By stewartb responding to the highly selective and negative media reporting of the whistleblowing officer’s report into contact tracing:
As often the case, a journalist with a different objective could have framed the article quite differently.
And here just a few extracts from it:
Para 38. ‘The head of complaint I have investigated is that NCC staff did not have sufficient training and access to sufficient information to enable them to provide correct information to the public. This concerned the specific period prior to, and at the time of the concern being raised in June 2021.’
And then para 42. ‘Although I have upheld this head of complaint, I HAVE NOT MADE ANY RECOMMENDATION associated with my findings AS NCC RECTIFIED THE ISSUES IN THE FOLLOWING MONTHS (for more information see paragraph 96 below).’ (my emphasis)
And on process:
Para 54. ‘C’s (the whistleblower’s) concerns about the quality of the investigation were about the impartiality of NSS’s investigation. C felt that the conclusions were based on opinions rather than facts. I also considered whether NSS’s investigation addressed all the issues C raised.’
Para 55. ‘I have identified NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT C’S CONCERNS ABOUT the investigation not being impartial or evidence based. I am satisfied that a suitably impartial investigating officer was appointed to conduct the investigation. I am also satisfied that NSS’s findings summarised in their stage 2 response (and more fully in the investigation report) were informed by the evidence they gathered.’
Para 75. ‘In summary, I consider that some aspects of NSS’s handling of C’s whistleblowing concern were compliant with the Standards and DEMONSTRATED GOOD PRACTICE. I am satisfied that the investigation (to the extent it was performed) was impartial and evidence based.
76. ‘I WAS UNABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT C WAS GIVEN INCORRECT INFORMATION about accessing the whistleblowing procedure. While it was regrettable that NSS did not identify C’s concern about the risks relating to wrong exposure dates and incorrect isolation advice earlier, THERE WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT DELAY BEFORE this concern was identified and investigated as an anonymous concern.’
79. ‘While I am unable to conclude that NSS’s stage 2 response was unsupported by their evidence and findings, I consider that NSS could have communicated the outcome in a way which supported C TO FEEL THAT THEY HAD BEEN LISTENED to and that they were right to speak up.’
Get little or no sense of this from the news coverage.