I move amendment No. 1: To delete all the words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following: "notes that: — the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, protects workers from penalisation for speaking up about wrongdoing in the workplace; and — persons who make protected disclosures or 'whistleblowers' should not be treated unfairly, lose their job or face legal proceedings because they have made a protected disclosure; recognises that: — the enacted Protected Disclosures Act 2014, was further enhanced by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022; — the amended Act gives effect to the European Union (EU) Directive 2019/1937 ('the Whistleblowing Directive'), which requires Member States to ensure that: — whistleblowers have at their disposal effective channels to report breaches of EU rules confidentially, both internally (within an organisation) and externally (to a competent authority); — whistleblowers' reports are properly investigated and acted upon by the organisations and competent authorities; and — whistleblowers are protected from retaliation; — the Directive provides that the European Commission (EC) must furnish a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the impact of national law transposing the Directive, and the report must consider the functioning of the Directive and whether additional measures are appropriate; — in July 2024, the EC indicated that this report would be finalised 'no later than 2026'; — Section 10A of the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, provides for the establishment of the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner, which commenced operations on 1st January, 2023; — Section 2A of the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, provides for a statutory review of the Act to be commenced not later than five years from the date of this Act being passed; and — this review is due to complete in 2027, and a public consultation will be carried out prior to this review; and further notes that: — the Government remains committed to supporting and protecting whistleblowers; — a review of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, took place in 2018; — a comprehensive public and stakeholder review of the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, is statutorily due to take place by 2027, with a public consultation on same to begin next year, and Section 14A of the Act already makes it an offence for any person to hinder, or attempt to hinder, a worker in making a report, penalise, or threaten to penalise, a reporting person, bring vexatious proceedings against a reporting person, breach the confidentiality of a reporting person, provide false information or fail to comply with the requirement in section 6(3), to establish, maintain and operate internal reporting channels and procedures referred to in the said section 6(3); — neither the Act nor the EU Directive requires that an investigation is carried out for every report of wrongdoing that is received, and in many cases an investigation may not be appropriate as no prima facie evidence of a relevant wrongdoing may have been discovered, or the issues highlighted in a report may not meet the definition of a relevant wrongdoing, as set out in section 5(3) of the Act, and some reports may also highlight issues that are more appropriately addressed through complaints or human resources processes; — statutory protection from penalisation is already provided primarily by the Workplace Relations Commission, who can make orders for restitution and the payment of up to five years' salary in compensation, cases can be appealed to the Labour Court or, alternatively, a whistleblower can sue for damages in court, where there is no maximum award of compensation; — Exchequer grant support has been provided to Transparency International Ireland since 2016, for the provision of a free 'Speak Up Helpline' and Free Legal Advice Centre service for persons considering making a protected disclosure, or who have made a protected disclosure; — Section 15 of the Act already states that workers are immune from civil legal action by the employer (e.g. for breach of confidentiality clauses in their contract of employment); — Section 23 of the Act also provides that it is not permitted to have clauses in agreements that: — prohibit or restrict the making of protected disclosures; — exclude or limit the operation of any provision of the Act; — preclude a person from bringing any proceedings under, or by virtue of, the Act; and — preclude a person from bringing proceedings for breach of contract in respect of anything done on consequence of the making of a protected disclosure; — Section 14A of the Act already sets outs the actions in relation to processing a protected disclosure that are deemed to be a criminal offence, and administrative fees may be considered in the context of the statutory review; and — the courts are already empowered to award costs and damages in relation to protected disclosures, and Section 14A provides for criminal charges to be brought against a person/official.". I welcome the debate on the protected disclosures legislation. On behalf of the Minister, Deputy Jack Chambers, I sincerely thank Deputy Richard O'Donoghue and the Independent Technical Group for bringing this very important matter before the Dáil. I also acknowledge the presence of the people in the Gallery. The Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is Ireland's national whistleblower protection law. This legislation was designed to protect workers from penalisation for speaking up about wrongdoing in the workplace. Persons who make protected disclosures, often referred to as whistleblowers, should not be treated unfairly, lose their jobs or face legal proceedings because they have made a protected disclosure. On foot of the EU Whistleblowers Directive - Directive (EU) 2019/1937 - the Act was expanded and enhanced by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, which was signed into law on 21 July 2022. The protected disclosures legislation provides comprehensive protection for whistleblowers from penalisation or threats of penalisation. These protections cover unfair dismissal and unfair treatment such as suspensions, demotions and loss of pay, change of working hours, reassignment, disciplinary actions, coercion, intimidation and harassment. Statutory protection from penalisation is provided mainly by the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, which can make orders for restitution and payments of up to five years' salary in compensation. Whistleblowers can appeal decisions of the WRC to the Labour Court and also have recourse to sue for damages in court. As well as these protections, the Act provides for criminal penalties for penalising a reporting person, taking vexatious legal proceedings against a worker or reporting person, or disclosing the identity of a reporting person. I note that the Independent Technical Group has not introduced a draft Bill or heads of Bill but has simply put forward a number of broad proposals for the amendment of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. I would like to go through some of these proposals and our reasons for opposing them. There are technical flaws. Some of the proposed provisions are conceptually and technically flawed as they call for the introduction of sanctions and protections and the establishment of statutory duties that are already enshrined in the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. For example, the Independent Technical Group proposes the introduction of "personal accountability provisions making it an offence for any officer or employee of the State to obstruct or delay an investigation, destroy or alter documents, or knowingly provide false information". However, these kinds of provision are very clearly set out in section 14A of the Act. Section 14A makes it an offence for any person to hinder or attempt to hinder a worker in making a report, penalise or threaten to penalise a reporting person, bring vexatious proceedings against a reporting person, breach the confidentiality of a reporting person, provide false information, or fail to comply with the requirement in section 6(3) to establish, maintain and operate internal reporting channels and procedures referred to in the said section 6(3). The group's proposal to amend the Protected Disclosures Act to prohibit the use of non-disclosure agreements does not take account of the fact that section 15 of the Act already states that workers are immune from civil legal action by an employer, for example, for breach of confidentiality clauses in their contract of employment, and that section 23 of the Act prohibits the use of clauses in agreements: (a) to prohibit or restrict the making of protected disclosures, (b) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this Act, (c) to preclude a person from bringing any proceedings under or by virtue of this Act, or (d) to preclude a person from bringing proceedings for breach of contract in respect of anything done in consequence of the making of a protected disclosure. It is clear, therefore, that the existing Act already protects workers against criminal liability and the use of NDAs. The group also proposes a provision: to establish a statutory duty on all public bodies to initiate timely, impartial, and transparent investigations, require publication of anonymised progress reports, and empower the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner (OPDC) to levy financial and disciplinary sanctions for failure to act ... The essence of this provision is already included in the existing Act. Sections 6A and 7A of the Act set out the requirements for timely and impartial assessment and follow-up of reports of wrongdoing through both internal and external reporting channels. In relation to the proposal requiring transparent investigations, it is important to note that neither the Act nor the EU directive that it transposed requires that an investigation be carried out for every report of alleged wrongdoing received. In many cases, an investigation may not be appropriate as no prima facie evidence of a relevant wrongdoing may have been discovered or the issues highlighted in a report may not meet the definition of a relevant wrongdoing as set out in section 5(3) of the Act. Some reports may also highlight issues that are more appropriately addressed through complaints or through HR processes. The group also proposes a requirement for the provision of anonymised progress reports. Section 16 of the Act sets out that every effort must be made to protect the identity of the reporting person. Section 14A states that any person who breaches the duty of confidentiality as set out in section 16 commits an offence. The penalty for committing this offence is, on summary conviction, a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both; or on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €75,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or both. It should be noted that, given the nature of some reports of wrongdoing, simply anonymising progress reports would not be sufficient to prevent the transmission of information from which the identity of the reporting person could be directly or indirectly figured out. In short, this proposal is not workable, taking into account the duty to protect the identity of the reporting person already enshrined in the Act. Besides the technical flaws that are evident in the proposals put forward by the group, there are other fundamental issues and reasons to oppose these proposals. Section 2A of the Act requires a statutory review to be carried out no later than five years after the Act has passed. The Act was passed in July 2022 and, therefore, a review is due to completed in 2027. A public consultation will be carried out in advance of this commencement date and the views of all stakeholders will be sought. This public consultation will provide a complete picture of the experience of the Protected Disclosures Act since commencement and will lead to well-thought-out and evidence-based recommendations for improvements to the legislation. Further, on 3 July 2024, the European Commission presented a report on the transposition of the EU whistleblowers directive 2019/1937. This report stated that a review of the directive, which is referred to in Article 27(3), would be finalised no later than 2026. This review or evaluation will assess the functioning of the directive and consider the need for additional measures, including amendments with a view to extending its scope to further EU acts or areas. Given that a European Commission review is due to be finalised and a statutory review is due to commence well in advance of the review of the proposed provisions set out in the motion, it is necessary to oppose the motion and await the results of the European Commission review and the statutory review. This would allow for a more considered and evidence-based potential amendment of the existing Act, and within a shorter timeframe. I would like to thank very sincerely the members of the Independent Technical Group for bringing forward a debate on the protected disclosures legislation. For the reasons I have made clear, the Government must oppose this motion and is tabling an amendment for the House to note that the existing legislation already provides the protections desired by the Independent Deputies and that both the national and EU scheduled reviews should be allowed to take place, unhindered, in order to achieve a rounded, evidence-based policy position for any potential amendments to the legislation in the future.

Sentiment score: 0.16