Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the presenters. It is very interesting. I want to begin by picking up on the issue of compensatory measures. I worry that the signal that very often gets sent in Ireland is that whistleblowers get punished and that they basically carry the price of taking action and of performing that public good by highlighting an issue. Therefore, I welcome the suggestions in respect of the changes to the compensation cap.

I have also encountered specific concerns and the witnesses might have a sense of whether these are more widespread. In particular, where there are compensatory measures to which persons are entitled and which they may be seeking after a process or after a whistleblowing, it may sometimes be the same persons about whom they made the disclosure who are effectively still in place within an organisation and who are part of the process for accessing the compensatory measures. Again, I do not want to speak to specific cases but that is a situation which has certainly come to my attention where persons have raised concerns about a body where they worked, or individuals in a body where they worked, and, effectively, they have seen the obstruction of ever receiving compensatory payments or measures.

I agree that it is appropriate that it is higher. It is different from unfair dismissal in that this often involves people at very senior level. When I looked at the breakdown of the age profile of those who are making protected disclosures within the Transparency International annual report, it was interesting how many people were older. I would like the witnesses to comment on whether security of contract is in itself one of the reasons that people who are 45 and older feel confident in terms of making protected disclosures because it does seem that the age skews quite a bit towards the older. Is there a concern around insecurity of contracts, particularly within very important organisations, State bodies and so forth, in terms of creating a culture where people are less likely to feel confident to raise concerns and blow the whistle?

I was also very interested in the comments in regard to the running of the clock and where an investigation takes a long time. It was mentioned that the Workplace Relations Commission option might expire for an employee but I also know there are situations where people have raised a concern and are blowing the whistle on something, and they then feel that they are under scrutiny. During a dragged-on investigation, there can be a period when the spotlight is on the whistleblower and they know excuses are being looked at in regard to undermining their future employment. That is one of the consequences of that dragged-on process. We want this legislation to create a situation in which people feel confident, safe and fully supported by the law and by best practice in coming forward.

On another issue, what is the experience of the witnesses on the practice of containment versus the expansion of inquiry, when an issue is identified by a whistleblower? What we would hope is that, where an issue is identified, it is used as a flag to spark wider investigation but it seems that is sometimes not the case. We are even seeing it, potentially, in regard to the files in the Department of Health recently, where they are talking about those specific files where concern was raised rather than maybe a pattern where vulnerable persons, such as those families with autism, may have been the subject of files within a Department. The witnesses might comment in terms of what best practice would look like where a flag is raised around bad practice and that becomes an examination of a pattern. Maybe that is something this new entity could facilitate or could drive, rather than it kicking into a process of containment around that specific aspect of the issue the whistleblower has flagged.

The witnesses might comment on those issues, namely, the question around the compensatory measures, the issues around how we create greater security in the workplace for those who are whistleblowing and the issue of how we go to a pattern examination rather than a containment response

. A further issue is one that follows up on the procurement piece. I have put a lot of focus on trying to bring more qualitative measures into public procurement. There is sometimes this idea that, in the State, our decision-making should be complex and we should be thinking about lots of things, such as environmental factors, social impact and all of these things in regard to procurement. However, one of the arguments I get is that they want processes to be simpler to avoid corruption, when it seems to me that, instead, we need processes to tackle corruption in order that we can have good quality processes. It is almost as if they like to strip it down to two variables as a way of mitigating against corruption when, in fact, eight variables would be good practice. It is a question of how we keep both of those parts of good practice at work.