Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee and for their presentations. Obviously, our purpose is to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny on this important legislation. We want to improve it as best we can before it is enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas. I would point out that we must engage in a balancing act in terms of ensuring that the procedure is fair for the person making the complaint, to make sure the method of making a complaint more appropriate and relaxed while also ensuring the rights of the person against whom a complaint is made. In fairness to the witnesses, Deputy Durkan asked why we do not have the data we need but that is really the responsibility of the Oireachtas. It is our job to ensure that if complaints are being made and if we are setting up a new protected disclosures office, that the office provides the relevant data to the public.

My first question is for Mr. Herrick. I am interested in one of the ICCL's recommendations in respect of ensuring that legal entities are obliged to investigate and follow up on anonymous disclosures. In fairness to the ICCL, it is not saying that all or any anonymous disclosures should be followed up but that they should be, where sufficient evidence is provided. Does Mr. Herrick think that is something that would need to be written into the legislation? Should the Bill state that a certain threshold of evidence is required or could the ICCL's concern about anonymity be overcome if there was a requirement that the name and identity of the complainant would not be released by the protected disclosures office or whoever is investigating?