Mr. Mick Clifford:

I thank the committee for the invitation. I am happy to answer questions about any of the issues raised. My familiarity with the Protected Disclosures Act comes through my work, in which I have encountered dozens of people who have made disclosures. For the greatest part, these people have been from elements of the public rather than private sector, although not exclusively. I have been in the position where disclosures have been made to me as a journalist, which is provided for in the Act, but mainly it has involved people coming to me after making a disclosure. In that respect, I highlight the report of the disclosures tribunal, in which Mr. Justice Peter Charleton suggested the Oireachtas might revisit the Act to see whether it required further legislation to ensure that disclosures would not be leaked to reporters or politicians. His recommendation came on foot of events that surrounded the leaking of disclosures at one point in the Maurice McCabe case, which was the focus of that tribunal.

My experience, including from that case, suggests that any such move would be retrograde. For instance, I dealt with one case in which an anonymous disclosure was made against management in a State agency. The allegations in the disclosure were serious, involving the misuse of public money and alleged sexual harassment in the workplace. It would have taken two phone calls to confirm the bones of the allegations within the disclosure, opening the requirement to proceed with a full investigation. Instead, nothing was done for three months. TheIrish Examinerpublished details of the disclosure at that point and an investigator was appointed within days. Ultimately, the allegations were found to have been entirely accurate. It is reasonable to wonder whether anything of substance would have been done if the issue had not found its way into the public domain.

That case points me towards the second issue I will highlight, namely, the period it takes to complete investigations on foot of disclosures. The case I outlined lasted almost a year. I am aware of two cases that are still live more than three years after the disclosures were made. Frankly, I find it difficult to accept that matters could not be progressed with greater urgency, especially given that many cases have been farmed out to external agencies for investigation.

As an example of how long it takes to process some disclosures, another story I worked on involved allegations of malpractice in the Prison Service that emerged in an affidavit. This is all on record and has been published and officially acknowledged, so I am not revealing anything under privilege that is not in the public domain. The then Minister for Justice and Equality ordered an inquiry from the Inspector of Prisons into the matter. There were some complicated aspects to the investigation, yet the inspector delivered her report within four months. I find it difficult to believe that many of the investigations into disclosures could not be conducted with that level of urgency.

Finally, I turn to the issue of penalisation. I have on numerous occasions encountered disclosers who were adamant they had been penalised as a result of their actions. Sometimes it is possible to confirm this and I have done so, whereas in others it is not as easy or accessible. I am acutely aware a discloser may well perceive penalisation when it is not happening, but experience has shown me that in many cases, penalisation does occur. Again, being a member of the media, this may well sound as if it is coming from a place of self-interest but it is the truth as I perceive it - I have experienced occasions when the publication of details of penalisation has resulted in it easing, if not stopping. I think there has been only one major case in which a discloser has had his allegations of penalisation confirmed by the Workplace Relations Commission and compensation awarded. That is an onerous route to take, however, so one element of the Act that might require further examination is that which deals with protections for the discloser and issues relating to penalisation.