Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am very anxious to hear what Senator Clonan says.

As the Minister of State has outlined, Ireland is one of a small number of EU countries that had a regime in place prior to the European directive. The 2014 Act has afforded vital protection to whistleblowers, but it is not perfect and we have learned much since the Act came into operation. There have been a number of high-profile cases in recent years, as has been mentioned by colleagues, which showed that we can never be complacent about the protection of those who are reporting wrongdoing by either public or private sector organisations. It is important that we take the opportunity now to improve our legislative framework to continue to deal with protected disclosures in a fair and proper manner. The implementation of the EU directive and the amendments proposed in the Bill before us will further strengthen protections for whistleblowers and maintain Ireland's position as a leader in this area.

The Bill will extend the scope of the legislation by providing protection for volunteers, and I cannot understand why they were not protected initially under the 2014 Act, shareholders, board members and job applicants by transposing the EU whistleblowing directive into law. Are there any other job titles that are not protected under the legislation? I realise that it is difficult to legislate for everything in a list form, but I am concerned about what professions are not protected. The legislation will lead to the establishment in private sector organisations with 50 or more employees of formal channels and procedures that will permit their employees to make protected disclosures, as is currently the case in the public sector. This will mean that employers and prescribed persons who receive protected disclosures will be required to acknowledge them, follow up on the allegations made and give feedback to the reporting person within three months of the disclosure. These changes will be monitored and enforced by the inspectorate of the Workplace Relations Commission. This will give greater certainty to both employers and whistleblowers as to what will happen when a protected disclosure is made.

The establishment of the new office of the protected disclosures commissioner in the Office of the Ombudsman to support the operation of the new legislation is to be welcomed. It will allow the commissioner to direct protected disclosures to the most appropriate body when it is unclear which body is responsible. It will thus ensure that all protected disclosures will be dealt with appropriately. The commissioner will also have responsibility for transmitting all protected disclosures made to Ministers to the most appropriate authority for assessment and thorough follow-up. A further change that I welcome is that in civil proceedings the burden of proof will be reversed so it will fall to the employer to prove that any alleged act of penalisation did not occur because the person made a protected disclosure.

We have a comprehensive whistleblowing law in place in the form of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, and the transposition of the whistleblowing directive will require some amendments to that Act. As I said, the other points I had intended to raise have been dealt with by my colleagues and I look forward to the Minister of State's reply to them. However, I have some brief questions. What protections are there for employers, be they State or private, from vindictive complaints? There is no doubt that they will occur.

I also have a concern about anonymous complaints. I can understand why they are anonymous due to the reality of the situation, and I have experienced it with people who are related to me. When one makes a protected disclosure one becomes a whistleblower, which is a term I do not like to be frank, and one is targeted. I can understand why people would wish to make anonymous complaints, but there is a danger in that as well. I am concerned about it, in that anybody can make a complaint about anybody and the person does not have to put his or her name to it. There is a difficulty in that. I can understand the reason for it, but I believe it could be open to abuse. I would be interested in seeing what job titles are not covered by this legislation and what the reasons for that are.

I welcome the Bill.