Mr. Noel McGree:

I will jump in on this very quickly and then let somebody else speak on the matter. I will draw attention to the fact that the amendments to the Protected Disclosures Act proposed by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform have 26 headings. Not one of them relates to time limits. Currently, what is mentioned in the amendments about time limits is that the Minister proposes investigations will "diligently follow-up...having assessed the matter." Again, we are back to the strength of words. What does "diligently follow-up" mean? That will mean something different to everyone here.

I do not know if many people are familiar with the fact there is already a ten-week timeline in place. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform put out a tender for a panel of external independent investigators. Under that tender, a framework document was agreed whereby those investigators would perform a function for the Government in exchange for public funds. The minimum mandatory requirement in that tender agreement is that the investigation must make findings within ten weeks - 60 days. In the event they do not make a finding within 60 days, they must provide a reason to the discloser. This is completely ignored. Nobody abides by this requirement. I have had an investigation ongoing for four years. I submitted a complaint in September 2017, a firm was appointed in March 2018 and it is still ongoing. The time limits are a major matter but they need to be addressed in a definite way. There has to be a reason for going above and beyond the time period because it is being used as a weapon against whistleblowers to frustrate us. As Ms Grace said, it is to delay, deny and wait for us to die.