[Speaking in the Seanad during Order of Business]
I have a very specific and technical parliamentary request to make of the Leader. I seek clarification in the aftermath of the vote yesterday that resulted in the insertion of a fairly harmless amendment in the Health (General Practitioner Service) Bill. It is nevertheless an amendment which many of us see as critical in enshrining the principle of whistleblower protection.
Let us be honest. If we examine the history of the country over the past three decades, would anybody want to oppose whistleblower protection? Does anybody want to refuse an amendment or amend legislation which includes whistleblower protection? If we had more whistleblower protection, the child abuse scandals would not have occurred and if we had more whistleblower protection in the Department of Finance, we would not have had the economic meltdown which occurred.
I am making a point. There was substantial misinformation last night arising from a practical and technical aspect of parliamentary procedure. The suggestion was made in multiple news organs last night that our successful insertion of a socially constructive amendment to this Bill would result in a delay in the implementation of free GP care by six months. I have looked into this and there is exactly no parliamentary basis for believing that any part of this Bill would be delayed one second longer than it would have if that or any other amendment had not been inserted. I appeal to the Leader’s professionalism, his parliamentary experience and expertise in this House and his sense of fair play. I ask him to make a statement on the record today that there is no reason the specific inclusion of an amendment in a Bill could delay it by six months. We can then put the issue to bed.
