I move amendment No. 6: In page 12, after line 40, to insert the following: “(3) For the avoidance of doubt, where a person receives an anonymous report they shall, where it is possible to do so, respond to the reporting person and inform them of their right to make a protected disclosure to the Commissioner.”.”.

I move amendment No. 7: In page 13, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following: “(aa) is performing a public contract with a value of more than €3,000,000, or”.

Amendment No. 7 is an attempt to make sure the 50-employee threshold for the requirement to create internal reporting channels would not apply where the company has a public contract with a value of more than €3 million. As the Minister of State will know, I have a keen interest in public procurement. Part of the quality criteria we have discussed in this House is how a company treats it workers, and general issues of quality and good practice. If the Government gives public contracts to companies, it is very impor…

There are some positive elements in what the Minister of State said, and there are also matters that remain a concern. I note positively the two final points that were made and I request that they be made clear in the public information campaigns that will come with this legislation. The widening of the right to make reports beyond workers is very important, for example, in situations which the Minister of State signalled. Where a contract is given for the provision of a public service, the persons receiving that p…

I move amendment No. 8: In page 14, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “(6A) In making an order under subsection (4), the Minister shall have regard to the need to ensure that companies performing high value public contracts establish internal reporting channels regardless of the number of employees they have.”.

I move amendment No. 9: In page 24, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “(iia) the worker reasonably believes that their own manager or the head of the public body is complicit in the wrongdoing concerned;”.

Whistleblowers and civil society groups have been very clear that they oppose the removal of the right to make a disclosure directly to a Minister. It has been strongly argued that there is a danger that this effectively falls out of line with the directive in that it represents a regressive move whereby there is a lessening of rights in a certain area for whistleblowers as a result of this legislation. Whistleblowers and civil society groups have highlighted that under the new section 8 it is proposed that public …

I have great respect for the Minister of State but his speech is extraordinary. It basically says that we are lowering the protections but are not using the directive to do so. Given Ireland's record on whistleblowers and given that the whole idea is that we are meant to be improving things, delivering a speech that basically admits that we are lowering protections, although we are not using the directive to justify this, and reading out a whole section of the directive to demonstrate that it is okay to lower the p…

I move amendment No. 10: In page 24, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “(iia) the worker did not feel confident to make a report under section 6, 7 or 8 due to a reasonable fear of penalisation;”.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 24, line 4, to delete “an imminent or manifest” and substitute “a”.

I move amendment No. 12: In page 24, lines 5 and 6, to delete “, such as where there is an emergency situation or a risk of irreversible damage”.

A valid point was made on amendment No. 13 so I will not move that.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 33, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “(15A) Where an investigation into a protected disclosure received by the Commissioner exceeds 24 months in length, the Commissioner shall notify the reporting person the reasons why the investigation has exceeded this period of time.”

Amendment No. 14 is about timeliness provision where an investigation into a protected disclosure has been received by the commissioner. I am trying to ensure we do not just have the initial communication or that where ongoing communication is being processed, we do not have the processes dragging on forever over extremely long periods of time. These periods of time can cause quite a lot of distress, concern and anxiety for whistleblowers. The amendment tries to ensure a time limit. It recognises this may not alway…

I would have preferred my specific provision on the time period and final closure, but I will withdraw my amendment pending how the use of those clauses work out, which the Minister has outlined. It would have been my preference to have a clear time period.

I move amendment No. 15: In page 50, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(2) The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 12: “Protection of reporting persons 12A. For the avoidance of doubt and without prejudice to natural justice, any investigation carried out under this Act shall not involve a person named in a disclosure of a relevant wrongdoing, save where that person is required to provide information or testimony in the course of such an investigation.”.…

The Minister has indicated he will address it in terms of the definition of "impartiality", and it will be important to be clear in that regard, even in a small organisation. If the case involves a small organisation where three or four persons are named, in certain cases an external investigator may be required, but I appreciate that others may be named but not be the core focus of the action in a small organisation. This matter should be clearly addressed and, as well as addressing the definition of "impartiality…

I move amendment No. 17: In page 57, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “Public information campaign 31 . The Minister may, subsequent to the passing of this Act, hold an accessible public information campaign in respect of the role of whistleblowing in the advancement of the public good and the mechanisms by which someone may make a protected disclosure and the supports which they may avail in respect of the making of such a disclosure.”. Amendment No. 16 being ruled out of order is a concern becaus…

I thank Senator Buttimer for picking up on an important aspect of the language in my amendment, namely, accessibility.

It is worth noting that not all protected disclosures are made by lawyers or people who have read the legislation. In some cases, the person may not even be aware of the legislation. The reason I regret that the amendments concerning managers were not accepted is that it is often people at a lower level in organisations who have a strong personal ethical sense. That comes at every level and there have been cases involving cleaning, caring or catering staff. People who are on the front line of service delivery may b…