Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Feb 2022

Vol. 1018 No. 1

Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill 2022: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this long-awaited Bill to the House which will provide for the transposition of the EU whistleblowing directive into Irish law. This directive is among the most far-reaching and most significant pieces of legislation ever to be adopted by the EU.

The benefits to society and democracy from protecting people of conscience who speak up about wrongdoing are clear if we reflect for a moment on the range of issues that would not have seen light of day if not for the courage of a whistleblower. Sadly, for too many, the decision to highlight wrongdoing often comes at a great personal cost to the individual and his or her family. This can have a chilling effect, putting off others from stepping forward. Whistleblowers play a vital role in a functioning democracy. We in the Oireachtas must accept our responsibility for what happens to them. We must ensure that we have strong and effective laws to protect people who have the bravery to speak up about wrongdoing. This Bill represents a big step in the right direction in this regard.

Ireland, of course, has a strong legislative foundation in the area of whistleblower protection. In 2014, we were just the sixth country in the EU to introduce comprehensive legislation for the protection of whistleblowers in the form of the Protected Disclosures Act. The 2014 Act was an innovative piece of legislation for its time and remains highly regarded as one of the strongest whistleblower protection laws in the world. While this may be the case, for some, however, the protections in place have not gone far enough. Listening to the contributions from whistleblowers in the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach during pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, it is clear that we must strive to do better at protecting those who report wrongdoing.

Returning to the directive, many of the provisions contained in that directive are already in place here in Ireland thanks to the 2014 Act. The Act prohibits any form of retaliation against a worker who makes a protected disclosure and also protects workers from civil and criminal liability for any disclosure of confidential information necessary to report a wrongdoing. The Act provides multiple channels for workers to report concerns so that if one channel fails to operate as intended, there are other avenues through which workers can speak up safely.

The directive, however, goes much further in terms of its application. In particular, it significantly widens the scope of persons who are entitled to protection for speaking up. It will require many employers to establish formal channels and procedures for their workers to report concerns about wrongdoing. It also requires recipients of disclosures to take very specific steps within clear timelines to follow-up on the reports they receive.

I welcome all of these changes, which will further strengthen and enhance our legislation and ensure Ireland remains at the leading edge in terms of the legal protections for whistleblowers.

We must also take this opportunity to reflect on the impact the Protected Disclosures Act has had since it was signed into law in 2014 and consider what enhancements and improvements we can provide beyond the directive in this regard, as was committed to in the programme for Government. The findings of the 2018 statutory review of the Act and the responses to the public consultation on the general scheme have all fed into the development of this Bill. A key finding of the statutory review was that the legislation needed to give clearer direction to recipients as to what to do with the reports they receive. The new requirements arising from the directive go a long way towards addressing this. The statutory review also raised significant concerns about how disclosures made to Ministers under section 8 of the Act should be handled. In many cases, reports are being made in the first instance to Ministers, which was never the intention of the Act. Furthermore, reports are in some cases made simultaneously or in quick succession to both the employer and the Minister or other reporting channels without affording time for the matter to be addressed by the initial recipient. This was also identified as a concern by Mr. Justice Peter Charleton in the third interim report of the disclosures tribunal. The changes to the ministerial channel proposed in the Bill are intended to address these issues.

Another issue for Ministers is that they often find they are limited in what they can do to follow up on certain reports, especially if the matter involves a statutorily independent public body. The Bill therefore provides for ministerial disclosures to be transmitted to the new protected disclosures commissioner, who will take on responsibility for directing reports to the most appropriate persons to address the matter concerned. This will ensure an independent and thorough follow-up of all protected disclosures sent to Ministers of the Government. The commissioner will also take on the role of prescribed person of last resort, ensuring there is always an independent external person for workers to report to, if needed. This role will be taken on by the Ombudsman and is in line with trends in other countries where national ombudsmen have been given similar responsibilities in this area.

Another recent development the Bill must take into account is the ruling of the Supreme Court of 1 December 2021 in the Baranya case, which found that an individual raising a private grievance can also attract the protections of the 2014 Act. While the court agreed that the intent of the Act was to protect persons who report wrongdoing solely in the public interest, the wording of the Act allowed for a broader application. This anomaly cannot be allowed to stand and the Bill makes provision in this regard.

Last, but by no means least, in terms of the development of the Bill, I would like to make a few points about the pre-legislative scrutiny undertaken by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach. I thank the committee for its thorough and comprehensive report, which clearly reflects the strong engagement and personal interest its members have in this topic. The pre-legislative scrutiny report contains some 60 recommendations. Many of the committee's recommendations are provided for in the Bill. For example, I am repealing section 5(7A) of the principal Act, which imposed a public interest test on disclosures of information containing trade secrets. I am providing that prescribed persons must accept and follow up on anonymous disclosures, unless prohibited by another enactment. I am providing for the new office of the protected disclosures commissioner to be established as a statutorily independent entity free to discharge its functions under the Act as it sees fit. I am also significantly expanding and enhancing the collection and publication of statistics on the number of protected disclosures made, so as to better evaluate the impact of the Act and inform future policy development in this area.

The work of considering the committee's recommendations is not done. I have referred a number of them to the Attorney General for further consideration. Implementing some of the recommendations may be complex from a legal perspective and more time is needed for this consideration. Given the deadline of 17 December 2021 for the transposition of the directive, I did not want to delay the publication of the Bill any further. Accordingly, I will bring a number of amendments during the later Stages of the Bill in respect of some of the committee's recommendations. I again thank the committee for its significant work, which took seven months to complete. I wanted to await the conclusion of the pre-legislative scrutiny phase before proceeding to publish the full Bill.

In particular, I acknowledge that there was disappointment in some quarters that the Bill does not address the status of existing protected disclosures that have been made before this new legislation comes into force. I acknowledge that this is a very important issue. It is a complex issue but it is one area in particular on which I have asked my officials to work with the Attorney General with a view to bringing proposals on Committee Stage.

I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. As this is amending legislation, some sections need to be read in conjunction with the Principal Act, the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. Some sections of the Bill are also quite technical. In this regard, I will make my officials available to Members if any further technical briefing on the Bill is required. The Bill comprises the following parts. Part 1, comprising sections 1 to 3, inclusive, contains a number of standard legislative provisions concerning the Short Title and commencement and, as amending legislation, identifies the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 as being the principal Act being amended. Section 3 provides for the repeal of certain provisions of the Principal Act rendered redundant by the amendments provided for elsewhere in this Bill.

Part 2 comprises six chapters, each of which in some way amends or extends the principal Act. Chapter 1, comprising sections 4 to 7, inclusive, sets out the scope of application of the legislation. Section 4 sets out a number of important definitions used in the legislation. Of particular note here is the amended definition of "worker", which provides for the expansion of the scope of the Act to include: volunteers, board members, shareholders and job applicants, as required by the directive. Section 5 is a standard provision concerning the making of orders and regulations under the Act.

Section 6 amends the definition of a "protected disclosure" to explicitly cover any breaches of the EU laws specified in the material scope of the directive. This section also provides for the insertion of a new subsection (5A) into section 5 of the principal Act that provides that the Act does not apply to personal employment grievances that solely affect the worker making the complaint and no one else. This addresses the findings of the Supreme Court in the recent Baranya case. Section 7 provides that persons who make anonymous disclosures are still entitled to the protections of the Act if their identity is deduced and they suffer retaliation.

Chapter 2, comprising sections 8 to 13, inclusive, concerns the design and operation of internal and external reporting channels to employers and prescribed persons. Section 8 provides that private sector entities with 50 or more employees must establish formal whistleblowing channels. In acknowledgment of the administrative burden placed on certain businesses, a derogation has been obtained for those businesses which employ between 50 and 249 employees. Those employers have until December 2023 to establish formal whistleblowing channels. This section also provides for the Minister to lower this threshold in certain sectors where there is a high risk of serious wrongdoing, if required.

Section 9 sets out how the internal channels should operate and requires that all reports be acknowledged within seven days, the manner in which reports should be followed up and that feedback should be given to the reporting person within three months. These rules are at the core of the directive and, as Members will see, are therefore restated and reaffirmed throughout the Bill.

Section 10 similarly requires prescribed persons to establish reporting channels for workers in the sectors they regulate and section 11 provides again that prescribed persons must acknowledge, follow up and give feedback to reporting persons in respect of the reports they receive.

Section 12 concerns reports made to Ministers of the Government and sets out new conditions for making these reports and requires that Ministers shall transmit all reports they receive to the new protected disclosures commissioner. Section 13 amends section 10 of the principal Act and sets out new conditions for the making of public disclosures. These conditions are significantly simplified compared with the original provision in the principal Act.

Chapter 3 concerns the new office of the protected disclosures commissioner and comprises sections 14 and 15, inclusive. Section 14 inserts six new sections, namely, 10A to 10F, inclusive, into the Act after section 10.

Section 10A provides for the establishment of the new office of the protected disclosures commissioner in the Office of the Ombudsman. Section 10B provides for the commissioner to have formal channels and procedures for handling disclosures in the same manner as apply to prescribed persons.

Sections 10C and 10D concern the handling of disclosures made or transmitted to the commissioner. In the first instance, the commissioner shall attempt to identify either a prescribed person or another suitable person with the competence to follow-up on the matter reported and transmit the report to that person for further action. If no person can be found, the commissioner shall apply the standard rules as regards acknowledgment, follow-up and feedback as required by the directive in respect of prescribed persons.

Section 10E provides that where a report is transmitted to a third party not subject to the requirement to have formal reporting channels, that person shall follow the standard rules as regards acknowledgment, follow-up and feedback. Section 10F provides for powers of investigation for the commissioner in the event that direct follow-up of a report is required.

Section 15 inserts a new schedule to the Act concerning a number of standard provisions regarding the keeping of accounts and the staffing of the office of the protected disclosures commissioner.

Chapter 4, comprising sections 16 to 20, inclusive, transposes a number of provisions of the directive applicable to internal reporting to employers and external reporting to prescribed persons and the commissioner. Section 16 obliges persons responsible for handling protected disclosures to keep the identity of reporting persons confidential, overhauling a similar provision in the principal Act. Section 17 introduces a new requirement to similarly keep the identities of other persons named in a disclosure confidential. Section 18 provides for the restriction of certain data subject access rights to prevent these rights being abused to out a whistleblower or frustrate or impede effective follow-up on a report. Section 19 specifies how records of protected disclosures shall be kept. Section 20 imposes a similar restriction on the Freedom of Information Act to section 18 and, again, is intended to protect reporting persons’ identities and prevent attempts to impede or frustrate follow-up.

Chapter 5, comprising sections 21 to 25, inclusive, concerns the enhanced protection measures required by the directive. Key changes introduced in this chapter include: the extension of interim relief to acts of penalisation other than dismissal; reversal of the burden of proof in civil cases concerning penalisation, so employers will have to prove the alleged act of penalisation was not taken because the worker made a protected disclosure; and the provision of a set of offences for contraventions of the Act.

Chapter 6, comprising sections 26 to 33, inclusive, provides for a number of incidental and supplementary measures, including: removal of the restriction on public disclosure of taxpayer information for certain types of reports; provision for the Minister to issue statutory guidance to assist public bodies, prescribed persons and the commissioner in best practice in the handling of reports; the provision of freely available information on how to make a disclosure and the protections afforded by the Act; enhanced provisions as regards the provision of statistical information to the Minister on the numbers of protected disclosures made and for the publication of said information; and powers for the Workplace Relations Commission inspectorate to monitor and enforce compliance with the requirement on employers to have internal reporting channels.

The Bill inserts two new schedules into the principal Act. Schedule 5 is a set of standard provisions as regards the keeping of accounts and the staffing of the office of the protected disclosures commissioner, while Schedule 6 reproduces the annex to the directive, listing all of the EU laws that lie within its material scope.

In conclusion, I reiterate my thanks to the Members of both Houses who worked on the pre-legislative scrutiny report on this Bill, which has greatly influenced its development. I would also like to thank the various stakeholders who have contributed to the development of this Bill, including those who took the time to make submissions to the public consultation when the general scheme of the Bill was being developed and those who attended the pre-legislative scrutiny hearings at the committee. Their input has also provided great help in the preparation of this Bill. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank my officials in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform who have been working on this Bill for a long time, and the officials in the Office of the Attorney General for their assistance in what is complex and at times technical legislation. We can all agree it is a fundamentally important Bill and it is important that we get this right.

I want to signal to Members that I am, of course, open to amendments on Committee Stage and Report Stage through the passage of this Bill in both Houses. Where I believe the amendments improve the Bill and can be put into operation and improve the protections for whistleblowers, I am open to amendments and I want to be very upfront and clear about that.

I thank all the Members of this House for their attention and I very much look forward to hearing their contributions during the remainder of Second Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.

It is important to note that this Bill came about not because of a desire necessarily to improve our existing protected disclosures regime and it was not inspired by the need to give further protections to the many whistleblowers whose concerns have been raised in this Chamber or to set a new standard in whistleblowing protection. The reason the Bill is before us today is to satisfy the transposition of the EU's whistleblowing directive and its mandatory reporting requirements. However, the crafting of the Bill gave us an opportunity to reflect on our whistleblowing regime and to understand what is working well and not working well. Over the course of the last few months, when this was discussed within the committee, it was an eye-opener for many committee members as to the different issues that so many whistleblowers and transparency campaigners face. I commend all of those who came before the committee and who told their very personal stories and told of the personal difficulties they faced as a result of their whistleblowing.

As the legislation is almost ten years old, a review was timely. I take on board that the Minister has said he would welcome amendments on Committee Stage. My colleague, Deputy Buckley, and I had drafted our own Bill, which looked to raise the bar and which could be used to ensure there is no lowering of existing standards. We know that whistleblowers play a key role in society and that is very true when we look at our own history within this State.

Transparency International says that whistleblowing is acknowledged as one of the most effective ways of stopping wrongdoing. For example, many of the cases of corruption and fraud that we know about have been exposed by workers who reported those issues to their employers, regulators or the press. In fact, it is believed that more cases of fraud and corruption are exposed by whistleblowers than by any other actor, including the police and the media. We saw the very difficult situations that people have faced as a result of doing that. Unfortunately, as we know, when a whistleblower does reveal wrongdoing, the primary concern of the authorities can be reputational damage to the organisation and there can be an attempt, as we have seen, to circle the wagons, cast aspersions on whistleblowers’ motivations and engage in retaliation. That means the whistleblowers themselves can suffer greatly for acting in the public interest and they pay a very high price for speaking out, both financially and in terms of their health.

That is why we felt there was a need to remove the cap on awards. We saw the evidence in the committee that people are ostracised as a result of speaking out in the public interest and research shows that people lose over €40,000 in the course of their working life as a result. We felt it should be changed to “fair and equitable” but, as the Minister said, we will discuss that on Committee Stage, when we can go into this further. This is something we need to look at because it can help set the standard on these issues. This kind of information and this work is something we very much rely on. With our own Bill, we were hoping to set a standard that could be used but we will bring that up on Committee Stage, when we can discuss this in greater detail.

All of this work needs to be crafted in consultation with whistleblowers, legal practitioners and academics in order that we can draw on the highest standards of national whistleblowing legislation across the various EU jurisdictions. We see what the Nordic countries have done in this regard. I think we can be the shining light on this, given we owe so much to our whistleblowers.

We had hoped any research that could be done within the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach would have assisted with this Bill being undertaken. We have to give credit to the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach for the massive job of work it did. It gave the Bill the seriousness it warranted, which helped pave the way for the substantial report that was issued as a result. We heard the testimony of many whistleblowers and they worked in the public and the private sector in junior and senior positions and they were from all different backgrounds. They were all united in one factor; each and every one of them spoke out because they believed it served the public interest and that the public had a right to know. Most importantly, they recognised that if the public knew what was going on, it would not accept it, which was the crux of the matter.

The committee also heard the expert opinion of groups like Transparency International and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and we heard from members of the bodies representing the legal profession and those working in mental health services. These people also played a valuable role in helping to shape the 60 recommendations issued in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. The Minister recently said to me that he judges each and every Bill on its merits and so do we. I have to be fair to the Minister and I acknowledge those areas where he made amendments in line with the Bill Deputy Buckley and I brought forward and in line with the recommendations of the committee and that is welcome. It is good to see that co-operative work and to hear the Minister say he will continue to work with us. Section 4 includes the expansion of the meaning of "work", which is extremely important because it includes volunteers and that is an area where there can be concerns. That should have included journalists as well but we will bring that to Committee Stage and we can talk about that in greater detail then. I welcome the expansion of that meaning because it will be of relief to many.

There are also areas we probably could have worked on. I see that, for example, the Minister has included an exemption for organisations with fewer than 50 employees. It is not that costly to put this in place and that is probably unnecessary. We can talk about that in greater detail another time. The Bill will establish a new protected disclosures office within the Office of the Ombudsman. Concerns have been raised about this and we need to be frank about that. Some people have concerns that protected disclosures could be sent to a letter box or a filing cabinet but it is up to us to make sure that does not happen. We need to be clear that this will set a standard and that it does not end up being that kind of thing and we need to make sure that as many people as possible have full confidence in it. We need to be clear that this office is staffed correctly and resourced appropriately. I raised the issue of staff qualification numbers and funding with the Minister at the start of the month and we need to make sure that office is fully resourced and staffed. When I raised that point at the start of the month, the Minister said he was still working on that so we need to make sure we have those details and I had hoped to have them before this Bill was brought before the Dáil. Hopefully we will get that information soon because it is important for the confidence of those past and future whistleblowers in the system. A lot of them, including the ones we have listened to, have been failed. We need to acknowledge that and make sure they know we are taking this very seriously.

The Bill will introduce new and restrictive conditions for public service workers looking to make a protected disclosure to the Minister. Another point on which we raised concern is the so-called emergency situation the Minister is proposing to put on public service whistleblowers for making a protected disclosure to the Minister and that is regressive. Concerns were raised when it was discussed in the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach that this could lower existing standards. As the committee recommended, this should have been removed. It is good to see that penalisation will include vexatious proceedings and attempting to hinder further reporting. That is important and something we had a lot of conversations about during Committee Stage.

My party will support this Bill. We are looking forward to the Committee Stage debate to discuss it, to see what our different recommendations are and to see how we can work together to ensure we do what is best in the interests of everyone and of whistleblowers. When we talk about the best interests of whistleblowers we mean the best interests of everyone because the work whistleblowers do is essential to everyone in this State.

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution on the Bill. Protected disclosures and whistleblowers are often a force for good and an essential component in exposing corruption, illegality, criminality and wrongdoing in public and private bodies. Sometimes they are workers and sometimes they are volunteers and I hope that will get teased out. According to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, ODCE, whistleblowing is among the most effective means of exposing and remedying corruption, fraud and other types of wrongdoing in the public and private sectors. The important step is to protect the whistleblower and create the environment in which he or she can blow the whistle. Then we must also remedy the issue because that sends a powerful message to other whistleblowers. Often the fear that nothing will happen after you speak out causes people not to speak out when they really want to do so in order to make something happen. It is important that those two things would happen together.

We have seen time and time again that whistleblowing has been valuable in the areas of policing and law enforcement; environmental protection; finance; education; and healthcare. I want to pay tribute to those whistleblowers who have come forward and spoken up. We owe them and we should never forget that. My colleague, an Teachta Mairéad Farrell, has been raising the need to modernise legislation in this area since she was elected and this has been very high on her agenda. Along with an Teachta Buckley, she introduced legislation to amend the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 last December. I am sure the publication of that Bill went in no small way to ensuring we are discussing this Bill, which, as has been pointed out, is welcome. It is my firm contention that the Sinn Féin Bill from na Teachtaí Mairéad Farrell and Buckley has many superior aspects and I hope the Minister will take on board those constructive suggestions that have been coming from an Teachta Mairéad Farrell on Committee Stage. The Minister will be aware of those suggestions.

Modernisation of this legislation on protected disclosures is essential if we want to tackle corruption. For too long a lack of support and protections has left whistleblowers exposed to victimisation and penalisation. We have seen this happen before our eyes with high-profile whistleblowers in this State and we have sometimes seen the full weight of the machinery of the State come down on whistleblowers. I have worked with whistleblowers, held their hands, made them tea and tried to encourage them to come forward and sometimes they are terrified. They believe that if they can get the story they have to tell onto the right desk and if it is given the right attention, they will see real action taken. However, they are often terrified and the Oireachtas needs to send a message to them that we will be on their side and that when they come forward they will be listened to and believed. When it comes to protecting them in the inevitable aftermath, the full weight of the Oireachtas must be behind protecting them and making sure they do not go down the road we have seen other whistleblowers forced down. We need to be able to tell them they can come forward and that they will be believed and listened to. Most importantly we must be able to tell them that action will be taken and that they will be protected. As an Teachta Mairéad Farrell has outlined, we welcome this Bill and we look forward to strengthening it and making it more robust on Committee Stage.

Given what we know about whistleblowers in this State, legislation to protect them is not only welcome, but essential. Whistleblowers commonly report subsequent difficulty in the workplace and outright denial or dismissal of their concerns. They also report being pressed to take leave, sidelined, removed or replaced. The organisation intent on protecting itself too often hangs them out to dry. Recently we had Dr. Ankur Sharma in Kerry child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, who it is reported felt sidelined after he raised the serious and systemic failures in youth mental health services in Kerry. Who could forget Sergeant Maurice McCabe, and not what happened to him but what was done to him when he was forced out of the job he loved?

Protecting those who make disclosures in the public interest is vital and overdue and this Bill provides both internal and external channels for so doing.

It is especially troubling for those who disclose information that when it comes to the State, their own money, taxpayer's money, is used against them as the State engages in legal and other action to defend what is often indefensible, not because it should but because it can. The State uses public money and public resources to do so.

I am very happy to see that some of Sinn Féin's concerns about the Bill as initially presented have been addressed, although we do have some outstanding concerns. The Minister stated that he is open to accepting amendments on Committee Stage. It is the first time I have heard a Minister saying that since I was elected, and it is very welcome.

In terms of our outstanding concerns, first, there are no psychological supports on offer to the person making the disclosure, which is a serious omission. As Deputy Louise O'Reilly just outlined, many people are extremely nervous when it comes to making protected disclosures. The joint committee recommended that free legal aid and psychological services be provided to those making a disclosure. Such a provision was included in the Sinn Féin Bill presented by Deputies Mairéad Farrell and Buckley. Second, there is a new restrictive conditionality that must be satisfied before public service workers can make a disclosure to a Minister. This is referred to as an emergency situation. This disclosure will then automatically transfer to the protected disclosures office. Third, the Bill exempts private sector organisations with fewer than 50 employees from the reporting requirements. This is not only unnecessary, it creates risks. We have many financial services firms in Ireland, for example, that have fewer than 50 employees but they handle vast amounts of money. In that context, I hope the Minister will reconsider the exemption for companies with fewer than 50 employees because it means that anyone making a protected disclosure in such companies will not have access to the same protections. This is a flaw that will have to be addressed on Committee Stage. Fourth, the Bill does not remove the cap on awards. Since many whistleblowers face ruin in their careers, this is a serious omission which must be corrected. The Bill from Sinn Féin recommended that these caps be removed and a fair and equitable approach be taken. There is still much room for improvement and much work to be done to truly protect those who come forward. That said, the Bill is very welcome.

I thank Deputy Mairéad Farrell for her opening remarks. I also thank Minister for his opening remarks because while we will not always agree, we can agree to disagree.

I welcome the establishment of a new office but it needs teeth and adequate resources. Obviously, that can be chiselled out. There are some problematic sections including the exemption for smaller companies with fewer than 50 employees, which has already been mentioned. That will have to be teased out on Committee Stage.

The problem at the moment is that while people have been brave enough to come forward and make protected disclosures, the existing legislation, which is based on the European directive, is very weak. There is no procedure by means of which one can find out if a whistleblower was protected and if the issue that was reported was ever resolved. If there is going to be a commission, it needs to be fully resourced because it is very difficult, even for us, to get a reply all the way up to the final stop. When a report comes back to say that the issues have been addressed, often it is the case that they have not been. What happens then? There is nobody to investigate the body in question.

The issues of free legal aid and mental health assistance will also need to be teased out on Committee Stage. It is imperative that we protect whistleblowers. They should have 100% protection. To leave such provisions out of the Bill would be very worrying because we know that all of those who have been brave enough to make protected disclosures in the past have been damaged mentally, physically and financially. People do not make protected disclosures for glory or honour. Their actions are about doing the right thing in the public interest. Reference is made in the Bill to the option for whistleblowers to remain anonymous, although some are quite happy for their name to be made public when they make a protected disclosure.

I hope that we can resolve the issues of concern in this Bill. We will work together on it. This is about setting out a gold-standard protected disclosure regime that will benefit everybody in this country and I look forward to working with the Minister on the legislation.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share