freedom of information from the HSE which confirmed not only the veracity of the story, but also that the Minister for Health had been briefed about the situation by the HSE prior to him levelling an accusation against me for lying in the Dáil about it, the report on the Claire Byrne show, the nursing home manager and Dr. Daly reporting on it.

We have had a lot of discussion in recent weeks about the Brandon report and the disability services. It was brought to light by Deputy Pringle and a whistleblower who was in touch with him. The manner in which the State treated not only the whistleblower but also Deputy Pringle is, I believe, shameful. One of the contributions is a mirror image of the issue I have just raised with regard to Tusla files. A dispute arose over the content of documentation that Deputy Pringle had furnished the review panel with and, in effect, the Deputy was made to look like a liar.

We all recall the powerful contribution of Deputy John McGuinness on the Grace case and he is to be commended on the work he did on that issue. It is my understanding and it has been reported that, behind the scenes, the Taoiseach has criticised the Deputy for his contribution on that. If the State, civil servants and Government Ministers can smear Opposition Deputies or backbenchers like this, God knows what else is happening to whistleblowers behind the scenes.

This legislation is welcome but there is a need for a change of culture in this State. The trouble is that nearly every organisation, be it a political, State or civil society organisation, seems to have an instinct that its job is to protect itself against those who are simply seeking to out grave wrongs. I can understand why an organisation would want to protect itself against vexatious allegations and so on, but when an individual seeks to highlight and out grave wrongs, the culture of that organisation should not be defensive. The culture of that organisation should seek to empower that individual to help to reform the organisation. I know for a fact that even political parties in this Chamber strongly have that instinct of defence against the greater good. That culture has to change in here. I have spent ten years in Leinster House and I have heard people from all sides of the Dáil calling for reform. Some of the simplest reform that can be achieved in Leinster House is from the political class itself. There is no evidence within this Government, since it took office in 2020, that there is a political desire for reform of itself. The legislation is welcome but it is wholly useless unless Government Ministers adopt a policy of legislating and of listening to whistleblowers, and desist from pushing back against them. The culture of organisations has to change, including in this House. I think there will be many Deputies and Ministers who will vote for this legislation tonight who have previously been involved in pushing back against whistleblowers in their attempt to protect their reputation. Such hypocrisy has to be called out. We need systemic change, not just in this legislation but also in how this Government operates.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. I commend the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, and the Minister of State, Deputy Ossian Smyth, on bringing it forward.

Back in 2014, the Houses of the Oireachtas decided to enact legislation that would provide a statutory protection to whistleblowers, and they were whistleblowers who came from within the public sector. It was very important legislation that we introduced and enacted in this House. It is also important to recall that it was enacted not in response to any European Council directive, but it was decided to introduce it because it was thought necessary from the point of view of issues that we faced in this country. Obviously, the legislation which is before the House this evening and yesterday is slightly different because we are transposing a Council directive, but we are also getting an opportunity to make some important changes to the protected disclosures law which I believe will improve it.

The State should not be afraid to enable individuals within the State or employees in the private sector to come forward to disclose wrongdoing or a failure to comply with legal obligations. It is the case that when we look at the legislation, wrongdoing is described in very broad terms. It is not just the commission of a criminal offence, as many people think, but it also can be the failure or inadequacy of a statutory body to fulfil a statutory and legal obligation. The State should be prepared to acknowledge that this is an important function that is being performed by individuals within the public sector. The legislation before us will also extend to private entities, provided there are more than 50 employees.

It is to the benefit of the State if it is established, and there are mechanisms in place to establish, that wrongdoing exists either within the public sector or private sector. Similarly, it has to be to the benefit of the State and the private sector if allegations of wrongdoing are made, if they are adequately investigated and if it is found that such allegations are not substantiated. We all know that it cannot be the case that every whistleblower is correct in the allegations they make. We talk in this House about whistleblowers who we commend and who have done a very honourable job in disclosing wrongdoing, and they have been mentioned in the House this evening. I obviously support and recognise that. However, it is also the case that there are allegations that can be made which should be investigated but that investigation may not establish the allegations that have been made by the whistleblower.

We also need to look at the fact the legislation that has been in place since 2014 is extremely complicated and difficult to navigate. I know that because, as a Deputy, I was the recipient of a protected disclosure, along with a retired colleague in this House. It was a perfectly valid protected disclosure which was made under the provisions of section 17 of the 2014 Act. I can tell the House it was a very demanding process but we were able to ensure that the whistleblowers and the serious allegation they were reporting to us were brought to the attention of the State and necessary changes were made. They were the only two whistleblowers who came directly to me and I have to say, on the record of the Dáil, that they were extremely honourable, commendable people.

The public and the public service were improved by the disclosure they made. However, under the 2014 legislation there is a myriad of avenues down which a protected disclosure must go for it to be appraised and assessed. That is why I welcome the fact that under this legislation we will set up the office of the protected disclosures commissioner. That would provide a much more simple method for protected disclosures to be made and investigated in a thorough and coherent fashion.

There are also a number of important provisions within the Bill that are to the great assistance of whistleblowers. For instance, the Minister has introduced a provision in section 22 whereby the burden of proof in tort claims brought by a whistleblower who claims he or she has suffered damage as a result of making the protected disclosure is to be reversed. The reversal of a burden of proof in litigation is a significant matter. It does not frequently happen but the basis on which it can happen is if a statute provides for it. I commend the Minister on introducing this provision in the Bill. It will give significant protection to whistleblowers if they are subjected to detrimental contact as a result of having made a protected disclosure. It will mean that when they bring a case against their employer or the person who has subjected them to detriment, they will be able to say to the court that since they suffered detriment the court must assume that is because of the protected disclosure that has been made. After that it will be for the employer to put forward evidence to prove that was not the case.

The Bill is worthwhile and it is important that the office of the protected disclosures commissioner be well-resourced. It is also important that individuals in the public sector and in the private sector, if they qualify, are aware of the role that office can play. It is extremely important that the State is not embarrassed or hesitant about facing up to the fact that there will be wrongdoing within the State. How we respond to that is important. The fact that we are improving legislation to ensure that wrongdoing can be investigated thoroughly shows that the State is not embarrassed or trying to hide away from the reality of the fact that there will be circumstances where wrongdoing takes place. It is also beneficial to have a coherent one-stop shop for the investigation of that wrongdoing so it can be done in a much more expeditious way. It is clearly in the public interest and for the public benefit for allegations of wrongdoing that turn out to be true to be established. Similarly, it is clearly in the public interest and for the public benefit if it can be established that allegations of wrongdoing turn out to be false.

According to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, whistleblowing is among the most effective means of exposing and remedying corruption and other types of wrongdoing in the public and private sectors. Many cases of corruption and fraud that have been highlighted and that we know of today have been exposed because of the actions taken by workers who reported the issues to their employers, regulators and press and who essentially became whistleblowers. We owe those people who have come forward to date and those who will come forward in the future a debt of gratitude for exposing that wrongdoing, while they know and have seen others in similar situations face such a backlash. Yet they still take that moral path in exposing it. When a whistleblower revealed wrongdoing in the past the primary concern of authorities was too often focused on limiting their own reputational damage, casting aspersions on his or her motivations and circling the wagons in strategic retaliation. We have seen whistleblowers suffer horrendous blowback for acting in the public interest and that is wrong.

We are debating this Bill because of the EU whistleblowing directive but at this point the legislation was overdue a review and it needed to be updated. When it comes to protecting whistleblowers, after they expose the wrongdoing the full support of legislation should be behind them and they should not have the full weight of the arms of the State come down on them. A wrong being further compounded by another wrong is reflective of a society that is not willing to look at itself and listen when there is an issue in an area and then take effective action to ensure that does not replicate itself in other areas. Others have spoken about the cultures within organisations and while we cannot legislate for culture, we can legislate for a mechanism that ensures organisations look at themselves in an open and transparent manner. Instead of the first step being aggressive and hostile towards whistleblowers, they should be willing to take on board that criticism and ensure it is rectified as they move forward into another area. That modernisation of legislation on protected disclosures will be so important because we want to see corruption tackled and we do not want to see it replicated.

I acknowledge the hard work done by my colleagues, Deputies Mairéad Farrell and Pat Buckley, who introduced legislation last year to amend the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. I urge the Minister to take on board parts of that Private Members' Bill that would amount to significant and much-needed change. I ask him to work constructively to ensure that at the end of this we have a robust Act that is fit for purpose.

The Minister has his work cut out for him. As he knows, this amending Bill is long overdue and there are huge issues. I will stick to the Department of Justice and the protected disclosures procedure within the Irish Prison Service. The Minister responded to a parliamentary question last week and I am aware that there are huge concerns regarding procedures within the Irish Prison Service. She stated in her reply that Irish Prison Service's protected disclosures policy outlines "the protections and supports available for staff who make protected disclosures and those involved in the investigation of a protected disclosure". She went on to state: "My Department and the Prison Service have engaged independent [and private] investigators to examine the majority of the disclosures and to report to the disclosers on the findings." Two such independent reports by Judge William Earley and by McCann FitzGerald LLP found that those making a protected disclosure were not supported or protected and that the Irish Prison Service was not implementing its protected disclosure policy and was not protecting those who make protected disclosures. These findings were furnished to the Minister for Justice, which is alarming in this day and age. In her response to me, she explained:

There are dedicated units in my Department and in the Prison Service to liaise directly and in a confidential manner with disclosers. The Prison Service has provided training to staff on Protected Disclosures and Dignity at Work policies and procedures and it is planned that further training will be provided going forward. [That is lovely and dandy in print but it is not happening.]

Employees of the Prison Service are encouraged to avail [according to the Minister] of the support services available. These include the HR Governors and Staff Support Officers at the prison locations.

I am concerned about the Minister’s response, advising those seeking support to speak to the HR governor. One HR governor was interviewed by the independent external investigator, McCann FitzGerald LLP, and in his testimony, which is provided in the final report, he stated that he has received no training in protected disclosures and that he believed he has no remit regarding protected disclosures. What is going on then? It is shocking that he believes he has no role in this regard. Can the Minister explain what support this provides?

The original Act has been described as weak and deficient and I agree with that analysis, which is why this amending Bill is here. People have suffered as a result of those weaknesses and deficiencies.

Will the amendments that the Minister is making be made retrospective to provide remedy for those who continue to seek justice under the original Act? I doubt it but I am calling for that because it should be thus. Given that an independent report has said that the law was weak and ineffective, it is essential that the amendments to the original Act are made retrospective to support those who made protected disclosures under the original Act.

The manner in which protected disclosures are dealt with by the Irish Prison Service must be seriously reviewed. I am in receipt of numerous reports of bullying and intimidation of staff right across the service but the manner in which complaints are managed is not appropriate by any yardstick and often leads to further bullying, intimidation and victimisation of staff. These matters must be dealt with because we are in a serious and perilous situation. Lives have almost been lost. People have nearly been driven to suicide. I have met these people - their families have been intimidated, threatened and abused. It is shocking that this could go on in a modern democracy, 100 years after celebrating our so-called freedom. These people have worked hard to provide good service to the State and to be bullied and intimidated like that is totally unacceptable. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, as the saying goes, and something is definitely rotten in the Irish Prison Service. The legislation the Minister is bringing forward is totally inadequate. If we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we have no hope going forward.

I appeal to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, whose bona fides I respect, to do something. The Minister for Justice reads out replies to me which are just a smokescreen and a cover-up because there are no services there.

The general scheme of the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill 2021 was published last summer in advance of the 17 December deadline for transposition of EU Directive 2019/1937, known as the whistleblowing directive, into Irish law. However, the 17 December 2021 deadline has been missed by over two months at this stage. I ask the Minister to clarify whether any fines have been issued by the Commission and if so, the cost of any such fines to the taxpayer.

People have come to me from big organisations like the HSE, the Irish Prison Service, the Department of Defence and others and the stories they have told would make one's blood boil. While they could prove what they were saying, speaking out was not worth the potential financial cost and the risk of losing their job or their pension. The threats against them and their families made it too dangerous for them to speak out. We are all aware of the corruption that goes on in large companies, both private and public. Corruption can involve some of the most powerful people in powerful jobs and what they can do to the man or woman who is trying to do a day's work is frightening. The damage that can be done is insurmountable. I could go into a lot more detail but I will stop here to avoid any conflict for these people.

For the purposes of clarity, it is important that the Minister states whether the burden of proof will rest on the individual whistleblower or on the organisation. The hundreds of people who unleash the truth and speak out deserve to be mentioned here today. Their actions are patriotic and brave. All those who speak out against wrongdoing do so in the public interest. Such actions should always be encouraged and never discouraged in any way.

This Bill will further extend the scope and breadth of the protections afforded to individuals who make a protected disclosure in Ireland. While this is to be welcomed, it is disappointing that it has taken the Government so long to bring this legislation before the House. At present, the burden of proof in cases of penalisation under the Act rests with the person alleging the wrongdoing. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform previously indicated plans to reverse this burden of proof, meaning that the penalisation would be presumed to have occurred upon the making of a protected disclosure unless the employer could prove otherwise. However, the Bill makes no provision for this expected change.

It is also important to state that if a person is retaliated against for speaking out, he or she has the right to a remedy under Ireland's protected disclosure law but the process is not straightforward. In cases of reprisal that do not involve dismissal, the burden of proof is on the whistleblower to demonstrate that the only reason this happened is because he or she spoke out. This is difficult to prove because an organisation can often find other reasons for behaviour that seems to be retaliatory, or at least enough to cast a doubt. This burden of proof represents a significant obstacle. Whistleblowers rarely have the financial resources to compete with corporate legal teams. This is why many cases taken under the 2014 Act have not succeeded.

There is no point in tarring everyone with the same brush. There are great working relationships out there but some situations are shocking. One workplace that has been mentioned a lot today is the Irish Prison Service. It is time that the cap is taken off here and the muzzle is taken off too. People who have been wronged need to be able to have recourse to justice. They need to be able to put things right. It took many years for some whistleblowers to get the State to sit up and listen. If some of the things I have heard, and I am sure other Deputies have heard too, are true and valid, which I believe they are, it would shock the nation to its core as to what is going on in some places. I hope this legislation will help in some way to ease the burden on people and enable them to come forward. As Deputy Mattie McGrath said earlier, some of these people are suicidal. As a State, we must strongly stand behind these people. We must give them their right to speak and the right to have the wrongs that have been done to them for decades put right. I recently spoke to a person at great length about the difficulties he has gone through. It is astonishing to think that he has no safety mechanism to allow him to disclose what he has been through in his life to date.

Tonight is a very important night. It is good that we are where we are with this Bill. It is unfortunate that it has taken this long but, as I always say, it is better late than never.

I am thinking tonight of the people who stood up when it was a lonely place to do so, the people who found themselves at odds with everything else. They were standing up for something they believed in. They believed they were telling the truth but in many cases, that truth was not welcomed by anybody; not by people within the organisations they were working in or even by the general public. To those people who might be listening in tonight, I want to say I am sorry that they were in that position but at least this type of issue is being recognised now. The Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill is trying to address that and I hope those people who might have had torment and turmoil in their personal lives will get some comfort from hearing this debate tonight. I really mean that. While we as politicians are discussing and debating this, there is a human aspect to this that must not be forgotten. There are couples who had trouble with their relationships because of it. They might have lost a lot of friends because of issues that arose. I am really thinking of those people. We cannot forget that there are real people behind this issue.

I wish to focus on one or two important issues in the Bill. Interpersonal grievances are explicitly excluded as relevant wrongdoings and the Bill notes that such disclosures should be dealt with using alternative internal procedures. Employers should ensure that their protected disclosures policy expressly acknowledges that such grievances will be dealt with under business grievance procedures. I highlight this because it is important that the water is not muddied with regard to what is what. As far as I can see, this Bill clearly defines what a protected disclosure should be, how feedback is to be provided to the reporting person, what actions are taken or envisaged to be taken, with a follow-up within three months. All of those systems that are being put in place are important.

A new office of a protected disclosures commissioner will be established within the Office of the Ombudsman which will receive and redirect to the most suitable authority, as appropriate, the protected disclosures made to the prescribed person under section 7 of the Act and to the Minister under section 8 of the Act.

In cases where there is no alternative suitable authority, the commissioner will follow up directly on the disclosures referred to the office. Again, people have to see that this Bill will actually help them with their grievances. New offences will be created for employers who fail in their obligations to establish internal reporting channels and for the person who penalises the reporting of persons to hinder or attempt to hinder a person from making a report or taking vexatious proceedings against reporting persons. Of course that is important but we do not want it to be seen as a witch-hunt against employers. Employers are very important for us. They are the people who create business and work. We want fairness and to make sure that when there is an issue the employers will understand their duties and obligations. That is why it is very important that the employers understand the Bill. That is their duty. Behind it all, it is all for their protection too. If they look at it properly, employers will see that it is not a case of "us against them" or "you against me" or anything like that but simply that there is a right and wrong way to carry out one's work whatever a person's role. There is a right and wrong way to do it. I am glad that this Bill will help make that clear and tidy it up. That is why I am glad to welcome it and to speak in support of it.

I welcome the Bill. I have a question for the Minister and would like a reply in writing if he does not mind. It relates to HSE employees past and present. I am very disturbed that within the HSE there is a Q-pulse system where staff can make complaints regarding wrongful practice. How many Q-pulse cases have not been acted on and closed out in the HSE? How many Q-pulse submissions have there been annually over the past ten years? What percentage required significant action? How many patients died or were significantly injured and seriously harmed, including preventable injuries, during surgery? Will this Bill protect them?

University Hospital Limerick is required to ensure that serious reportable incidents are managed, reported and investigated within four months in line with the HSE safety incident management policy. How many staff members have left their position or been forced out of their role or transferred to new locations within the hospital system? How many have been promoted for their silence? How many of their colleagues were demoted as a result? How many had to sign non-disclosure agreements?

When this happens, staff are isolated and branded troublemakers even though they are just raising concerns within the hospital. These issues have been raised across all positions in the hospital and across the whole UHL group. Who is responsible for giving instructions for these cases not being examined? The exit interviews in the HSE have highlighted so many issues within the hospital that are never acted on or followed up. Under the new European directive wrong-doing must be investigated. Diligent follow-up is required.

The new legislation is to ensure that there can be no penalties made against a whistleblower. This is very difficult to prove, particularly when up against a significant corporation. The burden of proof rests on the whistleblower who is often unable to take on the large organisation. Being a whistleblower is a lonely and frightening road to take. To date, whistleblowers have helped make Ireland a better and safer place to work. There is a tremendous bravery and courage on the part of whistleblowers which needs to be recognised in this legislation. These are people who are not afraid to tell the truth.

In 2014 Professor Colette Cowan was asked to take up a position as a CEO by the then Minister, Deputy Varadkar, and Tony O'Brien. Were the proper protocols followed? She had been chief director of nursing and midwifery at the Western and North Hospital Group during the investigation of the death of Savita Halappanavar. At the coroner's court in Galway, the coroner asked why the file had entries added after the case. The coroner recommended:

No additions should be made to the medical records of a deceased whose death is the subject of a coroner's inquiry. Additions may inhibit the inquiry and prohibit the making of recommendations which may prevent further fatalities. And that should be applied nationally.

There are questions for the HSE workers. Had the CEO been made aware of similar cases or been notified of tampering with records of patients' medical notes during the system analysed in the investigation in University Hospital Limerick when patients were harmed during procedures in the hospital? On 29 May 2020 - I know the date because it was my 50th birthday - we were not permitted to have my birthday party with my family and friends. However, on that day, there was a retirement party in UHL for Dr. Gerry Burke. Professor Paul Burke, the CEO, Professor Cowan, and others attended. There were no masks or 2 m distancing and no accountability or sanctions against management. Photographs were posted on Twitter before being removed subsequently. When Deputy Varadkar was Minister he said that if managers did not do their job, heads would roll. The Minister, Deputy Harris, said that he would shine a light on management. What about the CEOs? He promised managers would be removed if they did not do their job. What about CEOs? How much is this management structure costing? In the past ten years how many patients have died in County Clare and Tipperary due to the lack of an emergency department near them? According to a study by the Department of Health, 1,000 people have died while being transported to UHL while they passed closed hospitals. What price does this Government put on people's lives? That is what I am asking. I need to go on the record with this and I want an answer in writing from the Minister.

I remind the Deputy that it is not good practice to mention names.

I welcome the Bill. I acknowledge that we would not be here today were it not for the Trojan work of my party colleagues, Deputies Mairéad Farrell and Buckley. They brought forward the original Bill. There are some flaws in the Government Bill which have been pointed out. I ask the Minister to consider the changes put forward.

For too long, people who have been brave enough to speak up in this State have been ignored or let down. In my constituency I am helping a woman who has spoken out about her experience of domestic violence. Her living situation is not safe and that needs to change. However, local authorities seem to be at a loss when it comes to dealing with women in such situations. Despite all the talk of domestic and gender-based violence, we do not always look at the whole effect that it has on a woman's life. I am asking that consideration be given to providing every local authority with funding to employ a domestic violence officer who can provide trauma-informed care and support to those in situations like that of the lady I described.

One issue that whistleblowers raise here time and again is the lack of transparency and accountability. The Government's mishandling of the Keltoi rehabilitation unit which was closed at the beginning of the pandemic and is still closed today highlights a lack of transparency. On the one hand, we have a Minister claiming it will be reopened and that there are plans in place to do so. On the other the HSE confirmed only today that there are no plans to reopen it. This was a trauma-informed facility. It was the only one of its kind in the State with a world-standard wraparound care. It needs to be reopened immediately. In fact, more Keltois should be opened across the State. There will be analysis of the consequences of Covid-19. I have been told of people who have lost their lives because of the closure of Keltoi.

It remains closed to this day. I hope the truth will come out and be reported because the individuals who have died tragically, as well as their families, deserve answers.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill 2022. I support this Bill in part. It is well needed and long overdue and I welcome the fact the Minister has said he is open to amendments to improve the Bill on Committee Stage if they can be put into operation and improve protections for whistleblowers. There are amendments that should be made and Ministers should be open to Opposition input into legislation to strengthen it further. However, I am incredibly disappointed that many whistleblowers have been left behind in this legislation due to the fact this Bill does not address existing protected disclosures made before this legislation came into existence. While those disclosures may have preceded the Bill and it appears that is standard procedure in this House for why it cannot be retrospective, how the Bill is being dealt with and how the disclosures are being dealt with are ongoing and in many cases may not even have started. They should therefore be benefiting from this Bill.

As I have said, this Bill is long overdue and I recognise the only reason it has come into existence is so that we can give effect to the EU’s directive on whistleblowing and mandatory reporting and not because the Government has any real want to improve current protected disclosures legislation. However, I am supportive of any Bill that strives to protect those who are brave enough to speak up about wrongdoing, no matter how it comes into existence. I recognise this Bill is a step in the right direction when it comes to establishing strong and effective laws for whistleblowers but we must recognise where it falls short.

Whistleblowers get a very negative reaction in this country. Maybe it is partly due to our colonial past and the fact authority is not really recognised. It is the protection of authority that attacks whistleblowers. The wrong protection of that authority and of wrongdoing pervade an awful lot of the structures in our society. We must address it in some way. It was shocking earlier to hear the Taoiseach ask, during Leaders' Questions, what we can do because it takes too long and why should we deal with anything because it takes too long and is too cumbersome. We cannot continue on like that. How can we improve our public services and how they work for us as citizens if we do not have effective ways for wrongdoing to be raised and addressed? It is vitally important. It is not enough for us to wring our hands and say we cannot do it and should not have to deal with it because it takes too long to deal with it. There must be ways around that. The Government should have the power to think about that and about ways to do that. It needs to happen.

Section 4 is very important and I am glad the Minister has taken into account the pre-legislative scrutiny from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach regarding the definitions used in the legislation, which widen the scope of those who are entitled to protection for whistleblowing. This particularly relates to the definition of "worker". I am glad this has been expanded to include job applicants, board members, shareholders and volunteers because it is important they are all taken into account. Section 7 is also important in ensuring the identity of those who make anonymous disclosures is protected under the Act should their identity be discovered.

It is great section 8 requires that private sector entities with 50 or more employees establish formal whistleblowing channels. This is a very important and necessary step that would protect the whistleblower and create an environment in which it is safe for him or her to blow the whistle. However, I wonder why this has been limited to organisations with more than 50 employees as, regardless of size, whistleblowing is necessary and important. Many organisations with fewer than 50 employees could be very influential and account for much expenditure, money and indeed Government money as well, I assume, and so they should also be covered by the Act. Surely every organisation should be required to establish formal whistleblowing channels, no matter their size. We must strive to ensure we protect those who report wrongdoing, no matter the size of their organisation. That is only right.

I strongly welcome the inclusion of a required follow-up time, which is detailed in section 9. The Bill would ensure all reports are acknowledged within seven days and followed up on within three months, and I support the establishment of very specific steps within clear timelines to follow-up in all other areas of reporting throughout all our Departments. What is needed on that as well are effective remedies if matters are not followed up on and timelines missed. It is about what happens then. That is vitally important too because we have seen how reports are made and they just sit and gather dust. Time goes on and the person is still having difficulties with the issue and it is not being dealt with.

I note section 10 provides for the establishment of a new protected disclosures commissioner in the Office of the Ombudsman and section 12 sets out requirements for Ministers to transmit all reports they receive to the new protected disclosures commissioner. I understand Ministers often feel they are limited in what they can do to follow up on reports, and that says much in itself. I have experienced this myself with the Brandon report. Under this new legislation the commissioner takes responsibility for directing reports to the most appropriate actor to address the matter, which will ensure an independent follow-up of disclosures sent to Ministers.

Again, we need to be certain who that person is, namely, to whom the commissioner will actually send it on. For example, a protected disclosure relating to the operations of the HSE cannot be sent to it for investigation. It just cannot because I do not believe that organisation is willing to investigate anything related to it. Thus, some effective person must be found to deal with those issues. I am sure there are other such organisations; that is just what I am familiar with at the minute. I am sure there are other organisations in the State equally culpable too. I welcome this with caution and hope we ensure this office is resourced and run appropriately. It will make a huge difference in the success or failure of this office and should be taken into consideration. This has probably been addressed at committee but I would like to hear some more about what the projected costs of running that office are to ensure it is resourced properly. That is vitally important. To be effective, it must be resourced properly.

Section 18 is another important section that provides for the restriction of certain data subject access rights to prevent the impediment of follow-ups or the abuse of whistleblower rights. Whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing illegality, corruption and wrongdoing in this country, and we must ensure, therefore, they are protected at all costs.

Turning to what this Bill lacks, I am very disappointed it does not intend to make the new protections provided retrospective, which I addressed earlier. The Bill does not address existing protected disclosures made before the legislation came into existence. The committee heard from many of those who had already made protected disclosures during pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. They described their experience of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and the negative impact it has had on their lives. Those were telling contributions. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those whistleblowers for their bravery. It is said more cases of corruption are exposed by whistleblowers than any other organisation and we must recognise the important role they play in our democracy. That must be recognised and should be recognised into the future. We need to make sure those who make disclosures in the future are not faced with the same negative experience and we also must ensure legacy cases are addressed in the legislation. This Bill must not leave those whistleblowers behind. I cannot emphasise enough how important it is that all protected disclosures be included.

This is an incredibly important Bill but we must ensure we get it right. I welcome that the Minister is willing to make amendments on Committee Stage, but I urge him to take into consideration all protected disclosures, no matter when they were made. Whistleblowers have been failed time and again and we must ensure we do not continue to fail them in the future. In its current form this legislation continues to fail them. That is what will impede other whistleblowers in coming forward, and what we must ensure is they feel they can come forward. It is the only way to make our democracy more accountable and the only way to make our public services, as well as the private sector, more accountable and work for the good of everybody rather than just a few. That is what the import of this Bill should be.

I welcome the work done by the Department, the Minister and the committee on this legislation. I can see from what I have read the amount of work that has gone into it and the consideration. I welcome also that the Minister is open to all amendments, or all reasonable amendments. Clearly, this Bill, as has been said so many times, provides for the transposition of the EU directive into Irish law. That of course begs the question of why we had to wait for the directive. There was a review in 2018 that was very helpful but that did not recommend any changes in the legislation.

That is worrying for me. I come back to the existing practices, procedures and policies on the ground that are not working generally. That is why we need whistleblowing legislation, which is unfortunate. The Minister is on record as saying, and I agree with him, that in an ideal society we would not need this at all, but I am afraid that is in heaven and not on earth. The review that was carried out in 2018 did not recommend any changes. Perhaps those who carried out the review were being cautious because they knew the EU directive was coming down the line. I will accept the more benign reason for that.

I cannot remember if a review is built into this Bill. It seems to me a review after two years is essential if we are seriously interested in strengthening whistleblowing legislation. It has been said so often at this stage that the personal scope of the Bill has been extended to volunteers, unpaid trainees, board members, shareholders and job applicants. I welcome that. It places an obligation on all private organisations with 50 or more employees, which I also welcome, although there is a derogation. On a practical level, I can see why there is an extension of time and I accept that. I am not so sure why private companies with under 50 employees are not included because I understand this Bill includes such companies that are in the public sector. I am not sure why that distinction is there.

I very much welcome the new office of the protected disclosures commissioner that will be established. New offences are created for employers who fail in their obligations to establish the proper internal reporting channels; I welcome all of that. It is positive that unauthorised disclosures of the identity of a reporting person will be a criminal offence. The extension of the interim relief measures under the Act to include acts of penalisation other than dismissal is also welcome. This is the one time I welcome the reversal of the burden of proof although recently, in a different context to do with refugees, I condemned the reversal of proof. I welcome it in this situation, where it falls to the employer to prove that the alleged act of penalisation did not occur because someone made a protected disclosure. I also welcome the emphasis on data collection.

I welcome the Bill, but there is the dream and the reality. The reality on the ground is so far removed from the dream. To put it in perspective, where did the 2014 Act come from? I paid tribute to Deputy Howlin in the past when he pushed that, but where did it come from? It came from the Morris tribunal. The last time I saw the cost of that tribunal it was €70 million and rising. As Deputy Pringle said, establishment Ireland wanted to believe the matter just related to Donegal. That was the way we dealt with it. As the cost of it rose by millions to more than €70 million, it was said it could only happen in Donegal - I apologise to Deputy Pringle - but nowhere else. It took more than €70 million to realise that is not what happened. The impetus for this Bill came from that.

Deputy Cullinane said he wished the impetus for this Bill did not come from an EU directive, which it did not. It came from pain, suffering and the most appalling corruption in the Garda force in that area and, we subsequently learned, in other areas. I again pay tribute to good members of the Garda on the ground, as I do to good politicians, but I do not think we can clap ourselves on the back for it, notwithstanding my praise for individual Deputies who pushed it and who were very good. That was the Morris tribunal. We have all the other background, including the Mahon tribunal, which started as the Flood tribunal. I cannot remember the cost of that; it is just off the deep end. We had the Moriarty tribunal on payments to politicians. They are just a few of the tribunals.

If we had an environment in Ireland where people could come forward and be cherished, we would have saved a fortune, not to mention the pain and suffering. I will refer to the Bill digest supplied by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service - I thank it for its great work - which states:

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ... whistleblowing is among the most effective means to [both] expose and remedy corruption, fraud, and other types of wrongdoing in the public and private sectors. Whistleblowing has been a particularly valuable tool in the areas of environmental protection, [I hope Deputies will remember this when we are talking about planning laws and demonising environmental groups and courageous people on the ground] law enforcement, finance, education and healthcare.

It goes on to tell us:

There are also significant economic benefits to having a fully functional and comprehensive whistleblowing legislative framework. For example, the European Commission's report "Estimating the economic benefits of whistleblower protection in public procurement" indicated that, in the EU [alone]...losses due to a lack of whistleblower protection in public procurement were estimated at between €5.8 and €9.6 billion [I had to read it twice].

Transparency International tells us in its A Best Practice Guide for Whistleblowing Legislation:

...[there are] three main reasons given by people for not reporting wrongdoing... [These are] fear of the consequences [that is] (legal, financial, [and] reputational), the belief that nothing will be done, that it will not make any difference [and] uncertainty about...[who], [and] where and to whom...[they should] report

Legislation must reflect that. The Government has gone a long way to doing that, but the enforcement of legislation is the problem. I have much trust in a constant review of the legislation so that we can learn. If the Minister can reassure me that there will be a meaningful review of the legislation to see whether it is achieving its aims, I will be delighted. Deputy Boyd Barrett talked about the facts earlier, which are missing here in respect of how many whistleblowers come forward, how they are treated, what their experience is, what we can learn and what money we can save as a result. This is all very factual, practical stuff. Where is the place we are doing all of that? These are very important questions.

I am thinking of something I raised in the House recently, which is insignificant in the context of the major issues we have to deal with, such as housing and health. The only thing the HSE in my area of Galway was interested in doing was finding out who was telling her. If it is doing that for what I am describing as a relatively minor matter, what is it doing for more serious incidents? What is it up to? My professional and personal experience has not filled me with confidence regarding institutions. The thing that has kept me going has been the presence of good, honest and courageous people on the ground. Many honest and courageous people give up. On occasions, I almost give up and I am privileged in the sense of being paid to speak. If my personal and professional experience, and I have had the privilege of being in different professions, has not filled me with confidence, then one has to ask serious questions about what is going on with the practices, policies and procedures in place in the HSE, the banks and all the other institutions that psychologically choke a person rather than let them come forward.

We think of Vicky Phelan. I use her name most reluctantly and only to bring up the confidential agreement she courageously refused to sign. If we are to show leadership as a Government, where does it start? Surely it should start with the stopping of confidential agreements relating to matters such as that, which can only stop learning and reinforce a very bad system. Only because Vicky Phelan had the courage to come forward and say "No" did we learn about that matter. That is repeated everywhere. If we consider Sergeant McCabe, luckily he found his phone. Otherwise, that man was in serious trouble, despite all the things we might say retrospectively.

We can repeat that over and over. My experience on the Committee of Public Accounts in respect of university education was shocking. There were whistleblowers from the University of Limerick and whistleblowers in relation to the Grace case mentioned by Deputy McGuinness, where it seems, from reading the newspaper, that the whistleblower concerned has had a dreadful time and has ended up in the courts. I do not know the details. We certainly did not champion those whistleblowers, notwithstanding the wonderful legislation. We have the dream and the reality. What is happening here? We need to show leadership. Do we remember the Nyberg report on banking, which referenced the herd mentality, the consensus approach and the value put on loyalty as opposed to courage, honesty and integrity?

When are we going to reward those values to back up the legislation? That is what we need to do here; otherwise, we are just playing games as usual. I do not doubt the Minister's bona fides. He has come forward in a very straight way, working with us in a collaborative manner. I welcome that.

On the outstanding recommendations from the committee, I note the Minister proposes to look at them at committee level, in particular the issue of retrospection. Is there some way we can deal with people who have existing disclosures in a manner that meets the spirit of the new legislation, regardless of whether they come under it? There is also the issue of legal advice and extra advice. Money is given to Transparency International Ireland. What analysis has been done in regard to how effective that is?

Everybody welcomes this protected disclosures legislation. Everybody recognises the necessity for it. There have been discussions in regard to some of the recommendations that might not be covered in it, but in fairness to the Minister he has stated he is open to a conversation around that and to taking on board some amendments. That is necessary. A significant number of Deputies have spoken specifically about protected disclosures that are already in play and the need for an element of retrospection. That goes without saying.

As has been stated, in an ideal society we would not necessarily require this legislation, but this is far from an ideal society. We have a long history of State agencies and non-State agencies protecting themselves and literally closing the doors. It has been very difficult to get to the bottom of cases where serious harm and wrong have been done. We have had a real slowness of putting up hands and admitting to mistakes and in regard to fixing those mistakes.

At a meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications, members heard from representatives of the Irish Air Line Pilots Association, IALPA, about the necessity for a greater level of regulation with regard to the Irish Aviation Authority to protect not only pilots, but the flying public. The IALPA representatives stated that this is required in primary legislation because what they want and need within the airline industry in this State is a just culture, which is the idea and what we want to see eventually within our agencies, including the HSE and An Garda Síochána, that we accept that an awful lot of mistakes are not necessarily made on the basis of wrongdoing. Some are and they need to be dealt with, including by way of criminal sanction, but in many cases they are not. We need a system where people who have seen wrongdoing or mistakes feel free to come forward and those mistakes can be addressed, protocols fixed and the system rectified. If it is the case that some of them are happening continually, it might be an issue of under-resourcing and that needs to be dealt with. We need to make sure that we, at least, have that just culture, that ability for communication and that everything is above board. As I said, we do not have a great history in this State in regard to this issue. A significant number of people are engaged in particular disputes with agencies, arms of the State and with Government from the point of view of seeking answers in regard to their questions and, beyond that, in regard to a mechanism that will provide them with accountability, answers and long-term solutions.

Like many other speakers, in particular from County Louth, I have spoken previously about the need for a public inquiry in regard to the tragedy and the 23 lives lost in Dealgan House at the beginning of the pandemic. The Taoiseach has stated he does not believe commissions of inquiry are necessarily the correct mechanism, that they can be costly and that they will not get to where they need to get on time or provide satisfaction to all. If that is the case, the Taoiseach will have to come up with a solution. That is the responsibility of Government. It is the case that people will always look for public inquiries where the State has failed within its own wherewithal to deal with miscarriages of justice and cases of abuse. We are still dealing with the Women of Honour situation, where women bravely came forward. They are not particularly happy with the mechanism the State has employed in regard to dealing with their issue. Other Deputies have spoken about the Maurice McCabe and CervicalCheck cases. We need to get to a better place in regard to all of that.

I welcome some of what has been said by the Minister in regard to the conversations we have had previously, whether on the Standards in Public Office Commission or the freedom of information system. He also spoke about the idea of open government. We need to take this opportunity to ensure we have strong whistleblower legislation that covers every angle possible. We all want the same end result, that is, to catch wrongdoing, fraud and mistakes and to have in place an open system that protects people so that they can come forward with information. We would like it if we could create a culture whereby they would not necessarily need these safety mechanisms but that culture does not exist at this point in time. Until we get to that point, we need to do this. There is an onus on the Minister and the Government to deliver and to identify where the weaknesses are. A significant amount of work has been done in this area by my colleagues, Deputies Buckley and Mairéad Farrell. We need to deliver a system that will work for all of the people out there. People want to see justice, accountability and transparency. More important, they want a system that works for everybody and the freedom that will allow people to come forward so that we can identify problems and address them as quickly as possible.

The Deputy has two minutes remaining.

I am happy to continue.

This is one of the rare times I will not be asking the Deputy to stop speaking.

There is an element of shock. I am not used to this.

In fairness, I am being straight with the Minister, as I am occasionally, in the sense that he has been somewhat forward-thinking around this particular issue and the idea of openness and transparency. It is a matter of ensuring that we follow through on the actions because the current system is not good enough. We have already heard many testimonies in that regard. We have heard Deputies speak about a number of the whistleblowers and the damage that has been done to their lives because these protections were not in place for them. We need to ensure we put those protections in place. As I said, there is, I believe, an element of weakness in not dealing with retrospection. There is a requirement to deal with that as soon as possible.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn