Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This amendment is being pursued but it is not the totality of what we are going to do. I will revert to it on Report Stage and add to it.

The amendment before us is a retrospective provision. It is a start but it does not capture all the retrospective issues and the examples the Chairman and colleagues have raised. I know that for many people, this is the kernel of the Bill. It is about the ability to apply the additional protections retrospectively to people who have already suffered detriment. These are whistleblowers who have done the State immeasurable service. I am anxious to go as far as we possibly can within the legal limits to accommodate that.

That is the political commitment I am giving. The Chairman asked that every effort be made. I assure him that every effort is being made and will be made until this Bill has completed its journey to make it as robust as we can.

The amendment we are discussing provides that where a person who is employed in a public body has made a protected disclosure prior to this Bill coming into force, they shall be entitled to request feedback from their employer as to what action has been taken on foot of their report. That was the specific recommendation in the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny report. We will be able to go further. We have agreed with the Attorney General that it will be possible to provide for retrospective application of the Bill for workers who have reported prior to the enactment of the legislation but have suffered retaliation after enactment. This is in line with the committee's recommendation in the report. We hope to go further than that.

I have asked the Attorney General to look at retrospection for workers who have both reported a protected disclosure before the Bill is enacted and suffered penalisation, but have not yet applied to the WRC or the courts for protection. I think many people find themselves in that category. If they have applied and are in a process with the WRC or have a case before the courts, the Bill will not step in the way of that because they are advanced in the process. This lines up with the example the Chairman gave a while ago. If any new penalisation takes place, even if it relates to an old case, somebody is entitled to make a new protected disclosure. The content of what they are disclosing should be different and new so that it is not the same as the one made under the old legislation. If any new penalisation is taking place, for example in the resolution of their case, that could constitute a basis for a new protected disclosure that would come fully within the ambit of the new legislation once enacted.

We are teasing out all those issues with the Attorney General at the moment. The amendment is a starting point and it establishes that there would be retrospection in certain instances. We are looking to stretch that as far as we can in line with the issues that the Chairman and Deputies Farrell and Buckley, in particular, have raised.