Dáil debates

Thursday, 12 June 2014

Protected Disclosures Bill 2013: Report Stage

 

12:30 pm

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It would be a little farcical and render the legislation null and void if provisions within it were to set out to paralyse the recipient of a disclosure. We all recognise this. That is not what my amendments are intended to do. This is not only about the investigation of an allegation or complaint but also about the revelation of the identity, or the protection of the identity, of the whistleblower. In addition to the thresholds with which any worker would have to be satisfied, involving a reasonable belief an allegation is substantially true, there is the core issue - the level of risk to the worker. Other factors are confidence in the process and confidentiality. We can all imagine somebody in these circumstances. It is essential that there be a consent provision in the legislation. It does not have to be in writing. In fact, the amendment does not suggest this; it suggests there be positive consent given by the complainant, except in circumstances where there is a serious risk to the security of the State, public health, public safety or the environment, where it is believed disclosure is necessary for the prevention of a crime or the prosecution of a criminal offence, or where the disclosure is otherwise necessary in the public interest or required by law. There are already in the legislation significant waivers in respect of the need for consent. That is absolutely appropriate, but it is equally appropriate to strike a balance in the legislation to ensure protections for the individual. The phenomenon of whistleblowers falling over one another to make revelations has not been the culture in Irish organisations, public or private; rather, the instinct or culture is for people to keep their heads down and say nothing. Therefore, the legislation must afford a minimum level of protection and give confidence to any worker coming forward. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he reconsider his position on this matter. I do not believe the balance is struck in the legislation as drafted.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.