Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the speakers who have given some very interesting answers. Some of my questions have already been asked, but I will follow up on a few of them. Ms Keane just spoke about the functions. Mr. Kennedy spoke about a report on the kinds of disclosures that are being made. Should there be a function to try to identify patterns in disclosures? I know we rightly have clear caveats on the retention of individual information so that they would only be for the individual disclosure being investigated. To identify patterns of financial abuse, workplace abuse and so forth, could it potentially be part of the function of the protected disclosure body to try to knit together the patterns? Rather than individual instances, we could perhaps begin to identify the kind of cultural shift we need. We have seen the recent example with the Army. We should not need to have a whistleblower, followed by another whistleblower five years later and another one ten years later.

I take on board the points Mr. Clarke made about reporting in person. He briefly mentioned members of a board and I ask him to expand on that. People are often told or are under the impression that they are bound by confidentiality in particular contexts. People need to be very clear that their right to make a protected disclosure is not limited by, for example, a confidentiality agreement they may have in respect of certain aspects of their particular role in work.

I would be very interested in any of the speakers' takes on some of the key problems we know we had in the past which seem to be addressed here. One relates to the protected disclosure ending up going back to those about whom the disclosure is made. I am concerned about that point where the person who has received the disclosure is assessing whether it has merit or needs additional information. Is there sufficient protection at that point to ensure they are not making that assessment in a way that exposes the reporting person?

I think this point may be addressed here. We had ambiguity in the past where people made protected disclosures to a Minister and then the Minister changed role. It was not clear if it is the individual who received it that is the recipient, or if it is the role that is the recipient. We had disclosures that were falling between stools. Has that been adequately addressed?

I wish to deal with the question of compensation. I am concerned about the stories we have heard from whistleblowers. The compensatory package is capped at €13,000. We know the damage done to people's lives for whistleblowing in Ireland has often been quite extreme. People have lost their homes, their livelihoods and ten or 15 years of their career in some cases. I ask the witnesses to outline their thoughts on that compensation. We have discussed at length the interim measures but I am asking about that ultimate piece.

This is not about being retrospective, but it is about cases which are almost still in play. Two of the great frustrations we have heard from people is the lack of communication to them about what has happened on cases. I see that improved in this Bill in that they get enough feedback within three to six months and they then would be entitled to know the ultimate end point. However, some of the whistleblowers we have spoken to have gone four or five years without knowing what is happening, sometimes when they are still in the workplace about which they have made a complaint. Is there a need for an interim communication point where they can seek an update on whether the matter is still in process to know what is happening rather than waiting for the end point?

Many of those who sought compensation under the previous system were not able to access it or have never had that claim properly processed. Where the disclosure is in the past but there has never been a final communication as to what happened or there has never been a final resolution of the claim for compensation, should those persons still be able to apply under these new rules? Even though the disclosure point was in the past, they are still effectively awaiting satisfaction from the system under those two particular remits.