Action on concerns of whistleblowers is vital

The revelation in today’s Irish Examiner of another protected disclosure about the endangering of Air Corps personnel is to be welcomed, but it also highlights weaknesses in the whistleblower legislation.

The original disclosures by three personnel about the exposure of individuals to hazardous chemicals were made more than a year ago but they were only recently contacted for interview as part of the review of their claims.

By now, you would have expected that not only those three, but anyone with information relevant to the issue, would have been invited, encouraged, indeed begged, to share all they knew and interviewed about it in detail.

Instead, the foot-dragging has resulted in yet another recourse to the procedures and protections of the whistle-blower legislation in an attempt to bring information to the attention of the authorities.

What makes this all the more worrying is that the latest disclosures are the most shocking yet. It is claimed that people have died because of lax chemical handling procedures and that efforts were made to silence those who tried to speak up inside the organisation.

And this comes after the Health and Safety Authority threatened legal action against the Air Corps unless it improved protections for staff working around toxic substances, and after six lawsuits were filed by former Air Corps staff claiming compensation for damage to their health.

It comes after the issue has been raised politically inside and outside of the Dáil, and after extensive reports in this newspaper revealed contradictions in accounts of who knew what and when about a problem that may have been known about to some degree for at least 20 years.

All this and still there has been a delay in getting to the heart of the matter — the people who fear they or their colleagues have been hurt, and the people who spoke out on their own or their colleagues’ behalf. All this and still it is unclear how extensive the ongoing review will be; whether it is focusing primarily on the handling of the disclosures made or the substance of those disclosures.

The refusal of the Government to order a full investigation into the claims suggests it would rather leave the latter to be thrashed out in the courts — hardly the most productive or efficient method of examining a potential health scandal.

With all we now know from Anglo, the gardaí, Áras Attracta, Grace and other controversies of our time, it is clear that people need encouragement to report wrongdoing, and protection from formal or informal backlash when they do.

The Protected Disclosures Act tells us these safeguards are now in place. But what the legislation does not do is require a swift, thorough response to the information received. That still seems to depend on the attitude of those in charge.

The greatest protection for a whistleblower, and for the development of a healthy whistleblower culture, is genuine focus on the concerns they raise and swift action to address any wrongs revealed. Without that, the Protected Disclosures Act may inadvertently protect the status quo.