Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 May 2022

Vol. 285 No. 8

Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill 2022: Second Stage

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

I am pleased to present the Bill to the House. This Bill provides for significant enhancements to the statutory framework for the protection of whistleblowers in Ireland. It updates the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 to provide for the transposition of the EU whistleblowing directive into Irish law, the establishment of a new office of the protected disclosures commissioner and to strengthen and clarify a number of areas of the 2014 Act where issues have arisen since enactment.

There can be no dispute about the importance of providing robust statutory protections for whistleblowers. Freedom of speech, including the freedom to speak up about wrongdoing without fear of retaliation, is one of the cornerstones of an open, fair and democratic society. We are all aware of a whole range of matters of vital public interest that would not have come to light were it not for the bravery of those who spoke up. Sadly, there are still too many instances where raising a concern has come at a great personal cost to whistleblowers and their families. This Bill represents a big step in the right direction in this regard.

The Protected Disclosures Act was innovative legislation for its time. When it was enacted in 2014, Ireland was only the sixth country in the EU to introduce comprehensive legislation for the protection of whistleblowers. The Act remains highly regarded internationally as one of the strongest laws of its type in the world. Many of the provisions of the EU directive are in place in Ireland courtesy of the 2014 Act. The Act provides for multiple channels to report wrongdoing so that if one channel fails for any reason, there are other options for workers to speak up in safety. The Act also prohibits any form of retaliation against a worker who makes a protected disclosure and provides protection from any civil or criminal liability for any disclosure of confidential information necessary to report a wrongdoing.

The directive goes a number of steps further, however. It significantly widens the scope of persons entitled to protection for speaking up. It requires medium and large enterprises to establish formal internal reporting channels for their employees. It sets out very clear steps that must be taken within clear timelines in respect of following up on all reports that are made. All of these changes are to be welcomed as they will further strengthen our legislation and ensure that Ireland remains a leading country in terms of the legal protections we provide to whistleblowers.

The publication of the initial proposals for the EU directive coincided with the statutory review of the 2014 Act, which was published in 2018. A decision was taken at that time that any recommendations for legislative change would be addressed during the transposition of the directive and this is what we are doing. Development of the legislation has also been informed by the public consultation on the transposition held in the summer of 2020.

The statutory review found that the 2014 Act was broadly operating as intended but a number of implementation issues were identified. A key finding was the need for clearer direction for recipients as to what to do with the reports they receive. The new requirements in this regard, 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. The Bill proposes a number of changes to the operation of the ministerial channel to address these issues, and the concerns raised in the third interim report of the disclosures tribunal. Key to this is a proposal in the Bill to establish a new office of the protected disclosures commissioner who will, among other things, 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 disclosures made to Ministers. The commissioner will also take on the role of a 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. This is in line with trends in other jurisdictions where national ombudsmen have been given similar responsibilities in this area.

The general scheme of the Bill was published in May 2021 and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach published its pre-legislative scrutiny report in December 2021. The committee, which includes a number of Members from this House, clearly put a significant amount of time and effort into hearing submissions from witnesses and into preparing the report.

The pre-legislative scrutiny process has proved very valuable in bringing all parties together in supporting the development of the Bill. This will be a model for how the pre-legislative scrutiny process adds value to the legislative process. I commend all members of the committee in this regard.

The Bill was published in February 2022, and it took on board many of the recommendations in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. On Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann, a number of amendments to the Bill were made to implement a number of outstanding recommendations from the pre-legislative scrutiny report. These included: a provision allowing persons who made protected disclosures prior to the coming into force of this legislation to request and obtain feedback on the actions taken or envisaged to be taken on foot of their disclosures; a provision allowing reporting persons to request and obtain further feedback at three-month intervals, in addition to the initial feedback required under the directive; an amendment to the conditions for reporting to a prescribed person under section 7 of the principal Act to ensure no conflict with a non-regression clause in Article 25.2 of the directive; a provision requiring that when a prescribed person or the protected disclosures commissioner needs to transmit a report to another prescribed person for action, that this be done in a secure manner and in accordance with data protection law; a provision requiring that a statutory review of the legislation be carried out five years after enactment; and a provision for the protected disclosures commissioner to make an annual report on the operation of the legislation. All of these amendments arose from the recommendations in the pre-legislative scrutiny report, or from suggestions made when the Bill was debated in Dáil Éireann.

I will 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, which is the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. Some sections of the Bill are also quite technical, and in this regard I will make my officials available to any Member if any further technical briefing on this Bill is required.

I will outline the Parts of the Bill. 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.

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. Of particular note in section 4 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 these are 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 directive and for the insertion of a new section 5A into the Act, which provides that the Act does not apply to personal employment grievances, in order to address last December's ruling of the Supreme Court in the 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 if 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. A derogation until December 2023 is provided for medium-sized enterprises with between 50 and 249 employees. This section also provides that the Minister can 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 be given to the reporting person within three months. These rules are at the core of the directive and, therefore, are 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. It 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 office of the protected disclosures commissioner and comprises sections 14 and 15, inclusive. Section 14 inserts six new sections, sections 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.

I can continue or come back in later.

The Minister of State will have another opportunity to come back in again later, if he would not mind. We will take some Senators now, as I am conscious of time. The Minister of State will have time at the end to complete his statement and he might want to hear the questions now. Is the Minister of State happy with that?

That is absolutely fine.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I welcome his work on the Bill. It is great to see the legislation updated. It has been there since 2014. The Bill is very important. Of late, we have lots of experience of whistleblowers, what they can and cannot do, and how their lives are destroyed. Sergeant McCabe, of course, comes to mind, as well as others. I really welcome the Minister of State's work on the Bill. It is very important. We have seen how important protected disclosures legislation has been in Irish life since it was introduced. We think of all the big cases but it is also important to remember that hundreds of disclosures about issues big and small have been made in the years since the legislation was enacted. The improvements and protections in this amending Bill are hugely welcome and would have made a huge difference to people in the past, including Sergeant McCabe, if we had had them sooner. It is great that the Minister of State is the one who saw the need to do this and has improved it vastly. It was badly needed.

Just last week I met Ms Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur for human rights defenders - I am an ambassador with Front Line Defenders - and she raised a few interesting issues. An element in this Bill might be very good for what she was looking for. One provision of the Bill extends the scope to volunteers, unpaid trainees, board members, shareholders and job applicants, none of whom had any protections before. This is a huge one. Front-line defenders are, in most cases, volunteers, and it is very important that we have included them. As a person who has volunteered a lot, I am aware that there are often no protections for volunteers in this regard. It is very important that the Minister of State has included this.

Cases have been documented around the world by Irish companies. In one example, Moneypoint power station changed a supplier as a result of a complaint made about it accessing coal from the Cerrejón mine in Colombia. That mine was absolute carnage when it came to human rights abuses. Thanks to the legislation, the ESB is not getting coal from there now. Unfortunately, it is still getting coal, and we are working on that as well, but at least it is no longer from the most inhumane coal mine in the world. It just shows the importance of this type of legislation.

Thankfully, the EU has been looking at this and has released a draft directive on due diligence, about which I have also been having meetings. It is looking at the supply chain, ethics, and human rights abuses on the supply chain.

Will the Minister of State indicate if there is anything we can do to strengthen provisions in our national legislation with regard to whistleblowing that could help people to draw attention to abuses in the supply chain by Irish companies?

It is just something to think about taking further. We import goods from companies that have very questionable human rights and pay standards. I will not mention any in particular - or I might. Fair trade was one thing, but now we also have images of sweatshops, child labour and so on. We have not yet gone far enough in Ireland to look at that and at what we allow in. I know that the Minister of State is doing lots of good work on the circular economy, carbon emissions and much tighter procurement, but we have to look at the ethics around procurement and what we import as well. If we have this really good legislation here in Ireland, we should demand the same of Irish companies working abroad. I will give the House two examples. There is the case of Smurfit Kappa. It has scored zero on Trinity Business School's human rights due diligence indicators. That is worrying because we expect Irish companies to have the highest standards not just in Ireland but everywhere else as all humans are equal, so it is important we look at that.

We should not name individual companies-----

Sorry. I withdraw that.

It is a matter of due process.

I am just wondering how the law can support us in making sure that our companies when they go abroad have the same respect for human rights as other countries do. This is not Animal Farm. We are all equal. If people are to be paid properly in Ireland, they should be paid properly in other countries as well. We have to have proper standards in the workplace on pay, clean air etc. We have to take care of the workers no matter where they are in the world.

This is outside the scope of the Bill, but I wish to put one case on the Seanad record. It relates to an Irish citizen in Togo who has been in prison without trial for the past three and a half years. I know that this does not fall under the Minister of State's remit, but it is important to highlight it. When I met with Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur-----

Senator, will you stick to the Bill, please?

Yes. This links into it, if you will just let me finish, Acting Chairperson. Mary Lawlor is the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders. She highlighted to me the need to include human rights defenders as stakeholders in the EU directive. I think this Bill will help us strengthen the EU directive. As a country, since we have this strong improvement to the law around volunteers being protected, perhaps we could look at bringing that to EU level. I will probably work with our MEPs on this as well. This law will help us to bring the case to EU level to make sure that the directive is watertight in protecting people such as the front-line defenders, who are volunteers and who are now protected in the amendment the Government is bringing in.

This is very relevant in some ways because we are talking about human rights. We all know that if one puts one's head above the parapet, often one gets into trouble. In Ireland we are very lucky in some ways because, as countries go and protest goes, it is a very safe place for freedom of speech, speaking out and calling out issues around employment and companies, whereas in other countries one sees people such as the girl in Togo who has been in jail for the past three and a half years. She is an Irish citizen and nothing is happening. There are no supports for her at all. That would not happen in Ireland. We can give out about this country all we want but it is a really safe place to be a protestor and to be a worker who stands up for one's rights, compared with other countries, where people get jailed just for asking questions.

That is why this Bill is so important. If we want to set the standards, as we are doing today with this legislation, improving Irish law to protect volunteers, including people such as front-line defenders, we could take that to the EU directive and maybe look at strengthening the wording of this directive to make it watertight for people. As someone who has never been able to keep her mouth shut in calling out problems from a very young age, I feel the need to speak up for others who do so on much more serious cases. The human rights abuses that go on in other countries are appalling, as we know. We do not always think about it when we spend our money, unfortunately, but it is really good that we have this in place today. I hope we can set the standards higher for the EU. I am sorry for mentioning one Irish company, but I hope that all Irish companies, no matter where they are in the world, be it Russia, Colombia, Togo or South America - Irish companies are very successful - see all the humans they deal with as equals and treat them as we would want our own to be treated. This legislation makes it such that everybody is treated well and their human rights are respected. We should expect the same from every Irish company anywhere in the world.

The Minister of State is welcome to the House. I thank him. It would have been good to hear his presentation in full. This is a very comprehensive piece of work. Clearly, the Minister of State has engaged right across all sectors to try to bring forward the best possible legislation in this area.

Protected disclosure is something that has bothered me quite considerably since I came into this House because I think there is a massive misconception as to what precisely protected disclosure is and how one should go about making a disclosure. Members of this House and of the Dáil constantly receive blanket emails from members of the public who have an issue with an employer, a public service or whatever else. They always front up such submissions as protected disclosures. They have contacted everybody in the world to tell them they are making a protected disclosure, thereby doing away with any chance of protecting their own good names. Very frequently the issue that is raised with Members of the Oireachtas is not really conducive to protected disclosure. I am delighted that the Government is putting a commissioner in place and that that will allow people who are uncertain as to how to go about making a disclosure to go through the office of the commissioner, who will then direct them to the correct place.

My colleague, Senator Garvey, made reference to people on the front line and voluntary groups. There is no doubt, from recent evidence that has come to Oireachtas joint committees and to Members of the Oireachtas individually, but that there is a desperate need within the voluntary sector for an avenue through which to pursue a protected disclosure where people believe their personal safety or the safety of their colleagues is at stake.

Moreover, when it comes to improving organisations, all of us - none of us are immune from this - when we are in management positions in organisations sometimes believe that the protection of the organisation is more important than the protection of the individual worker. I think that that is addressed in the Bill. Workers will have an avenue to go down to make their disclosures and, because of the reporting mechanisms that have been built in, once a disclosure is made there is a feedback sequence that can be followed. From that point of view, this will be really important.

Section 16, which protects the individual's identity, is an excellent piece of work. We have all come across situations that needed rectifying. I have done so, particularly in my trade union and teaching backgrounds and in industry before that. Sadly, the tendency is to isolate the person who identifies the problem and to make him or her seem to be the demon rather than somebody who is trying to improve the workforce for everybody. From that point of view, the Bill will go a long way, particularly with the use of the commissioner.

Employers need a bit of education here. Not everybody who makes a protected disclosure does so for malicious purposes. Even as a trade unionist, I can appreciate that some people will be malicious in seeking to use this legislation in order to inflict some sort of pain on their employer. Protections are needed for the employer or for named people, shall we say, such that the legislation is not used for malicious purposes. In fairness, I think 99 out of 100 people would never do that, but the important thing is that we look at the person making the disclosure as having given an honest and fair disclosure and that it is up the employer to prove that that is wrong. From that point of view, the Bill is really welcome.

Alongside protected disclosures, and in the same general area, is bullying in the workplace. One of the real problems for somebody making a disclosure is that he or she will be subjected to bullying in the workplace. By its very nature, bullying in the workplace is a cowardly one-on-one act that most people are not aware of.

Most people will know that bullies have a street image and a private image, and in the private image they are horrible people who attack others, not personally but psychologically or mentally. There are several instances of people who have taken their own lives as a result of bullying in the workplace. It is something we have to examine in the context of protected disclosures because the release of a person's name can lead to that person being identified, even by colleagues. Consider a situation where there is a safety issue and the safety issue has been brought to the management. Everybody has been happy enough working with it, but there is one guy who insists that, for example, the safety rope is in place before the job starts or the like. He can be seen to be a crank when, in fact, he is trying to protect everybody else. There is an opportunity with this legislation to ensure that such information gets back.

I have three suggestions for the Minister of State. One is that we educate employers with respect to their responsibilities for protected disclosures. Having the legislation in place is one thing but to educate people as to how to process it is vital. Second, we should educate the general public. A member of the public should be able to make a protected disclosure against an organisation about a particular thing he or she observes without fear of reprisal of any sort. Third, it is more important to get into the public domain what is not a protected disclosure rather than what is. If we do that, we will go a long way.

I compliment the Minister of State for bringing this legislation forward and I am grateful to him for his decision to make his officials available as this Bill goes through the House. If there are issues that we wish to query or on which we want to have more information, his officials will be available to us. I hope the Bill passes through the House smoothly and that we get it implemented as quickly as possible. I thank the Minister of State for his time today.

I welcome our guests from Ardgillan Community College in Balbriggan to the House. I hope they enjoy their day and I am delighted they are listening to our exchange on this legislation. I thank them for coming.

To clarify for Members, we are governed by the Order of Business, which was agreed by the House this morning. It sets out the speaking roster and the times. It was clearly indicated that the Minister of State would have ten minutes, but he will have more than ten minutes to wrap up. That is what the Members agreed to on the Order of Business in respect of this legislation going through the House today. I am in their hands; it is not my decision.

On a point of order, in future when we are setting out times on the Order of Business for a legislative measure as large as this, the Minister needs more time.

That is a matter for you on the Order of Business. I call Senator Wilson.

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials to the House. I join the Acting Chairperson in welcoming the young people and their teachers in the Visitors Gallery.

Senators Garvey and Craughwell have covered most of the points I had intended to cover.

Great minds think alike.

On behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, I am happy to welcome this Bill, which will enhance and strengthen protections for whistleblowers in Ireland.

The general interpretation of a protected disclosure is a written communication of a concern made in good faith which discloses or demonstrates information that may make evident an unethical or improper activity. I am conscious that we have a Member of the House who, 21 years ago, disclosed a very important issue and it is only recently that it was vindicated, so I look forward to hearing what Senator Clonan has to say. If one thinks it is difficult for people to make a protected disclosure now, can one imagine what it was like 21 years ago in that particular organisation?

I am very anxious to hear what Senator Clonan says.

As the Minister of State has outlined, Ireland is one of a small number of EU countries that had a regime in place prior to the European directive. The 2014 Act has afforded vital protection to whistleblowers, but it is not perfect and we have learned much since the Act came into operation. There have been a number of high-profile cases in recent years, as has been mentioned by colleagues, which showed that we can never be complacent about the protection of those who are reporting wrongdoing by either public or private sector organisations. It is important that we take the opportunity now to improve our legislative framework to continue to deal with protected disclosures in a fair and proper manner. The implementation of the EU directive and the amendments proposed in the Bill before us will further strengthen protections for whistleblowers and maintain Ireland's position as a leader in this area.

The Bill will extend the scope of the legislation by providing protection for volunteers. I cannot understand why volunteers, shareholders, board members and job applicants were not protected initially under the 2014 Act by transposing the EU whistleblowing directive into law. Are there any other job titles that are not protected under the legislation? I realise that it is difficult to legislate for everything in a list form, but I am concerned about what professions are not protected. The legislation will lead to the establishment in private sector organisations with 50 or more employees of formal channels and procedures that will permit their employees to make protected disclosures, as is currently the case in the public sector. This will mean that employers and prescribed persons who receive protected disclosures will be required to acknowledge them, follow up on the allegations made and give feedback to the reporting person within three months of the disclosure. These changes will be monitored and enforced by the inspectorate of the Workplace Relations Commission. This will give greater certainty to both employers and whistleblowers as to what will happen when a protected disclosure is made.

The establishment of the new office of the protected disclosures commissioner in the Office of the Ombudsman to support the operation of the new legislation is to be welcomed. It will allow the commissioner to direct protected disclosures to the most appropriate body when it is unclear which body is responsible. It will thus ensure that all protected disclosures will be dealt with appropriately. The commissioner will also have responsibility for transmitting all protected disclosures made to Ministers to the most appropriate authority for assessment and thorough follow-up. A further change that I welcome is that in civil proceedings the burden of proof will be reversed so it will fall to the employer to prove that any alleged act of penalisation did not occur because the person made a protected disclosure.

We have a comprehensive whistleblowing law in place in the form of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, and the transposition of the whistleblowing directive will require some amendments to that Act. As I said, the other points I had intended to raise have been dealt with by my colleagues. I look forward to the Minister of State's reply to them. However, I have some brief questions. What protections are there for employers, be they State or private, from vindictive complaints? There is no doubt that they will occur.

I also have a concern about anonymous complaints. I can understand why they are anonymous due to the reality of the situation, and I have experienced it with people who are related to me. When one makes a protected disclosure one becomes a whistleblower, which is a term I do not like to be frank, and one is targeted. I can understand why people would wish to make anonymous complaints, but there is a danger in that as well. I am concerned about it in that anybody can make a complaint about anybody and the person does not have to put his or her name to it. There is a difficulty in that. I can understand the reason for it, but I believe it could be open to abuse.

I would be interested in seeing what job titles are not covered by this legislation and what the reasons for that are.

I welcome the Bill.

I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on progressing this important legislation. It is always important that legislation be reviewed and improved as time goes on, given that situations change. Even though 2014 was not that long ago, the Act was groundbreaking legislation for the time and, as the Minister of State mentioned, one of the strongest Acts on whistleblowing across the EU. However, it is important that we always consider how to strengthen it.

"Protected disclosure" or "whistleblowing" can have an array of meanings. Widely defined, it applies to the following: the commission of criminal offences; a failure to comply with legal obligations; endangering the health and safety of individuals; damaging the environment; a miscarriage of justice; a misuse of public funds; oppressive, discriminatory, grossly negligent or grossly mismanaged acts or omissions by a public body; and the concealment or destruction of information about any of the above wrongdoings. This array is important to note.

The original Act covers employees, former employees, trainees, people working under contract for services, independent contractors, agency workers, people on work experience and gardaí. For whatever reason, it does not cover volunteers, although public bodies can, if they wish, investigate reports of wrongdoing from volunteers. The new amendments to the Act will include protections for board members, which is important, shareholders, volunteers, unpaid trainees and job applicants who make protected disclosures. Board members do an important job and they come across information on which they have a responsibility to act, so being brought under the protection of whistleblower legislation is important.

One of the foundation stones of whistleblowing is the retention of anonymity. Our problem is that we are in a small country. While I will not say that everyone knows one another, people know, people hear and people talk in local authorities and State agencies. Gossip is currency. No matter how anonymous a protected disclosure is, it will get out there. We have seen this in high-profile cases and how the impact is not just on the whistleblower but also on his or her spouse, partner and children. If the State closes ranks on a person, it can be a lonely place for the whistleblower-----

-----and his or her family. We have all seen instances where someone in a company or public body is not even whistleblowing, but is instead just challenging or looking for improvements. That can be unwelcome at times, and it can be a very lonely place for a person in those circumstances.

I note the protections as regards information. Information leaks, so it is important that there are safeguards relating to encryption and so on within the Bill. Once upon a time, one would have had to hand someone information physically. Nowadays, it can be done electronically – for example, by copying something on one's phone and sending a WhatsApp message. I am not in any way an expert on encryption security, but I am concerned about how easy it is to pass on information.

The Minister of State mentioned a threshold of 50 to 249 employees, with some leeway for companies to improve their data protections and so on. What responsibilities do companies with fewer than 50 employees have? While I appreciate that we do not want to overburden any employer with costs, what would happen with a protected disclosure in such cases and what responsibility would the employer have to ensure privacy?

It is important to note that grievances may also be protected disclosures. If someone has a concern or complaint about selection criteria or a promotion and feels that there are questions to be answered – I have concerns following questions raised with me about a certain public body – such issues need to be examined.

Regarding the formal channels and procedures for making protected disclosures, it is important that workers know what they have to do and how to do it, and that the information they provide is protected and secure.

It is important that the protected disclosures commissioner be located within the Office of the Ombudsman. We do not need a new body.

Section 8, which amends section 6 of the principal Act, relates to a person employed by a public body who makes a protected disclosure prior to the enactment of the Bill. This is important and welcome.

Section 17 inserts section 16A in the principal Act and relates to the protection of the identities of persons named in the report. In a situation I am dealing with, an anonymous complaint was made and received in a certain Department. It led to an investigation and the suspension of the person. I have received follow-up letters from employers within said organisation – again, anonymously – naming people even though they are under investigation and stating that the Garda would be investigating the matter in the coming weeks. I am concerned about the level of confidentiality. This comes back to how we are a small country. Be they all in one building or scattered around the country, employees in public bodies talk and know what is happening, so the level of privacy in such cases is not as high as one would imagine. Legislating for this is difficult, though, because gossip is currency and everyone loves a bit of gossip. When a complaint is made in the fashion we are discussing under this legislation, it is a serious issue and needs to be investigated seriously. People need to be confident that, when they make such a complaint, the information is secure and they and their anonymity are protected insofar as possible.

It is good to see the Minister of State. He is welcome.

The Bill is to be welcomed for the most part. My colleagues in the Dáil have played a key role in terms of amendments to the Bill. Improving the existing legislation is long overdue. Down the years, we have heard all too often of the horror stories and treatment of whistleblowers when they came forward and spoke out. Attempts by authorities to protect their reputations have often resulted in destroying the whistleblowers' reputations. There is usually a circling of the wagons and a casting of aspersions on the characters or motivations of the whistleblowers. However, whistleblowers play a vital role in our society. It is well known that whistleblowing is one of the most effective ways of stopping wrongdoing. Many cases of corruption and fraud are exposed by workers reporting same to their employers, regulators or the press.

It needs to be said that the Bill only came about because of the EU’s whistleblowing directive and its mandatory reporting requirements as opposed to a desire by the Government to improve our existing legislation on protected disclosures. However, from what we have seen in the Dáil debates and the extensive work completed by the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach, the Minister has worked well with all parties and none and has taken on board some of the issues raised by academics and groups such as Transparency International and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties.

There was engagement with bodies representing the legal profession and those working within mental health services. All of this engagement played a valuable role in helping to shape the 60 recommendations of the pre-legislative scrutiny report. I would also like to acknowledge all of the work my Sinn Féin colleagues, Deputies Mairéad Farrell and Buckley, have put into this Bill. They worked as constructively as possible with the Government parties at each stage. They had introduced legislation to amend the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 last December and, I believe, many of Deputy Mairéad Farrell's proposed amendments were accepted. However, there are still a few concerns I would like to raise with the Minister of State.

Removing the right to make protected disclosures directly to a Minister under section 8 is a retrograde step. Experts who appeared before the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach were also of this view. The Office of the Parliamentary Legal Adviser had similar concerns. There are legitimate concerns that this could violate the non-regression clause in the directive, which states that the transposition must not be used as an opportunity to lower existing standards. New restrictive conditions are introduced which must be met before a public service worker can make a disclosure to the Minister. This means that these workers will generally have to exhaust the internal procedures in their workplace before making a protected disclosure to the Minister. Our amendments in this regard propose the deletion of the entire section on the new stepped procedure.

I differ from my good colleague Senator Wilson on explicitly exempting relevant organisations from accepting anonymous disclosures because there are very real reasons why someone may need to make an anonymous disclosure. In the case of an instance of child abuse or something of that nature, a person may wish to hide his or her identity. Certain organisations should not be able to refuse to accept such disclosures.

On rejecting protected disclosures that can be characterised as interpersonal grievances, if a protected disclosure can be characterised as deriving from an interpersonal grievance – for instance, if bullying was involved – the employer would be able to channel this complaint down the road of a respect and dignity complaint rather than a protected disclosure. This would lower protections for someone making a genuine protected disclosure which has been misclassified as a bullying complaint. If there is serious wrongdoing that someone wishes to reveal, the motivation of the discloser should not be grounds to prevent acceptance as a protected disclosure and to deny the worker the protections he or she would receive as a result of having made one.

My fourth concern relates to the introduction of criminal penalties for knowingly making false reports. This is likely to be used as a deterrent by employers to discourage people from making protected disclosures. For example, as part of the information employers must provide to employees, a warning that employees could face criminal sanction could be included, which could have a chilling effect.

I have a couple of other points to make. On the resourcing of the new office, some concerns have been raised with regard to making sure this resourcing is adequate. There has been talk of this new office having three staff members, which would clearly not be adequate. I would welcome any assurances the Minister of State can give in that regard. I support the point Senator Garvey made with regard to including human rights defenders and front-line defenders. I wonder if the Senator would consider submitting an amendment on this matter on Committee Stage and how the Minister of State would feel about such an amendment.

There is an opportunity here in the Seanad to look at these issues further before the Bill goes back to the Dáil, which it will as the Minister of State has indicated that he proposes amendments to it, which are also welcome. I acknowledge that there are difficulties with the issue of the retrospective application of the Bill but, if anything can be worked out in order to expand protection for whistleblowers who fall through the cracks, that would be very worthwhile. Sinn Féin is happy to support the passage of this Bill. We hope the Minister of State will continue to engage constructively with us, particularly with regard to the amendments we intend to table on the points I have raised.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the Chamber. I very much welcome this Bill. As has already been alluded to, the Government is late in transposing the directive. The Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach carried out really good pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, however. I understand that the Minister of State has signalled in the Dáil that he is very much open to amendments proposed in the Seanad. That is to be welcomed. I will put on the record that we owe great thanks to a number of groups that came before the committee during its meetings on the pre-legislative scrutiny. I refer to Transparency International, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the journalist Mick Clifford and others who contributed.

Any of us who have dealt with, advocated for or represented people who hold information about wrongdoing will know the frustration and the enormous personal, physical and mental toll those individuals and their families face in trying to vindicate their allegations, protect their own integrity and, ultimately, protect the public interest, or a private interest, as the case may be. The broadening and deepening of the scope of this Bill is very much to be welcomed. It is very important that Senator Clonan is here in the Chamber. I am delighted to have him as a Senator and I look forward to his contribution because listening to personal experiences is extremely important.

It has already been said that Ireland is one of a small number of countries that has legislation in this space. Of course, it was my colleague, Deputy Howlin, who brought forward the legislation in 2014. I am glad that we are updating and reforming that legislation now. I will talk about some of the concerns in a second but first I will note that it is positive that we are seeing the protected disclosure legislation extended to unpaid trainees, volunteers, shareholders, board members and job applicants. These are people who may be on the margins of organisations but still very much part of them. It is also positive that we are putting in place more defined timelines and that a protected disclosures office is to be established. I have dealt with two cases of protected disclosure. Any of us who has personal experience of dealing with individuals who have lodged a protected disclosure or who have listened to Michael Clifford will know of the exceedingly and excruciatingly long time it can take for a protected disclosure to be processed. I was struck by something Michael Clifford said, which was that it was only when he published information surrounding a protected disclosure that an investigator was appointed, often after the investigation having been delayed for months or longer. In that respect, establishing a protected disclosures office is really important.

Others have mentioned the need to resource that office. That will be absolutely crucial given the public agencies and Departments that new office will be up against. I am struck by one case in particular I know of in which the buck has effectively been passed between two Departments. They both have responsibility for this particular issue but neither is willing to take it on. This new office is going to come up against very powerful forces so we need to see it adequately resourced when it is established.

With regard to concerns about the Bill, an issue that came up as very important during pre-legislative scrutiny, and which also came up in the Dáil, is the issue of retrospective application of the Bill for investigations that have been commenced but left uncompleted. The very nature of many of the protected disclosures is that they have been left hanging for a long period. I am reassured that the Minister of State is going to table amendments in this regard in the Seanad. We look forward to the detail of those. It is really important that we see as wide a scope as possible with regard to that retrospective application.

My second main concern relates to the organisations to which the provisions will apply. I have read the arguments justifying the minimum threshold of 50 but I must say that I do not buy them. It is important to say that the responsibilities imposed by the Bill are to ensure that a process is in place for an event which is usually rare but which is very important. There seems to be a presumption that the making of a protected disclosure is very common or frequent but we know that it is not. There are many people who decided previously not to make a protected disclosure when they should have but, by and large, this is not an everyday occurrence. When we talk about the costs to businesses, we need to put things in perspective. Particularly for smaller organisations, it is precisely because they are more informal and less structured that the potential for victimisation and penalisation is all the greater, as is the deterrent to making a protected disclosure.

It is for that reason we need to have formal processes in place in all organisations and that staff are made aware of them. I am struck because Transparency International talks about how only 30% of private sector employers have some sort of process in place. To me, it is not necessarily about the process itself; it is about the clear message that is sent to every member of staff that there is a facility to be able to lodge a protected disclosure if they see wrongdoing. It has been said that the absence or presence of an internal process does not diminish a worker's right to report wrongdoing. I recognise that there is a distinction between the right of a worker to report and the mandated responsibility of a firm to have systems in place, but again we must go back to what kind of message is sent if there is no formal process in place within an organisation.

I also note that four sectors have been expressly excluded from that minimum threshold provision. It is too narrow. I do not think it is good enough that we name some sectors and then say we are going to take a risk assessment in the consultation with regard to others. I would like to see evidence as to why a professional services firm like an accountancy firm has to be treated differently from, let us say, a financial services firm. I would very much urge the Minister of State to broaden that list and ensure it is hardwired into the legislation.

The last issue I want to raise in the few seconds available is the lack of civil legal aid to whistleblowers. Many of us on the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach are very frustrated by the cap on compensation for penalisation. We know that a person who takes his or her case to the higher courts does so with a very significant element of personal risk. Given that a protected disclosure is being made in the public interest, which is why we have this legislation, and not in the personal interest, it is incumbent on us to do as much as possible to ensure that we protect and look after those who have put themselves at considerable risk in making a protected disclosure.

As the Minister of State outlined, the context of this legislation is the transposition of the EU whistleblower directive and the amendment of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. There are many positive elements within this legislation but there are also concerns. Given that we are entering the period of legislative scrutiny, I will highlight some of the concerns.

I know Transparency Ireland will have contacted the Minister of State outlining its belief that there are elements in the way the transposition of the directive is proposed in the current Bill that could directly or indirectly weaken some of the existing protections for Irish whistleblowers. That would be in violation of Article 85.2 of the EU whistleblower directive. There is a requirement under the whistleblower directive for a progressive strengthening of protections whereas there are certain components within the legislation, as proposed, that could constitute a weakening, again, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, we really hope that as the legislation goes through the Seanad, this can perhaps be addressed and strengthened so that we are not putting forward legislation that could face a legal challenge either in Ireland or the European courts.

There are a few core areas in terms of weakening this, one of which is the limitation or removal of the right to make protected disclosures directly to a Minister. The standard for the legislation to protect under section 8 is reasonable belief. Under section 8, it is proposed that public servants would be required to report to their employer in most circumstances, thereby removing the automatic right of public servants to make a public disclosure directly to a Minister. Again, we have the danger whereby disclosures are getting captured within the hierarchy of an employment system and, indeed, within the power dynamics of that system, when it may be an issue of quite significant national concern that should be allowed to be disclosed directly to a Minister. This also dilutes existing legal protections for public servants in terms of prosecution, penalisation or detriment if they choose to make a disclosure directly to a Minister. The danger is not just in terms of that route not being open, therefore, but that many people will not be aware there is a set of steps they need to have taken. As we have heard very eloquently across this House, many people who are motivated to make a disclosure in this regard do so out of public concern and for the public interest. In doing so, and there are other measures within this Bill, they should not face a situation whereby they effectively find themselves excluded from the provisions and protections of this legislation. Many of them will never read this legislation. They will see an issue in their area of expertise or area of concern and look to highlight that to the person they see as the key decision-maker. Therefore, it is a real concern if, effectively, those who go directly to a Minister may end up not activating the protections under this legislation and somehow fall outside the loop.

Another very significant concern is the exemption in terms of relevant organisations accepting anonymous disclosures. At the moment, there is an exemption for organisations for an obligation to accept or follow up on disclosures that are made anonymously. Again, it allows that the recipients may do so if they give appropriate notice but that requirement is really a big get-out clause in having to follow this up.

I will point out that the 2014 Act did not say anything about anonymous disclosures. The current legislation explicitly states that anonymous disclosures can be disregarded. That is a regressive step and, again, brings us back to that concern around Article 25.2 of the EU directive. It is a really important issue because this is not to say every single anonymous disclosure needs to have a full investigation. There are already filters and mechanisms within the Bill whereby if a disclosure is made, there is an examination as to whether it is, in fact, relevant under the Protected Disclosures Act and whether it merits an investigation and so forth. The point is that the Bill at the moment basically allows for a summary disregard, so the issues that have been raised anonymously do not have to be thought about at all rather than examining the issues on their merits, which, bear in mind, are issues for the public concern - they are not issues for the individuals involved. The issues should basically just be examined and then organisations can say they have been told about this concern and they can see if that is a valid issue. If it is, they can proceed through the process as such. In fact, it is an immediate get-out clause and, again, we know the levels of penalisation that have been experienced by whistleblowers. People should not have to choose, as many whistleblowers have had to do, between their personal well-being, the next ten years of their life and what that will look like, the security of their family and doing something they believe to be in the public interest or that raises a flag of concern. I am really worried about that provision with regard to a summary right to disregard anonymous disclosures.

I am also concerned about the interpersonal grievances piece because I think there is a blurring of the line. Yes, of course, we need to guard against the blurring of the line but we also know there are situations where people who complain, and who many times will complain long before they make a protected disclosure, can be targeted within their workplaces. Therefore, they may well have interpersonal grievances or be subject to grievance procedures or other actions from, for example, a manager against whom they have complained or challenged at the same time as they may also wish to make protected disclosures. It is really important that it is made clear that if it is an interpersonal grievance, then it is not a protected disclosure, because at the moment it is very vague. It needs to be made very clear to people that they can do both. At the moment, there is a danger of a chilling effect on protected disclosure for anybody who may separately be involved in an interpersonal matter with his or her employer.

There are quite strong criminal sanctions for false reports. There are not similar sanctions for false information with regard to those against whom a complaint is being made.

Finally, there is another really big issue, which has been discussed, about retrospective complaints. In a way, I do not even like using the word "retrospective" because for many of those who have been involved in these processes, I would regard them as being current procedures. The effects and impacts they have suffered in terms of penalisation are ongoing. Many of them, in fact, have never received anything in terms of payments in respect of penalisation or other payments. They basically never had that.

Many of them have never received information about what the resolution or outcome of the disclosure they made was. I would regard a large number of those past protected disclosures as current protected disclosures and I believe these people should be entitled to any protections, measures or compensation available under this legislation. When we look to the people who have done that public service, it is vital that that be reflected and that they be included. It is retrospective in terms of when someone made the disclosure but the process, the penalisation and the lack of resolution are ongoing. This legislation is a chance to address that. I also support the points made by Senator Sherlock about the threshold of 50 employees. Someone could have a very small company, sometimes a brass plate company, and that company may be the window into quite a significant issue of public concern.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for being here. I have some concerns about the legislation. I am delighted to see another whistleblower, Peter Behan, here. I am sorry Antoinette and Noel McGree and other whistleblowers cannot be here.

My first concern is about section 8, which removes the right to make protected disclosures directly to a Minister. This applied to me back in 2000 when I finished my PhD. It was not a solitary act of whistleblowing but a piece of research supervised by Dublin City University, right up to the level of its registrar and its solicitors at the time, Arthur Cox. I was also supervised up to the level of Chief of Staff within the Defence Forces and had to seek written permission to continue the research. What I found was the systematic and systemic sexual assault and rape of female soldiers. You can make a moral argument for theft, lying and even killing. That is the premise upon which we use force in the armed forces and An Garda Síochána. However, there is one thing we as a species cannot tolerate and that is sexual assault, sexual abuse and rape. That organisation did everything in its power to destroy me as a person and my family. It sent the military police to my house to intimidate me, my wife and our young child. This was not Shanghai, Myanmar or Beijing; this was Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, a place the Minister of State is familiar with. Removing the right of a person to approach the Minister is a retrograde step and reduces protections for whistleblowers.

Ireland has a very particular and toxic culture when it comes to whistleblowing. The 2014 Act, for example, contains within it the assumption that the person who calls attention to wrongdoing will lose his or her job. We need to think about that. There is no mention in this legislation of those who engage in reprisal against whistleblowers. My sin or crime was calling out sexual violence and sexual assault. If that is a crime, take me out and hang me. The people who actively engaged in that reprisal have now been promoted to very senior rank in our Defence Forces. They have never faced any scrutiny, questioning or interrogation because of their actions. There has been no sanction, only reward. In Ireland, if you tell the truth and speak out about wrongdoing you will be punished. If you defend the organisation, whether in health, the voluntary sector or any other area of Irish life, you will be rewarded and promoted, perhaps even given a big job in Europe. That sends a very mixed message to our children and our youth. If one of my children or a neighbour came to me and said he or she had experienced wrongdoing, my advice would be to see a solicitor immediately and protect himself or herself, notwithstanding what is contained in this legislation.

Back in 2001, I was threatened with criminal prosecution for breaching the Official Secrets Act. I was told by my former comrades that a file was being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions and that I would face criminal prosecution. Press statements were released saying I had fabricated the research and falsified its findings. Ireland is not a safe place to tell the truth. I have to disagree with the honourable Senator who said so. It is not a safe place. Ask Maurice McCabe, Peter Behan or Noel McGree. Ask their families about the suffering they endure. The people who engage in the reprisal face no sanction. There is nothing in this legislation to deal with that but there ought to be, instead of criminalising people for making allegedly false disclosures. What saved me was Michael Smith, the Fianna Fáil Minister for Defence at the time. When I approached him directly, he put in place an independent Government inquiry. He did not allow the Defence Forces to investigate themselves. That is something every person who brings forward a disclosure should be able to rely on. Such people should be able to talk to the Minister. What else are we here for? Why is Deputy Smyth a Minister? Why would anybody be a Minister, save to take responsibility for what happens within his or her Department?

The other provisions I have concerns about are those exempting relevant organisations from accepting anonymous disclosures in the proposed new section 5A(1). After what I have said, and after what my good friend Maurice McCabe experienced, where they not only tried to destroy him existentially but tried to destroy his relationship and his family, the Government expects people to dispense with their anonymity? The Government must listen to whistleblowers and to Transparency International because we are the people who know what we are talking about, notwithstanding any advice the Government may have been given, legal or otherwise.

Organisations will be able to use the removal of wrongdoings involving interpersonal grievances as a stick with which to beat people who bring forward disclosures. Whistleblower reprisals involve a very personalised, systemic and systematic attack on a person to completely destroy his or her character, reputation and identity. In my case, they tried to destroy my reputation as an ethical researcher, as an officer with service overseas for my country and as a citizen. They tried to take my job as a lecturer on probation in the institute of technology sector away from me. I was informed that because I had fabricated my research, I was going to lose my job. I thought I was going to lose my job and my liberty. That is personal. Consequently, by putting in a clause removing anything involving interpersonal grievances, the Government is providing organisations engaged in wrongdoing with a defence and a stick with which to beat vulnerable whistleblowers. That must be removed.

Introducing criminal penalties for knowingly making false reports will also be used as a mischievous way of targeting whistleblowers. It is, by definition, what constitutes whistleblower reprisal. Irish organisations will accuse the person who brings forward disclosures of wrongdoing of making false allegations. That was the case for me. Katie Hannon's documentary, "Women of Honour", which was broadcast on 11 September 2021, showed that, 21 years after I made my disclosures, there is still the same problem in our armed forces. That is even though oversight was imposed on them. This is typical of Irish organisations. I have been contacted over the past two decades by whistleblowers from all aspects of Irish life, including the Law Library, charities, An Garda Síochána, religious orders, hospitals, the ambulance and fire services, corporate entities and banking. It is everywhere in Irish society. This legislation does not provide people with the proper protections to make a disclosure and be free from the type of reprisal I experienced.

While I welcome this Bill, I urge the Minister of State to listen to whistleblowers and to Transparency International and other international whistleblowing expert groups. I ask him to please remove the provisions I have mentioned because I am still experiencing the existential harm of reprisal 22 years later. In the aftermath of the "Women of Honour" broadcast, over 30 young people - mostly women and some young men - made fresh disclosures to me of the full spectrum of sexual harassment, assault and rape in the Defence Forces, that is, in the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps. The level of pushback is indicative and symptomatic of a culture that has a problem with truth-telling and naming harm. We have to change the culture and the narrative. The four issues I have raised breach Article 25.2 of the EU whistleblowing directive, in that they reduce the level of protection already afforded by member states in the areas covered in this directive.

I thank the Acting Chair for giving me leeway. I apologise to the Minister of State for having to hear this level of emotion but I wanted to communicate that it is a categorical imperative that he deals with this. I ask him to please listen to us.

Well done, Senator.

I thank the Senator. His contribution was very powerful. It was important that we listened to him today. Well done. I also want to welcome Mr. Peter Behan to the Gallery. I ask the Minister of State to respond to the debate.

I thank all Senators for their contributions. I will continue my contribution where I left off by describing some of the main provisions of the Bill.

I had been discussing Chapter 3, section 14, which inserts the new sections 10C and 10D into the principal Act. These sections 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 said person for further action. If no person can be found, the commissioner shall apply the standard rules as regards acknowledgement, follow-up and feedback, as required by the directive in respect of prescribed persons.

It also inserts section 10E, which provides that where a report is transmitted to a third party who is not subject to the requirement to have formal reporting channels, that person shall follow the standard rules as regards acknowledgement, follow-up and feedback. It inserts section 10F, which 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, which comprises sections 16 to 20, inclusive, transposes a number of provisions of the directive that are 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 confidential the identities of other persons named in a disclosure. Section 18 provides for the restriction of certain data subject access rights to prevent these rights being abused to out a whistleblower or to frustrate or to 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 as that provided for in section 18. Again, it is intended to protect reporting persons’ identities and to prevent attempts to impede or frustrate follow-up.

Chapter 5 comprises sections 21 to 25, inclusive, and it concerns the enhanced protection measures that are required by the directive. The key changes are introduced in this chapter. They include, first, the extension of interim relief to acts of penalisation other than dismissal. Second, there is the reversal of the burden of proof in civil cases concerning penalisations, so that employers will have to prove that the alleged act of penalisation was not taken because the worker made a protected disclosure. Last, there is the provision of a set of offences for contraventions of the Act.

Chapter 6, which comprises sections 26 to 33, inclusive, provides for a number of incidental and supplementary measures, including the removal of the restriction on public disclosure of taxpayer information for certain types of records; the 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 finally powers for the Workplace Relations Commission inspectorate to monitor and enforce compliance with the requirements on employers to have internal reporting channels.

Finally, the Bill inserts two schedules into the principal Act. These are Schedule 5, which is a set of standard provisions as regards the keeping of accounts and staffing at the office of protected disclosures commissioner, and Schedule 6 reproduces the annexe to the directive, listing all of the EU laws that lie within the material’s scope.

I will now address some of the points that have made by Senators here today. I thank them all for their contributions. I thank all Senators who support the strengthening of the legislation and who have engaged with it. I want to thank Sinn Féin for sending representatives to my office to discuss the amendments, for tabling those amendments and for working constructively to try to advance this legislation. I know it is difficult to do that.

Before I wrap up, I also want to mention one issue that was raised during the debate on the Bill in the Dáil that remains unresolved. The pre-legislative scrutiny report recommended that the new protections of the Bill be extended retrospectively to persons who reported wrongdoing prior to its enactment. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, gave a commitment to the House that he would examine the issue in consultation with the Attorney General. The Minister had hoped to bring proposals in this regard before the Bill passed in the Dáil, but this did not prove possible. Work in this area is now at an advanced stage. Amendments will be brought before this House for consideration when the Bill moves to Committee Stage.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to Members of both Houses who worked on the pre-legislative scrutiny report on this Bill, which has greatly influenced its development. I also thank the various stakeholders who have contributed to the development of Bill, including those who took the time to make submissions to the public consultation when the general scheme of the Bill was being developed, as well as those who attended the pre-legislative scrutiny hearings at the committee. Their input has also provided great help in the preparation of the Bill. Finally, I thank all Members of this House for their attention. We had a positive debate on the issues in the Dáil and I hope that will continue in the Seanad. I commend this Bill to the House and I look forward to hearing the views of Members on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 31 May 2022.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 2.07 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 3.05 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 2.07 p.m. and resumed at 3.05 p.m.
Top
Share