Ms Julie Grace:

I thank Deputy Casey very much. That is a most pertinent question. The old Act contained a provision allowing it to be applied retrospectively, but it was very limited. We should not be focusing on the words "token" or "compensation".

We need to be put back into the position we were in. It is restitution. I see restitution as being the focal point of setting this right in the new legislation. It should be timely. There is not much point in kicking it out for so many years until someone dies, and that is the aspiration and the reality of it. I see huge implications for younger whistleblowers who have young families. I was one of the more fortunate ones in that I was older. Yes, I had losses and it took 17 years of really good living from me. I had to go to the High Court to have my good name reaffirmed because I have an adult family. I have been victimised by the procedures but I am not a victim. I am a survivor. My heart goes out to the younger people with young families with their homes and careers absolutely destroyed because they did the right thing. There is nowhere for them to go. I must tell the committee I am not an isolated case. I cannot comment on it but I have seen cases in the local authority where this has happened to people who raised their head above the parapet. With all due respect, there needs to be, as I said, a shift from the top down.

Deputy Casey is talking specifically about the legislation. Somebody must be in charge. The Minister is an elected person there by virtue of a democratic system, flawed as it might be. He is the corporate soul and a person one should be able to apply to. He should be properly resourced and in a position to appropriately investigate. As was said, it is not down to the perpetrators. This is the big joke. It is like a three-ring circus. It goes from one to the other. It goes from one person to their cousin, to their friend, to their partner or whoever.

We need a very firm section in that legislation that deals with restitution and with the protection of giving the evidence. Very few people who come forward do that willingly. It is a heart-wrenching exercise to have to go through. You do not want to get yourself in that position but you need somewhere to go.

To go back again to the restitution, it should reflect the losses and reflect where a person is in their career. If somebody has lost their home over it, that should be reflected. If you want a quicker solution to this, you should look at penalisation of the perpetrators. While all this is going on, they are enhancing their careers, promoting one another and going way up the ladder. They look down and then they swan off into the sunset having left a trail of destruction behind them. I thank the Deputy for his conscience in terms of addressing that. I would call for that restitution to be measured with the losses.