Commissioned by the Prime Minister, the Council of State produced a study aimed at improving the protection of whistleblowers.
From Panama to the Mediator, whistleblowers have brought to light large-scale scandals, particularly in the health sector. Aware of the great importance of this statute, the government entrusted the Council of State with the realization of a study in order to draw up a critical assessment of the measures adopted since 2007 to protect people issuing alerts.
First observation of the Council of State: despite six laws in nine years, the existing mechanisms are little used. “They do not form a coherent whole and are not sufficiently precise as to the definition of the whistleblower and the procedures to be implemented to collect and process the alerts”, notes the authority.
Professional secrecy and alerts
These devices do not always guarantee effective protection for whistleblowers, who are often sued by their employers. Legislation on breach of professional secrecy conflicts with that relating to whistleblowers.
The Council of State is therefore making fifteen proposals to improve and facilitate access to these devices, both in administrations and in companies. It initially recommends the adoption of a common base, a kind of tailor-made law making it possible to arbitrate between the need for professional secrecy and that linked to alerts.
A public portal to raise the alarm
The body also establishes a precise definition of the whistleblower – “a person who, faced with facts constituting serious breaches of the law or carrying serious risks, decides freely and in conscience to launch an alert in the general interest . This definition excludes people who knowingly make inaccurate reports or who act with intent to harm ”.
The Council also proposes the creation of a public portal allowing a whistleblower to declare himself anonymously, and to be redirected to the competent administration.
The health law, for its part, attempted to introduce a framework for whistleblowers in the health sector. Thus, the associations also have a right of alert to the High Authority for Health, which they can refer to any fact having significant effects on health. The HAS is required to make public the follow-up it brings to referrals to associations as well as the modalities according to which it investigated them.
.
