Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Bill 2022. I support this Bill in part. It is well needed and long overdue and I welcome the fact the Minister has said he is open to amendments to improve the Bill on Committee Stage if they can be put into operation and improve protections for whistleblowers. There are amendments that should be made and Ministers should be open to Opposition input into legislation to strengthen it further. However, I am incredibly disappointed that many whistleblowers have been left behind in this legislation due to the fact this Bill does not address existing protected disclosures made before this legislation came into existence. While those disclosures may have preceded the Bill and it appears that is standard procedure in this House for why it cannot be retrospective, how the Bill is being dealt with and how the disclosures are being dealt with are ongoing and in many cases may not even have started. They should therefore be benefiting from this Bill.

As I have said, this Bill is long overdue and I recognise the only reason it has come into existence is so that we can give effect to the EU’s directive on whistleblowing and mandatory reporting and not because the Government has any real want to improve current protected disclosures legislation. However, I am supportive of any Bill that strives to protect those who are brave enough to speak up about wrongdoing, no matter how it comes into existence. I recognise this Bill is a step in the right direction when it comes to establishing strong and effective laws for whistleblowers but we must recognise where it falls short.

Whistleblowers get a very negative reaction in this country. Maybe it is partly due to our colonial past and the fact authority is not really recognised. It is the protection of authority that attacks whistleblowers. The wrong protection of that authority and of wrongdoing pervade an awful lot of the structures in our society. We must address it in some way. It was shocking earlier to hear the Taoiseach ask, during Leaders' Questions, what we can do because it takes too long and why should we deal with anything because it takes too long and is too cumbersome. We cannot continue on like that. How can we improve our public services and how they work for us as citizens if we do not have effective ways for wrongdoing to be raised and addressed? It is vitally important. It is not enough for us to wring our hands and say we cannot do it and should not have to deal with it because it takes too long to deal with it. There must be ways around that. The Government should have the power to think about that and about ways to do that. It needs to happen.

Section 4 is very important and I am glad the Minister has taken into account the pre-legislative scrutiny from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach regarding the definitions used in the legislation, which widen the scope of those who are entitled to protection for whistleblowing. This particularly relates to the definition of "worker". I am glad this has been expanded to include job applicants, board members, shareholders and volunteers because it is important they are all taken into account. Section 7 is also important in ensuring the identity of those who make anonymous disclosures are protected under the Act should their identity be discovered.

It is great section 8 requires that private sector entities with 50 or more employees establish formal whistleblowing channels. This is a very important and necessary step that would protect the whistleblower and create an environment in which it is safe for him or her to blow the whistle. However, I wonder why this has been limited to organisations with more than 50 employees as, regardless of size, whistleblowing is necessary and important. Many organisations with fewer than 50 employees could be very influential and account for much expenditure, money and indeed Government money as well, I assume, and so they should also be covered by the Act. Surely every organisation should be required to establish formal whistleblowing channels, no matter their size. We must strive to ensure we protect those who report wrongdoing, no matter the size of their organisation. That is only right.

I strongly welcome the inclusion of a required follow-up time, which is detailed in section 9. The Bill would ensure all reports are acknowledged within seven days and followed up on within three months, and I support the establishment of very specific steps within clear timelines to follow-up in all other areas of reporting throughout all our Departments. What is needed on that as well are effective remedies if matters are not followed up on and timelines missed. It is about what happens then. That is vitally important too because we have seen how reports are made and they just sit and gather dust. Time goes on and the person is still having difficulties with the issue and it is not being dealt with.

I note section 10 provides for the establishment of a new protected disclosures commissioner in the Office of the Ombudsman and section 12 sets out requirements for Ministers to transmit all reports they receive to the new protected disclosures commissioner. I understand Ministers often feel they are limited in what they can do to follow up on reports, and that says much in itself. I have experienced this myself with the Brandon report. Under this new legislation the commissioner takes responsibility for directing reports to the most appropriate actor to address the matter, which will ensure an independent follow-up of disclosures sent to Ministers.

Again, we need to be certain who that person is, namely, to whom the commissioner will actually send it on. For example, a protected disclosure relating to the operations of the HSE cannot be sent to it for investigation. It just cannot because I do not believe that organisation is willing to investigate anything related to it. Thus, some effective person must be found to deal with those issues. I am sure there are other such organisations; that is just what I am familiar with at the minute. I am sure there are other organisations in the State equally culpable too. I welcome this with caution and hope we ensure this office is resourced and run appropriately. It will make a huge difference in the success or failure of this office and should be taken into consideration. This has probably been addressed at committee but I would like to hear some more about what the projected costs of running that office are to ensure it is resourced properly. That is vitally important. To be effective, it must be resourced properly.

Section 18 is another important section that provides for the restriction of certain data subject access rights to prevent the impediment of follow-ups or the abuse of whistleblower rights. Whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing illegality, corruption and wrongdoing in this country, and we must ensure, therefore, they are protected at all costs.

Turning to what this Bill lacks, I am very disappointed it does not intend to make the new protections provided retrospective, which I addressed earlier. The Bill does not address existing protected disclosures made before the legislation came into existence. The committee heard from many of those who had already made protected disclosures during pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. They described their experience of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and the negative impact it has had on their lives. Those were telling contributions. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those whistleblowers for their bravery. It is said more cases of corruption are exposed by whistleblowers than any other organisation and we must recognise the important role they play in our democracy. That must be recognised and should be recognised into the future. We need to make sure those who make disclosures in the future are not faced with the same negative experience and we also must ensure legacy cases are addressed in the legislation. This Bill must not leave those whistleblowers behind. I cannot emphasise enough how important it is that all protected disclosures be included.

This is an incredibly important Bill but we must ensure we get it right. I welcome that the Minister is willing to make amendments on Committee Stage, but I urge him to take into consideration all protected disclosures, no matter when they were been made. Whistleblowers have been failed time and again and we must ensure we do not continue to fail them in the future. In its current form this legislation continues to fail them. That is what will impede other whistleblowers in coming forward, and what we must ensure is they feel they can come forward. It is the only way to make our democracy more accountable and the only way to make our public services, as well as the private sector, more accountable and work for the good of everybody rather than just a few. That is what the import of this Bill should be.

See this speech in context