Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013 and commend the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, on including this whistleblower legislation in the programme for Government. It is positive and much needed legislation which aims to bring into effect a single charter or framework of protections for workers in both the public and private sectors. This must be welcomed strongly.

The timing of this Bill is topical in terms of what has been reported in the media over recent weeks and months. However, the issues are probably older and wider than what has been alleged in the Committee of Public Accounts of late. The final report of the Mahon tribunal and the Nyberg banking report highlight the need for this legislation. Reports yesterday that corruption costs the European Union economy as much as the EU budget itself also demonstrate the need for action and urgency on this matter. No one can argue but that the public interest, the public purse and the rule of law must govern all the dealings of the public and private sector. The role of whistleblowers in guaranteeing this must be recognised and protected. However, measures to protect the public must also protect people and bodies from false or malicious claims and it is imperative this important balance will be struck in this legislation.

Employers I meet, particularly those in the SME sector, commend the Government for creating a sustainable pro-enterprise and pro-jobs culture in this country over the past three years, a fact recognised internationally by Forbes magazine. Much needed reforms must strike a balance and not set this back. We must be careful this legislation keeps that balance right. As Chairman of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, I would like to outline to the Minister and the House some of the legitimate concerns of the SME business sector regarding this legislation that have been brought to our attention.

The divergence in the treatment of whistleblowers, in terms of awards and compensation, reliefs etc. arising out of their actions, from the norms of employment law have been questioned by some businesses. I call on the Minister to take the opportunity when responding on this debate and on Committee Stage to provide more detail in this area and to explain the rationale behind this. I understand some of this, but there have been questions with regard to how, for example, interim relief will work. We accept it should be there to provide for exceptional circumstances, but should it become the norm? The IBEC submission of October 2013 highlighted this. It also has concerns with the compensation of 260 weeks, which is a 250% increase on the standard maximum amount a rights commissioner or Labour Court can award.

It is feared this new level, which is meant to be a ceiling, will become a target. It certainly gives more power to the rights commissioner or the Labour Court. It is a significant settlement and while it might be needed in some cases to encourage whistleblowing, if it becomes the norm or a factor in every settlement, it will it difficult for businesses to survive. As IBEC has outlined, the issue is it creates a potential for the needless closure of businesses and the loss of jobs to people with direct involvement or responsibility for the matters at issue. It is about getting a balance. The Minister has talked about taking a stepped approach to the issue. I am sure he is in favour of this proposal, but there is a fear that the new ceiling will become a target.

The IBEC submission also highlights the issue that interim relief for protected disclosures in the legislation diverges from the current measures in place, which leaves it at the discretion of a judge in exceptional cases. I ask the Minister to provide an explanation for this provision to employers and for us to tease the issue out further on Committee Stage so that we can bring everybody on board and clarify the reasons for it. We all recognise that there are exceptional cases.

I believe there is room for the public interest provisions of the Bill to be strengthened. There is a real fear among employers that businesses are not adequately protected against false or malicious claims. I read in the media reports on yesterday's debate that a good business which acts properly has nothing to fear. This is only right. Likewise, an employee who knowingly makes false or malicious claims should have something to fear. These people should have cause to fear this legislation. The Minister has clarified what will happen if a person knowingly or maliciously makes a claim, but that provision in the Bill is not strong enough. I am not convinced there is enough fear being invoked to stop somebody from wrongly using the legislation or from abusing the legislation. We want the Bill to work in the public interest. Also, if a legitimate business is doing everything right, it should not be affected. I understand we need a balance. We must encourage people to come forward, but we must get the balance right. If there are no measures in the Bill that will prevent malicious behaviour from the outset, there will be cause for a more defined avenue for businesses to pursue and discipline individuals and recover costs from them.

I believe that when the best international practice is introduced to protect individuals who, in the public interest, disclose information, the best international practice is also introduced to protect businesses from malicious activity by individuals. Such provisions would be in the public interest. The Bill is, as the Minister says, a significant step forward in the framework of existing protections for workers, which will ensure Ireland's international reputation in preventing corruption is significantly enhanced.

Mention was made earlier of the need to change our culture. There is a difficulty with the culture that exists throughout the public and private sector in terms of sharing information and speaking one's mind. When I worked with the health board during my days in college, in the late 1990s, people were afraid to speak out or give their view. They did their jobs in silence. This attitude seems to exist throughout the public service.

I have spoken previously about the fear throughout the public service that speaking one's mind might affect one's chances of promotion. We need to move away from this, hear people's thoughts and tease out matters. We should have a proper framework to enable people to say what they think. I accept the rules and regulations about speaking to the media, but people should be able to speak their mind freely within their organisation or to Deputies, raise concerns and make suggestions. The legislation establishing the HSE states the CEO cannot question Government policy. This is mad and where the problem starts. We should encourage the questioning of policy.

See this speech in context