The Office of the Confidential Recipient was founded in 2014 as a result of the Áras Attracta scandal. That scandal was exposed by RTÉ in a documentary called "Inside Bungalow 3". Disturbing undercover footage showed vulnerable adults being mistreated by some staff within that HSE-funded service. It showed inhumane and degrading treatment to residents and several people with intellectual disabilities in that location. Secretly recorded footage showed that staff members were slapping, kicking, force-feeding and physically restraining vulnerable adults while also subjecting them to psychological abuse, such as shouting and demeaning insults. The exposé revealed a systematic culture of neglect and institutional control, where residents were often treated like eternal children and deprived of basic dignity and liberty.

In the aftermath of that, several of the staff faced criminal prosecutions and convictions. Nine were immediately suspended. The scandal triggered multiple national inquiries by HIQA and the HSE. One of the main outcomes of that scandal was the fact the HSE set up safeguarding services and the Office of the Confidential Recipient was created. The then director general of the HSE, Tony O'Brien, said the Office of the Confidential Recipient would, under the terms of the 2004 Act, be a recipient of formal, legal delegation from him, giving her the authority through the health service and the powers invested in the chief executive of the HSE.

I have heard shocking news about that office this week. The Office of the Confidential Recipient is to have its powers eradicated. It was an independent avenue for the public to get issues of wrongdoing resolved. A total of 1,500 formal complaints were made. Thousands of consultations and inquiries were held. Hundreds of vulnerable people who had no other pathway to justice used that system. As a result of new decision within the HSE, shockingly, the powers invested in the Office of the Confidential Recipient will be eradicated. The delegation, which is the legal underpinning of the powers of the confidential recipient, is to be set aside. Without that delegation, the office has no independent powers.

The new national framework HSE policy for adult safeguarding in the health and social care sector, which was just announced, has a serious and inherent conflict of interest. The HSE will now be its own de facto regulator. The HSE, which is the primary carer for these individuals, will now be the primary investigator of abuse in that particular sector. These fundamental changes mean that the confidential recipient will basically have no independence. She will come under the office of the chief social worker of the HSE. Essentially, it has made that office answerable to the chief social worker on an operational basis.

I ask the Tánaiste here today what independent and confidential pathways will vulnerable patients of the HSE have to get justice and have their situations looked at? Will he make sure this decision is reversed?

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and reminding us of a lot of the very good work that has been done by that office since its establishment. I recall the appointment of Leigh Gath, who I think was the first confidential recipient. She was a woman whom I knew and she did incredible work. She was a Thalidomide survivor herself and a disability advocate. She really did excellent work and I acknowledge that and think of her today.

I will ask the Minister for Health to come back to the Deputy directly with any further information or thoughts on this but my understanding is that when the office was originally established much of the structure that is in place today in relation to safeguarding, and even the role of the chief social worker within the HSE, bizarrely, perhaps, did not exist. There has been a very significant overhaul of the structures in place. We now have a chief social worker. That chief social worker has that overall responsibility for delivery of adult safeguarding services. We have had expert reviews in relation to that role and the structure of safeguarding services within the HSE as well.

My understanding, and based on what the Deputy has said, which I have no reason to disbelieve or doubt, is that the confidential recipient's reporting line will now be to the chief social worker as opposed to the chief executive of the HSE. I make the point that, even as originally constructed, the office always reported in, for want of a better phrase, to the HSE, whether to the CEO or the director general previously. In this case, there is some wisdom to the idea that the chief social worker is a person who has a level of professional expertise and qualification that may indeed be more appropriate. The structure has changed. I genuinely do not believe there is any attempt to downgrade or in any way devalue the vital work done. I reiterate the Government's view that this work is vital, beneficial and has made a very significantly positive impact on improvements to our health service. We want to see that continue.

However, the structure of the HSE has changed and there is now a chief social worker position that did not exist when the original structure was put in place. That is my understanding of the change, no more and no less. I will ask the Minister for Health to reflect further on the Deputy's comments and revert to him.

What is happening here at the moment is a serious scandal. This country has a really bad record in terms of standing up for people with disabilities and learning difficulties. Many of them have been abandoned for a long period of time. State bodies have a history of defending their institutions against those individuals who have been wronged. That is a record that is peppered right throughout the State bodies in this country. Look at the Brandon and Emily cases. The Brandon case exposed 100 incidents of sexual abuse and other abuse against people with intellectual disabilities in Donegal. The Emily case involved the rape of a nursing home resident with dementia in this State. We are talking about situations of absolutely grave importance. We are also talking about a serious eradication of that independent power and confidential power.

Already, there are people within the HSE refusing to work with the confidential recipient or get into things with her. Already, that is happening within the HSE.

You should conclude, Deputy Tóibín.

The idea that in some way getting rid of independence and putting another individual of the HSE in control of an office for investigations that are to happen in the HSE is backwards. It is giving the power to investigate to the organisation that is accused of the wrongdoing.

You should conclude, Deputy.

That never works. Will the Tánaiste seek a reversal of this?

I disagree with the Deputy's characterisation of it but I appreciate the point he is trying to make. It is a highly important issue that we all need to be alert to. This office has operated since day one as an independent office. It was an independent office that receives confidential information and then reports it to the HSE's CEO.

When it was reporting it as an independent office to the HSE's CEO, there was no chief social work officer responsible for reforming and driving reform in this area. There now is. Certainly the Minister can revert to the Deputy on some of the concerns he has raised, but I want to be really clear: the office remains independent. There has been no effort to subsume the office into the HSE's internal structures. What has changed, and the Deputy is correct on this, is the reporting structure. The confidential recipient now reports in their information to the chief social worker and had previously reported in to the HSE's CEO. That is being done from a place of wanting to reflect how-----

It is a radical move.

-----the HSE now operates and the role and the value of the chief social worker because the chief social worker has been a positive addition, for the many reasons that the Deputy outlined, to the HSE. I will ask the Minister to come back to the Deputy further.