Mr. John Devitt:

Members ought to be cognisant of Article 25.2 of the directive, which contains a non-regression clause. Transposition of the directive cannot weaken existing safeguards for whistleblowers. A number of suggested provision proposals in the heads may be perceived as undermining existing protections, such as the current right to report to a Minister or Department. That ought not to be weakened and Departments need to be strengthened in dealing with protected disclosures or given the option of referring them on to the protected disclosures office or a relevant agency. Public service workers should still be able to report to a Minister for the Department to determine whether he, she or it has the capacity to deal with that. Likewise, they should be able to make anonymous disclosures. The 2014 Act is silent on anonymous disclosures, meaning people can remain anonymous and, depending on the quality of information shared, there may still be an obligation on the recipient to investigate that concern.

Going back to the question of protections, all employers should be obliged, as is the case with the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, to have policies and procedures in place. Many charities, including small ones, will already have protected disclosure policies. Sample policies are available under the code of practice from the WRC which can be adapted or adopted by employers of all shapes and sizes in all sectors. In our view, there is no reason the provision around procedures and policies should be limited to employers with only 50 or more staff. That would create confusion. Many employers are small to medium-sized enterprises whose staff sizes fluctuate from year to year and it is important they all understand they have to have these procedures in place in the same way they have to have procedures and policies around bullying, harassment and other health and safety risks.