Speeches
"Whistle-blower's" Protection bill - Fiona O'Malley TD Private Members Motion 8th March 2006
Fiona O’Malley T.D.
Private Member’s Motion
Dáil Éireann
8 th March 2006
“Whistle-blower’s” Protection Bill
In the few minutes I have I would like to focus on one particular element: how whistle-blowers protection measures should apply in our health service.
I agree with the Opposition on two points:
q First, that this is a timely debate in light of the disgusting revelations about certain practices at Lourdes Hospital.
q Second, that protection measures should be put in place.
However, I disagree with them on the most appropriate method for dealing with the problem. For the record, I support the Government in its explicit commitment to the protection of whistle-blowers - people who legitimately bring to the light worrying and sensitive information gained in the course of their work. Today’s statements on the Lourdes inquiry illustrate the importance of that support. But, if I may quote a contribution from the seats opposite last night “what the Labour Party offers in this motion is action”. Unfortunately it is the wrong action.
Last night’s contribution from the Labour Party spokesperson on health painted the one-Bill solution to the problem as something of a panacea. It is not. They also imply that the absence of such a Bill has facilitated ongoing scandalous behaviour. This is a dangerous and simplistic stance. Judge Harding Clark’s report makes it clear that we need a sea-change in the culture in the health sector. Are we to believe that if this Bill had been in place that an individual would have felt free to make a complaint against a superior? A Consultant…that no negative repercussions would ensue because of the provisions of the Bill? We know from sexual harassment cases, for example, that just because legislation is in place, a person may still feel unable or unwilling to make a complaint. Particularly against someone who is dominant in the power-relationship. We know from sexual harassment cases that the culture of the workplace or organisation has to change.
The Tánaiste has stated plainly that, rather than depending on the measures proposed by those Opposite, we need “a culture of openness, preparedness to acknowledge errors, and an ability to analyse clinical practice in an environment that does not resort to blame and recrimination. Blame-free reporting is vital”.
The Tánaiste is right: “this is much more than whistle-blowing. It is a systematic, continuous and open approach to error reporting and correction, involving everyone in the health care setting. It is involves a rigorous process of audit, peer review and external evaluation”. I appreciate the Opposition’s intention, but the action is insufficient. The counter motion sets out how the pursuance of a sectoral approach will supersede the all-encompassing approach proposed in the Private Members Bill of 1999.
I want to conclude with this important point. In light of the significant legal and drafting issues that go with a single legislative proposal on whistle-blowing, the Government has correctly decided to proceed on a case-by-case basis with appropriate whistle blowing provisions. We in this House must make sure that happens where appropriate. Be it the Medical Practitioners Bill, Health Information and Quality Authority or any other legislation. If a section on whistle-blowing is appropriate, it must be included.
There is a role for legislators to ensure that statutory provision is made for the protection of those who are brave and conscientious enough to raise the alarm when they see bad, dangerous, illegal, or in the case of Lourdes, evil behaviour. We can do something, but we can only do so much.
The action of whistle-blowers is predicated on someone acting wrongly in the first place. The system should in the first instance be able to prevent the person from doing so, and if they do, detect and stop that action. Let us not seek to rely on whistle-blowers. That would be an admission of failure. An admission that the system cannot be designed in a way to protect those who encounter it. Dependence on the whistle-blower could also heighten fears of vexatious claims against innocent individuals. Again, something we have learned from sexual harassment cases, for example, is that when charges are levelled against the innocent, their lives do not revert to how they were before the claim.
This is a complex area. A crude or blunt instrument is not enough. No doubt whistle-blowers need protection measures. But they should be nuanced and tailored. Most of all, they need the culture of their workplace to allow openness, acknowledgment of errors, and an ability to examine the work environment in a way that does not resort to blame and recrimination.
Go raibh maith agat.