Mr. Ronan Kennedy:

I will offer an opinion on that. To build on what Mr. O'Leary said, if disclosers believes the internal reporting channels are insufficient or have not been responsive to their complaints, the option is open to them to go to a regulatory body or similar body. Failing that, the protected disclosures office would be an option for them. I sound a note of caution on that. The experience in the Netherlands suggests that a centralised disclosures office, such as the Dutch House for Whistleblowers, can become completely overwhelmed with cases and significant backlogs can develop. This occurred in a state where, traditionally, funding for such regulatory bodies has been consistent and generous. The experience in Ireland suggests, unless the protected disclosures office is adequately funded and is able to deal with the volume of complaints it could potentially receive, it could become a serious choke point.

On the Deputy's previous point, delays could occur there and if a person is not comfortable reporting to internal channels or regulatory bodies associated with his or her industry, this could become a potential bottleneck. It speaks to the idea that there is a role for civil society also. Organisations such as Transparency International Ireland operate services whereby people can make reports to. There should be a multitude of channels to which people can make their disclosures, not just regulatory bodies or the new office, but also in civil society.