{"id":3101,"date":"2022-08-31T11:17:26","date_gmt":"2022-08-31T09:17:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.deintegriteitscoordinator.nl\/progression-dutch-whistleblower-protection-act\/"},"modified":"2022-08-31T15:59:20","modified_gmt":"2022-08-31T13:59:20","slug":"progression-dutch-whistleblower-protection-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.deintegriteitscoordinator.nl\/en\/progression-dutch-whistleblower-protection-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Progression Dutch Whistleblower Protection Act"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div><\/div>

At the beginning of July, we informed<\/span><\/a> you that the Lower House Committee on Home Affairs would be holding a written consultation, during which questions could be submitted to MP Pieter Omtzigt about his memorandum<\/a>, in which he proposes a number of adjustments to improve the law, and to the Minister. The deadline for this was 22 July.<\/p>\n

Public interest<\/h3>\n

A limited number of responses were received. Particularly interesting is the contribution of the government parties D66 and VVD. They both wish for more clarification of the term ‘public interest’. After all, only whistleblowers who make a report whereby the public interest is at stake, are protected. The VVD wishes to maintain this criterion, but asks for clarification. When is the public interest at stake? D66 wonders how maintaining the term ‘public interest’ lowers the threshold for reporting. The SP also asks why this choice was made. After all, this means that some of the reports cannot be investigated, even though they may concern serious abuses. We too would prefer that the term ‘public interest’ be removed and that all reporters of serious misconduct be protected. And here, too, further clarification would be helpful.<\/p>\n

Anonymous reports<\/h3>\n

Questions have also been asked about anonymous reports. D66 wonders how the difference between confidential and anonymous reporting can be better communicated. And since reporting anonymously is already done in practice and appears to work, the VVD wonders whether a provision could be included in the law for this. That seems like a good plan to us. The SP, \u00a0too, would like to discuss this further. In addition, they would also like to discuss the possibilities of sanctions, the expansion of the ban on retaliation and the establishment of a fund for whistle-blowers.<\/p>\n

Transparency International Netherlands<\/h3>\n

Transparency International Netherlands (TI-NL) has also reacted<\/span><\/a> (Dutch language) to the amended bill. They still have the necessary criticism on the current proposal. This is quite similar to our recommendations, see our articles about the second amendment to the bill<\/span><\/a> and our wish list for the Whistleblower Protection Act<\/span><\/a>. They too focus on, for example<\/p>\n