DRD: Review of an Investigation of a Whistleblower Complaint

Mr Kieran Donnelly, Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), today issued a report on his review of the adequacy, quality and thoroughness of an investigation by the Department for Regional Development (DRD) into allegations, some of which were very serious, made by a Whistleblower. The C&AG stated that:

“Our findings in this case lead us to conclude that there were significant weaknesses in the conduct of DRD’s investigation leading to the 2010 report. As a result of these weaknesses, the credibility of the 2010 investigation is seriously undermined.”

Background

Whistleblowers have an important role to play in bringing information to departments about matters that are troubling them in relation to the proper conduct of public business (paragraph 1).   In 2005, a Whistleblower contacted us with 15 allegations on the procurement arrangements operated by Roads Service for the supply, delivery and erection of road signs. These allegations were passed to DRD in November 2005 for investigation.  The Whistleblower made further relevant allegations and these were passed on promptly to DRD in December 2006 and September 2007, by which time there were 29 substantive allegations.  DRD reported its findings in January 2010.  

Main Findings:

This investigation took over four years to reach a conclusion.  It failed to apply the professional investigative standards that we have seen delivered in other reviews of serious whistleblower complaints.  While the allegations were addressed individually, consideration was not given to recurring themes across allegations, such as favouritism, which would have highlighted the Whistleblower’s concerns about weaknesses in relation to the letting and administration of signage contracts in Roads Service (paragraph 14).  DRD does not accept that there was favouritism or any inference of such behaviour (paragraph 70).  DRD contends that a High Court judgment in 2011 supports its 2010 report.  However, we are of the view that the High Court judgment, which examined only three of the allegations, is not relevant to our review of the adequacy, quality and thoroughness of the DRD investigation (paragraph 75).

As a result of the weaknesses found (see below), the credibility of the 2010 investigation by DRD is, in our opinion, seriously undermined (paragraph 15).  We are therefore unable to agree with DRD’s conclusion that the allegations had been investigated thoroughly. Indeed, we are concerned that the Investigation Team gave the benefit of the doubt to Road Service officials in its analysis of the evidence.  In our view, on the basis of the work done by the investigators, we do not consider that the allegations were investigated sufficiently (paragraph 15).  DRD does not agree with our conclusion (paragraph 16).

Our review of the DRD Internal Audit investigation found that:

  • the investigation was not well planned (paragraphs 21 to 23);
  • the allegations were not addressed in a timely and prompt manner (paragraphs 27 to 32);
  • DRD did not adequately engage with the Whistleblower or manage his expectations (paragraphs 35 to 39);
  • there were a number of significant weaknesses in the application and use of forensic audit techniques in investigating the Whistleblower’s complex complaints.  These techniques should have been used to prove or disprove serious aspects of a wide range of allegations with a recurring theme, such as favouritism. As a result, we are not satisfied that all of the allegations were thoroughly investigated (paragraph 69);
  • all allegations were not adequately investigated (paragraphs 90 to 93);
  • formal oversight by senior management during the progress of the investigation was limited (paragraph 97);
  • the investigation did not take full account of relevant findings from a previous investigation (paragraphs 101 to 103 and 107); and
  • the independence and objectivity of the investigation was weakened where aspects of the evidence gathering was devolved, in some cases, to officials who were implicated in the allegations.  The Investigation Team gave less favourable treatment to the Whistleblower than to other competitor firms at a key point in the investigation (paragraph 115).

The C&AG commented that:

“Where a whistleblower takes the significant step of coming forward with serious allegations, it is incumbent upon the relevant public body to carry out a prompt, properly planned and thoroughly executed investigation of the issues raised.”   

As a result of our review of this case, we have made a number of specific recommendations in relation to each finding.  These recommendations, and the supporting guiding principles on which they are based, have widespread application across the Northern Ireland public sector. We strongly recommend that a centralised and service-wide resource should be made available to lead or assist departments in complex investigations such as this.  DRD agrees that there is a strong case for a centralised and service-wide resource to be available for complex investigation cases of this nature (paragraph 19).

Background briefing can be obtained from the Audit Office by contacting Stephen McCormick (028 9025 1067) or Patrick O’Neill (028 9025 1023).