Ms Julie Grace:

I thank the committee for the invitation to address it today. I am here to faithfully assist this committee and outline my experience of the practices of the State in dealing with my application under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. Having walked that walk for justice, I can attest to this committee that there many failings in the implementation of the existing Act and the practices are greatly at variance with the theory.

The circumstances of my working life in a local authority forced me to "blow the whistle" on and refuse to participate in serious wrongdoings. These wrongdoings had catastrophic consequences for the abused. On 22 June 2016, the day before the Brexit referendum in the UK, I submitted a protected disclosure application under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 to the relevant Minister as per the Act. That was done in person in Leinster House and he assured me it would be dealt with expeditiously. Attached to the protected disclosure application I provided a copy of my published book, Abuse of Power: Because Councils Can, to the Minister, which outlines relevant particulars supporting my application. The committee should be assured that no line in my book or the veracity of any statements I have made have been challenged in the past seven years by any person or entity because I am telling the truth.

Six months later in December 2016, the Minister telephoned me and related that his Department did not yet have policies or procedures in place to administer my protected disclosures application he but asked me to trust him and that he would deal with it fairly. I believed I was entitled to the remedy sought in the application at that stage and should not have been penalised further by delays for the admitted failure of the Government to have administrative processes in place for legislation that was already two and a half years in existence. It is clearly set out in that Act that a Minister is a "relevant person" to receive protected disclosures.

The elephant in the room about the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is that whether by accident or by design, it is not time-bound. "What has no timeline is farcical" is a line I have heard repeated by a Minister with respect to another topic and it is a very pertinent point. Under this current regime, it seems no resolution needs ever to emerge. Unfortunately for bona fide whistleblowers who expect a fair process in a timely manner with an outcome advised to them, I can only say that since I submitted my protected disclosure application to the relevant Minister in June 2016, the entire protected disclosures process has failed for me.

Not alone was I deprived of a timeline but I was further deprived of communications, including the determination, which I understand was made in May 2018. The then Minister wrote to me and told me to wait for the outcome. I am still waiting and he has gone from the Oireachtas since. The current Minister issued the same response in a parliamentary question three years later in 2021. I was told to wait.

The Minister states he does not have any role of governance or oversight or role in the way that the public funds allocated by him is spent or misspent by a local authority. The Minister confirmed to me in writing that the chief executive officer of a local authority can use the public resources in any way he decides. Despite this fact, the application I made in good faith to the Minister was put before the same local authority for its investigation of its own actions. This removed any possibility of a fair process for me due to the overriding conflicts of interest.

The protected disclosures legislation has been used against me. While I was working in good faith, supplying the documentation and evidence to support my application, the Minister delegated the task of investigation back to the perpetrators. Years have gone by again. This is the perversity of administration that I experienced under implementation of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. Having exhausted all avenues in my home country and suffering denial of justice and infringement of my fundamental rights, I submitted an application to the petitions committee of the European Parliament, PETI, for assistance. This was heard on 13 April 2021, and I have submitted the original EU broadcast stream of petition to the clerk of this committee to share with you for more complete information.

The petitions committee sent my petition to the European Commission directorate of justice for investigation. It returned with comment that it was "a very well substantiated" application, but as of this moment, until the Irish Government has transposed the EU directive into Irish law, the Commission cannot pass a judgment on the failings of the whistleblower legislation just yet.

It is important that this PETI committee has taken interim actions while we are all awaiting transposition of the 2019 directive. It has kept my European petition open, referred my petition to the legal affairs committee for investigation and written to the Irish Department of Justice seeking information about progress of the Irish Government in implementing the EU whistleblower directive.

When the Irish Department of Justice received the letter from the EU petitions committee chair, it declined responsibility and passed it to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. It in turn declined responsibility for it and passed it onto the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the Minister of which was the recipient of my original protected disclosure application.

How can an ordinary citizen like me have faith in this system?

I did not choose to become a whistleblower. I was pushed out of a career in the local government sector at 52 years old because I believed in my respect for the law, in adherence to standards and governance, and in my refusal to join others in abusing the rights of citizens. All of these details are set out in my 2014 published book Abuse of Power: Because Councils Can. As a public servant, I refuse to be corrupt.

I went to the High Court in 2010 and had my good name reconfirmed. All of my evidence was taken at its highest point. The court found that I had made a recommendation for the abused tenant to be transferred to alternative accommodation, as was her legal right. Council officials denied this for years until then. I believe that woman would be alive today if she had not been so abused. They never apologised to her family or to me.

The Minister delegated responsibility from my protected disclosure application to the same local authority. Is there any political will for a fair outcome for people like me? My High Court action in 2010 uncovered an absence of legislation governing recruitment in local authorities. There is a serious public interest element to this finding, the ramifications of which highlight scope and potential for mass patronage and nepotism in local authorities in Ireland. Is this democracy?

It is contended by some academics and commentators that individuals who blow the whistle are courageous. In the absence of open support and backing from our elected politicians, I believe whistleblowing will persist in being a precarious route for individuals standing against corruption. It continues to mean risks, costs and suffering for honest workers of conscience and, perversely, without any negative career consequences for the perpetrators. I do not dare to doubt the bona fides of anyone here today, but in truth, we all know that in the real Ireland any legislation is only as good as its enforcement. In my lived experience, this is primarily due to the lack of political will to enforce the legislation that is already there, with or without a timeline.

I am not looking for something that I am not entitled to. The remedy in the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is minuscule when compared with the actual cost to me for my honesty and integrity. It does not even consider the whole retaliation element. However, I want closure. I have copied the committee in my original protected disclosure application to the Minister. I have explicitly waived all rights to anonymity from the outset.

Doing the right thing, as a public servant, and blowing the whistle on wrongdoing did not present the biggest challenge for me. What has presented extreme challenge over the past 17 years is the victimisation, penalisation and retaliation that I have endured and suffered, coming from actions of individuals who are protected inside State-funded organisations and who are personally cosseted by the public purse. It is unfair that they are shielded from all accountability for their actions and that they are enabled to engage in malicious strategies to delay, to deny and to wait for the whistleblower to die. At 70 years of age, this is unsavoury at best.

I have many concerns about the transposition of the EU directive into Irish whistleblowing law, which I hope the committee can explore further. I am happy to answer any questions. By the way, I submitted 16 documents to support this statement. They comprise letters to and from the Department. It shows the chronology of my application, and how the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 does not work for the whistleblower. It is a shame that this these documents were censored from the committee because full information is a requirement to move forward and to seriously do what electorate expects, that is, to represent everybody and to leave some space for the honest, conscientious worker.