Richard O'Donoghue: Demands end to state punishment of whistleblowers

I move the motion in the names of Independent Ireland and its sponsors. I am not going to soften this. We have a national disgrace in our hands. Ireland claims to protect whistleblowers but what we actually do is destroy them. You know it, I know it and the public knows it. We bring in laws, we pat ourselves on the back and then the state turns around and crushes the very people who try to protect us. And today I am saying not anymore. Not on our watch. Not under legislation endorsed by this House, whistleblowers are being punished for doing the right thing. We are supposed to be the ones defending these people. But look what actually happens in this country. They speak up, they report wrongdoings, they act in the public's interest. And the state responds with the three Ds. And this was reported by the Irish Times and they called it out, delay, deny, destroy. This is across all civil service. Today I have a list of names of whistleblowers. So we have Maurice McCabe who is in the gallery. Ongarde Sheikana. Noan McGee, Irish Prison Service. Von O'Rourke, Defence Forces. John Barrett, Ongarde Sheikana. And Ciaran Kennelly, Tulsa. And many more from local authorities across this country. Today we are not here to punish people in the civil service that are doing the right thing. There is many people within all those agencies in civil service, in the Scottish economy that do brilliant work. But there is also always a small few that use their position to, outside of their remits of their work, and they expect then their departments then to cover them when it comes to law. This is where we've got to stop it. And I'm going to read out one of these cases, has already gone through the court, has already been finished, so I must just read out one of the cases to you. Excuse me now, one second. Apologies. I rise today to address a matter of public concern. The misuse of public powers by officials acting outside of their lawful remit. And the misuse of taxpayers' money to shield such behaviour. I want to bring to the attention of the House a case involving Mead County Council. Significant procedural failures have been highlighted to me. I have also received confirmation of other state authorities and genuine concerns. Including important health and safety issues were raised and ignored. Instead of addressing those concerns, public funds are now being used to silence the whistleblowers who correctly identified both the procedural failures and the associated risks, such as using public funds to place criminal records on innocent individuals who are highlighting the wrongs. These failures occurred in the authorisation and oversight of a waste facility beside an airfield in County Mead, where proper procedures were not followed and warnings from the state bodies, professionals and the airfield owner were disregarded. The consequences were devastating for a very unique and well-established property and family business with a long-standing legacy were effectively destroyed. The situation escalated further when the Council pursued criminal convictions against the innocent member of the family, without defence or support of allegations. For abuse clarity, nothing in what I am proposing would weaken the public right to a legal action decision against the local authority. In court case 2023 00288, the presiding judge stated, now this is coming from the judge, that Mead County Council did not deal with the matters appropriately, that she could not answer positively regarding the submission, and that the individual had been treated very badly for a very long period. Certain remarks from a bench are rare, and they point out the serious breakdown in proper administration standards. This raises a fundamental issue, civil servants are protected when they act within the scope of their lawful authorities. Now this is where it is going to become very important for people to watch this. And for civil servants to watch this as well. And I am going to read this to you again, just to make sure that all civil servants understand law. It outdates any constitutions or acts. This is law. The law of the land is what they have got to work for. Civil servants are protected when they act within the scope of their lawful authority. But when officials go beyond the remit, misapplying, construing or effectively manufacturing legislation or obligations that do not exist, and refusing to provide legal basis for their actions, when asked, they are no longer acting for the state. This is the most important thing. So they are knowingly making legislation themselves, but they are not acting within the lawful of the work that they are permitted to do. They are acting as individuals and they should be held individually accountable. Taxpayers should not be footing the bill to defend ultra-virus conduct. Public funds must never be used to shred wrongdoing or to encourage behaviour that undermines confidence in our instruments. If we continue to indemnify officials knowingly to act outside the law or fail to carry out their duties properly and fairly when it incentivises future abuse of authorities and destroys innocent families and businesses and communities. For absolute clarity, nothing in what I am proposing would weaken the public right to take legal action against the local authority. People must always retain the fundamental right. These reforms simply end an automatic use of taxpayers' money to defend officials who knowingly exceed misuses of their lawful powers. Therefore, I am calling for a review of the statutory protections afforded to civil servants, a clear mechanism for professional accountability when officials act outside their remit and end the using of public funds to defend ultra-virus actions.