Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

As the Minister has described the situation, Ireland has the option of making sure that anonymous disclosures are accepted. It is regrettable that we are choosing to say that they do not have to be accepted.

On the question of vexatious complaints, there are already filters to say that it is accepted. There is a question as to whether it needs to be followed up. The person does so if there is merit in doing so. There are many filters that allow for that already. The issue of vexatious complaints is not really a concern.

The public has seen the experience of whistleblowers in the media again and again and again. When people make a protected disclosure their life gets blown up, they get penalised, their family is targeted and there are all of the other things that have happened that people have seen. There is a huge set of measures and disincentives to making protected disclosures. I know that there are provisions for the public information that would encourage people to make them again. However, why are we demanding that people experience that vulnerability? This is like looking for a pound of flesh from persons who are already doing something as a public service, whereby there is no benefit to them and only a cost to them. This says that they also have to put their name on the line. This is even potentially the case in very small organisations and in very small towns where there are limited opportunities for employment and where the rest of one's family may work.

Let us think of the real places where this happens. People could be in a small town, wherein there are maybe two places in which they can work doing what they do. They are required to put their name out there in making a disclosure. Yes, there are protections from penalisation, but they are onerous. It is a long process, and they are certainly no substitute for having one's life functioning fully. The amounts are nothing when compared with the costs and risks that are taken.

We have created a situation whereby, sadly, in the next few years we will see some terrible situation. It will then be a case of, "Why was nothing done about it?” The situation will be that a disclosure had been made, that somebody was emailed, that somebody was told, that he or she did not accept that disclosure and that it was not followed up. We will have created a chain of deniability for people, because they will not have to accept, act on or investigate the substance of a matter that was made as a protected disclosure to a person who was in a position to investigate it, to act upon it and to perhaps stop the dangerous situation. The fact that they have a file stating that the received an email will not be sufficient. We are creating a situation whereby we will be letting companies off the hook for actions that are potentially extremely damaging to the public. I know we will see that case down the line, sadly. That will be a choice that we have made.

The Minister of State has outlined this really clearly. It is a choice. The directive said that we can choose to accept anonymous disclosures. I would note that it is particularly egregious for a country as small Ireland to not accept anonymous disclosures. This is a country where most people are living in smaller places. They do not have huge numbers of options for employment that would be comparable to some of the other countries that are transposing these directives. This is the wrong decision. It is a mistake. There is the failure to even provide an arrow to persons.People will make a report and may not even signal it fully and properly as being a protected disclosure, but it is a matter that is such. Again, my amendment No. 6 encouraged people to bring it to the commission. To be clear, that was not to give those persons another chance; it was to maximise the public's chances of the issue being raised and receiving proper scrutiny. The damage is not only to the individuals but to the public. That is a poor decision, which I deeply regret. I will press the amendment.