6 Amendments of Dominique BILDE related to 2016/2224(INI)
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Is of the opinion that since the effectiveness of the whistle-blowing environment is affected by cultural values, implementing an identical mechanism in all Member States may result in dysfunctional behaviour and needless costs, and that any measures taken should therefore be tailored to fit national contexts; stresses, however, that existing cultural differences do not detract from the need for legal protection of whistle- blowers in Member States, particularly in cases where health and food safety is at stake, which directly concern the lives of citizens of the Member States;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Reaffirms that the implementation of legal regulations encourages a speak-up culture and that whistle-blowing should be promoted as an act of good citizenship and supported by effective awareness-raising, communication and training efforts; suggests that Member States which consider it to be appropriate should incorporate the subject of whistle-blowers in civic instruction courses, as it is highly relevant to learning about citizenship;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Reaffirms the need for public and private organisations to establish internal whistle-blowing procedures for their employees, setting out clear confidential routes for making disclosures; stresses, however, the imperative need for these procedures to strike a balance between cases where there are sound reasons for disclosing information and those where industrial secrets need to be protected;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Observes that, without balanced legislation, there is a risk that abuses may destroy the credibility and legitimacy of whistle-blowers, an effect which would be counterproductive in relation to the aims of providing legitimate information to the public;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, owing to significant gaps in the protection of whistle-blowers against retaliation, the obligation to use internal reporting channels can be risky and act as a deterrent, restricting both freedom of expression and the public’s right to access information; stresses that internal reporting procedures should not act as a tool for prohibiting the act of informing the wider public of illegal activities and activities that severely harm the public interest; stresses that internal communication procedures must protect both whistle-blowers and the legitimate interests of businesses;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that whistle-blowing is linked to freedom of the press and is essential in bringing to light illegal activities or activities which evidently severely harm the public interest; stresses that whistle-blowers are an important source of information for investigative journalism, and calls on the Member States to ensure that the right of journalists not to reveal a source’s identity is effectively protected, without prejudice to potential national legal proceedings which may follow the disclosure of information by the whistle-blower, and that authorities refrain from using surveillance in order to ascertain their sources.