Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 14 is about timeliness provision where an investigation into a protected disclosure has been received by the commissioner. I am trying to ensure we do not just have the initial communication or that where ongoing communication is being processed, we do not have the processes dragging on forever over extremely long periods of time. These periods of time can cause quite a lot of distress, concern and anxiety for whistleblowers. The amendment tries to ensure a time limit. It recognises this may not always be applicable and so it provides for when a time limit cannot be met. It proposes that going beyond 24 months would be the exception rather than any kind of rule.

Amendment No. 14 provides that, "Where an investigation into a protected disclosure received by the Commissioner exceeds 24 months in length, the Commissioner shall notify the reporting person the reasons why the investigation has exceeded this period of time.” There is welcome provision in the legislation around interim feedback. We know, however, that the problem is that getting interim feedback every few years for a decade can for many people make it feel as though their life is a little bit suspended. Investigations can last for years and sometimes they can be prolonged for years. Sometimes investigations can be obstructed, which makes them last for years. It puts whistleblowers through a lot of trauma in many cases. It is important that when an investigation goes on for longer than two years, there would be an explanation as to why that is the case. This is a measure designed to discourage a long time period. It recognises it may need to happen in some investigations but it is trying to push that to be an exception. It is trying to send a signal that it is expected that most investigations should be concluded within 24 months. I believe this two-year period is reasonable in most cases.