Mr. Colin Menton:

I will try to respond on a number of those points and my colleagues will also want to come in. I agree on interpersonal grievances. It is important, as earlier contributions highlighted. The objective in the Bill is to try to be as clear as possible on that and what is intended to happen in specific instances. The definition and language around that will be key. As my colleague mentioned, we are open to suggestions and contributions from the committee on that.

The ministerial channel is a key issue and it was in our considerations. I mentioned earlier that one issue that has beset the current arrangements is the confusion and multiplicity of potential channels operating side by side. What we would like to do with the legislation that we are trying to develop here is to be clear as to what the processes are for individual reporters in given instances. We are in no way trying to remove the Minister from that process but rather be clear that when a Minister receives something, there is an immediate pathway to moving it on and progressing it and that there is a centre of expertise and best practice to which that matter will be sent swiftly for urgent action and response. That is where building in the protected disclosure commissioner and that office into this architecture is key to fixing elements of the current arrangements that probably have not operated to their potential or to extent that we would have liked.

I could not agree more on timing. I am reminded of the earlier sessions the committee had and the contributions at those on the passage of time in some of those specific cases and the toll it takes on individuals. We are clear that this legislation needs to have a firm set of timelines to minimise the burden and toll that such a process can hold for individuals. The timeframe set out in the legislation will hopefully provide some comfort and reassurance around that.

My colleagues might answer on interim feedback. It is something that could be looked at. I will allow them to comment on, not retrospection, but the existing stock of cases and where they might sit in a revised legislative environment.