Today we meet to discuss autonomy and integrity for people with disabilities. On behalf of the committee, I warmly welcome from Inclusion Ireland, Ms Derval McDonagh CEO and Mr. Gáibhin McGranaghan, policy and public affairs co-ordinator and from Safeguarding Ireland, Ms Annmarie O'Connor, programme manager and Mr. Ronan Cavanagh, public awareness and communications officer.

Before we begin, I will read a note on privilege and housekeeping matters. All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against a person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory or in relation to a person or identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is important that they comply with any such direction. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege.

I would also like to remind members of the constitutional requirements that in order to participate in public meetings, they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. Members of the committee attending remotely must do so from within the precincts of Leinster House.

I now call on Ms McDonagh to make her opening statement. She has five minutes.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear here today. We welcome this chance to present the findings of Inclusion Ireland's report, The right to justice and participation: Lessons from the Farrelly Commission. I am joined by our policy and public affairs co-ordinator, Gáibhin McGranaghan. Our head of communications, Caoimhe Suipéil, is in the Public Gallery.

Inclusion Ireland is the national organisation for people with intellectual disabilities and their families. We are not here to simply reflect on a single person's experience but to highlight long-standing systemic failures that deny justice, silence survivors and expose significant rights gaps in Ireland's approach to institutional abuse. At the centre of the Farrelly commission was Grace, an intellectually disabled woman whose experience shocked the country. What happened to her and the State's response must mark a turning point in safeguarding, accountability and the protection of disabled people's rights. However, Grace's experience cannot be seen as an isolated event. It must drive meaningful and lasting reform. Our research is based on a targeted, qualitative survey of human rights experts. I would like to take this opportunity to thank each of them for contributing to the report. They are: Suzy Byrne; Patricia Carey, special advocate for survivors of institutional abuse; Dr. Aoife Gallagher, associate professor, school of allied health, University of Limerick; Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC; Dr. Caroline Jagoe, Trinity College Dublin; Dr. Claire McGettrick, born Lorraine Hughes, adoption scholar and advocate; Dr. Katherine O'Donnell, UCD; Molly O'Keeffe, family member; Dr. Charles O'Mahony, University of Galway; Dr. Maeve O'Rourke, University of Galway, and Dr. Sinéad Ring, Maynooth University. I thank them for their contributions in pulling together this report and to Gáibhin for collating the findings.

It gathered data from family members, people with lived experience, human rights experts and advocates finding that the commission's process was not experienced as inclusive, supportive or accessible. Respondents consistently described it as adversarial and distressing. It was the view of our participants that people with significant communication support needs were effectively excluded from the process. Non-speaking individuals and those relying on alternative communication were not provided with the supports required to participate. This exclusion represents more than a procedural weakness. It reflects a failure to uphold rights under Articles 13, 16 and 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, around equal access to justice, protection from violence and abuse, and the right to live independently and be included in the community. Without communication assistance, supported decision-making and trauma-informed practice, the promise of justice was not realised for many survivors. These shortcomings have direct implications for the forthcoming commission of investigation into historical abuse in schools. The scoping inquiry there identified approximately 590 allegations relating to special schools, involving 190 alleged abusers. Many of the children and adults involved may be non-speaking or cannot rely on speech to communicate. People with intellectual disabilities, particularly in segregated or institutional environments, face a well-established heightened risk of abuse. We must ensure this next inquiry does not mirror the barriers documented in our report or we risk that many of those seeking justice may once again be denied their right to participate.

Future inquiries must therefore begin with a clear commitment to meaningful participation. This requires access to communication assistance, intermediaries, accessible information in easy-to-read and plain English, supported decision making, consistent with existing law and trauma-informed engagement throughout the process. Although our mandate centres on people with intellectual disabilities, these issues have wider relevance for disabled women and girls, deaf and autistic people and people with psychosocial disabilities who also experienced institutional abuse. While the report calls for is legislative reform in the longer term, we recommend three actions in the short term that are achievable under existing law and would meaningfully strengthen participation in forthcoming inquiries.

The Department of the Taoiseach, working closely with relevant Departments and agencies should adopt a national accessibility and participation protocol for all commissions of investigation. This would set consistent expectations for communication supports, supported decision-making, accessible materials and survivor engagement, ensuring that inquiries are designed to include those most affected and often most excluded.

Inquiries should be codesigned with survivors, disabled persons' organisations, advocacy groups and independent human rights bodies. Codesign allows barriers to be identified and addressed early and aligns with the State's obligations to involve disabled people in decisions that directly affect them.

Departments and inquiry teams should apply existing law in a rights-based manner, including the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004, the public sector equality and human rights duty, the Assisted Decision-Making Capacity Act 2015 and Ireland's obligations under the UNCRPD and the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR. These frameworks already require more inclusive practice and their proper interpretation can improve inquiries immediately. Together, these steps, among the others outlined in our report, would strengthen access to justice, promote more inclusive investigations and reduce the likelihood of harm being repeated. As our report states, justice must be designed for everyone, not only for those who can most easily navigate the system. Inclusion Ireland stands ready to support the committee and the Government in advancing the reforms that survivors deserve.

In a broader sense, we must also urgently examine why disabled people are four times more likely to experience abuse than their disabled peers. This is a direct result of an outdated, non-human-rights-compliant model of care and support, which is a version of institutionalisation repeating itself throughout history. If people do not have choice about where they live, who they live with and how they live their lives, then we are perpetuating systems where harm and abuse are more likely to occur.

Of course, we support the development of safeguarding legislation and, importantly, as a State, we must enshrine the right to community living in our legislation. The upcoming review of the Disability Act 2005 promised in the programme for Government is an opportunity to do so and to break the cycle of harm and trauma so many of our community continue to experience. We had Grace, Brandon, Emily and Áras Attracta. It is long past time we moved on from institutionalisation and the segregation of disabled people and lived up to the ideals clearly articulated in the UNCRPD. I thank the committee and look forward to its questions.

I thank Ms McDonagh. I call Ms O'Connor to make her opening statement.

I thank the Chair and committee members for the invitation to speak today. I am the programme manager at Safeguarding Ireland, and I am joined by Ronan Cavanagh, public awareness manager.

Safeguarding Ireland was established in the aftermath of the Áras Attracta investigation and was designed to bring together the views of a multisectoral group on how adult safeguarding could be addressed under an independent chairperson. Our appearance today follows the Farrelly commission report on Grace, a girl and woman who could not protect herself from harm, who was severely failed for a period of 20 years and experienced an appalling litany of neglect and abuse. The Farrelly commission report and the subsequent report by Inclusion Ireland identified many issues that need to be comprehensively addressed. Today, we will focus on safeguarding adults who cannot protect themselves from harm.

Safeguarding Ireland is a small charity focused on raising awareness and achieving long overdue legislative change. We do not provide a service to the public, yet every day we are contacted by people concerned about adults experiencing, or at risk of, harm and abuse. The vast majority of adult abuse is carried out by someone known to and trusted by the victim. Concerns are always complex and multifaceted. We have noted an increase in gravity. Increasingly, we signpost to An Garda Síochána.

Getting support or resolution is undermined and frustrated by the absence of a dedicated authority with the requisite skills, expertise and resources to understand and resolve the issues. Adult abuse can happen anywhere; it is not limited to health and social care. Citizens, professionals and organisations want to respond. They want assurance that their referral will be acted on and they want confidence in the referral pathway. Yet, there is no central source of expertise and guidance, no locus of responsibility or accountability and too little transparency.

When we think about victims who may, like Grace, be non-verbal and may not be able to or supported to have their voice heard, further weaknesses in our safeguarding regime are exposed. Our current approach is not person-centred and it is certainly not victim-centred. There is a long way to go in ensuring all adults are ensured a voice in decisions about their lives. We believe a stakeholder forum should be convened urgently by the Department of Children, Disability and Equality to ensure effective and harmonised implementation of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, ADMCA, across all sectors.

While the Farrelly commission report examines Grace’s case to March 2010, many of the failures in safeguarding remain current in 2025. Safeguarding Ireland’s 2022 report, Identifying Risks - Sharing Responsibilities, concluded that:

A culture that is dismissive of certain forms of abuse, that trivialises others and that plays down the human and legal rights of adults at risk, persists in Ireland. The fragmented and specialised remits of various agencies limit their potential in this regard. There is a need for a national body that can address the issue in a comprehensive and all-encompassing manner.

In April 2024, the Law Reform Commission published its report, A Regulatory Framework for Adult Safeguarding, concluding that the current position is undesirable and would be greatly improved by the provision of a statutory and regulatory framework for adult safeguarding. This would entail comprehensive, cross-sectoral legislation which assigns responsibility for regulation and oversight to appropriate bodies and provides powers, duties and obligations for those who interact with adults who may be at risk across different settings.

The policy for adult safeguarding for health and social care currently being developed by the Department of Health is welcome and necessary, but it is not the comprehensive response required. It is too narrowly focused. Moreover, the policy has no legislative powers of enforcement or conviction. When we appeared before the health committee in July, we proposed a roadmap for a national safeguarding authority, which must be an independent statutory agency with the following functions: to receive reports of actual or suspected abuse or harm in any sector; to respond to reports and ensure that action is taken; to direct the HSE and other statutory or non-statutory bodies to take actions to safeguard adults at risk; to have a co-ordinating role, requiring key stakeholders to work together; to conduct serious incident reviews; to set standards and monitor compliance; to assist with developing safeguarding plans; to put in place preventative measures; to oversee robust data collection; to carry out research; and to provide training, education and public awareness.

Safeguarding Ireland again asks the Government to establish an interdepartmental working group on adult safeguarding. The working group must: progress adult safeguarding legislation which covers all Government Departments and agencies of the State, based on the draft legislation developed by the Law Reform Commission; plan for an independent adult safeguarding authority provided for in the legislation; and complete the statutory framework for adult safeguarding, including new offences relevant to the safety and protection of many people, like Grace, who cannot protect themselves from harm and abuse. These must include: an offence of neglect, ill-treatment, intentional abuse, reckless endangerment, withholding of care or the necessities of care or practices or systems which create the conditions in which such offences become normalised; an offence of exposure to risk of serious harm or sexual abuse; an offence of coercive control that extends to a broader range of relationships beyond the Domestic Violence Act; and an offence of coercive exploitation to include financial exploitation.

I thank Ms O'Connor. I invite members to ask questions. Members should adhere to the agenda items scheduled for discussion. Each member has seven minutes and the first person to speak will be Deputy Quaide from the Social Democrats.

It is great to have both Inclusion Ireland and Safeguarding Ireland with us. I have been very impressed by their advocacy on safeguarding issues and I am grateful to them for the degree to which they are informing my own work and priorities, as the Social Democrats spokesperson for disability. I look forward to working with the organisations on an ongoing basis over this Dáil term and, hopefully, beyond.

It is important we are revisiting the Farrelly commission report because, as so often happens, there is a very intense political and media focus on a tragedy such as this, as well as related failings of the State, for a short period and then that scrutiny ebbs away and we move on to the next scandal. The point on the inaccessibility of the report was well made by Inclusion Ireland. I was taken aback and very frustrated that I was unable to obtain a bound copy of the report from the Department. I requested it more than once. It is very difficult to read a 2,000-page report on a computer. In addition, there was no executive summary or clear recommendations. Were the witnesses able to access a bound copy from the Department?

We have not seen a bound copy, but we did not request one. We agree that a 2,000-page report landing, particularly from the vantage point of survivors and those who already experience communication challenges and need support, was far from satisfactory and caused a lot of damage.

When the report was published in April, the Irish Association of Social Workers stated: "The threshold of evidence used in the Farrelly Commission of Inquiry is very different to those used in safeguarding reviews." It went on to say that "had the Farrelly thresholds been applied to the Emily case, the 22 other older women identified as likely victims of sexual abuse in that case would never have been identified." What are the witnesses' views on the Farrelly commission not being extended to investigate the experiences of other children who lived in the same home as Grace? Do they have any comment on the fact the investigation ended there?

We understand there is going to be a non-statutory safeguarding process for the remaining survivors and those who have come forward.

That has been committed to in the new programmatic plan arising out of the human rights strategy for disabled people. Within that plan, we can see that it should be delivered in quarters one and two of next year. I believe the survivors will be contacted and will be brought through a process at that stage. We agree that the process used with the Farrelly commission was adversarial. This is what the survivors have told us. They did not feel their voices were adequately heard and it was not a supportive, trauma-informed process. To the Deputy's point, then, about us documenting the lessons learned from the process, this is why we took it upon ourselves to do this at Inclusion Ireland. It is to have a written record of the key lessons learned so that, for the next commission of inquiry, there will be a chance we can do things differently and support survivors in a different and more trauma-informed way. This has got to be our hope and intention for the commission of inquiry into historical abuse in schools. We are very focused and we have written to the judge in this regard and sent a copy of our report. We are hoping to meet him in due course to help co-design what this could look like with survivors so this process is more satisfactory.

Okay. Do any of the witnesses have an opinion on the evidential thresholds of the Farrelly commission? Related to that, do they have any opinion on the fact that the final report established evidence of neglect as well as financial abuse or mismanagement but did not find evidence of physical, sexual or emotional abuse? I think that latter finding probably took a lot of people by surprise. I do not know if it is something the witnesses can comment on.

It did take the public and survivors by surprise given there were such credible allegations of abuse. We did not necessarily go into the findings of the report in our access to justice report. We focused, instead, on the process, because this is the aspect where we can have real learning for the next process and where we can hope we will do things differently the next time around.

Would that be something Safeguarding Ireland would be able to comment on?

Again, we would not have looked at the findings, but we certainly consider the relevance for future safeguarding failings. Our view is that the whole system needs reform. Obviously, Inclusion Ireland has focused on commissions. We are focusing more broadly on what needs to happen to safeguard adults at risk of harm and abuse in any setting.

Yesterday, the Government announced the introduction of its national policy framework for adult safeguarding in the health and social sectors. All the groups represented here have been consistent in their call, as have other groups, such as the Irish Association of Social Workers, concerning the need to progress the very comprehensive safeguarding legislation already written up by the Law Reform Commission and referred to in the opening statements. That has been gathering dust despite being commissioned by a previous Government. The limitations of the national policy framework were pointed to in the opening statement. Given the safeguarding legislation required for vulnerable adults is already there and ready to go, are the Government's efforts on this national policy framework for safeguarding a diversion that will not necessarily add anything to that legislation? Is it, in a way, a waste of effort or is there merit in the framework? Is it potentially a complement to legislation if it is progressed?

We had notice on Monday, I think, and we saw the policy yesterday. We were certainly aware that the work was ongoing. Overall, Safeguarding Ireland welcomes yesterday's publication of the new policy framework for adult safeguarding by the Department of Health yesterday. Our initial view is that it is a very significant policy and level of detail that has been announced. For example, it would extend to the public, private and voluntary sectors. It includes provision for co-operation and information sharing across groups, HIQA's remit to be extended to the oversight and monitoring of HSE safeguarding services, and the national independent review panel to be put on a statutory footing. There is a lot of other detail in the policy, too. The policy is, in truth, probably more comprehensive and far-reaching than we might have thought it would be. A significant level of detail is put forward in it. In that context, Safeguarding Ireland welcomes the publication of yesterday's report.

I will make some comments on it. Obviously, and this is the broken record piece, a lot of reports have been published, but it is the implementation part that is difficult. We note that the policy does state that an implementation plan for the policy is to be published within six months. We are saying it is very important that that target be reached. It is a huge body of work and a complicated piece to implement. For example, a lot of different bodies and agencies need to be actioned and are affected. Enactment of legislation is required, as are changes to service delivery, staff training and new pathways of information sharing across services. There is also the monitoring and enforcement of the policy, so a lot of work needs to be able to happen there.

Does any of that get in the way of progressing the Law Reform Commission's legislation?

We are saying we will support the development of the implementation of the plan over six months and that it would then move into the delivery of the implementation. There is a lot in what has been put forward and worked up that takes up many of the Law Reform Commission's recommendations. We are supportive that this process set in train yesterday will continue. However, I will just add that it remains the view of Safeguarding Ireland that, ultimately, the establishment of a national safeguarding authority is the optimum solution. This is because there are other areas of safeguarding, including finance, justice and social protection, not covered in yesterday's publication. It is a very significant step forward and Safeguarding Ireland intends to come back in January 2026 with a considered position to identify the additional bits that should be covered.

I thank Mr. Cavanagh. We now move to the Labour Party's Senator Laura Harmon.

I thank everyone very much. I think it is really important that we are having this discussion today and I want to thank everyone for their contributions. Without a doubt, this is something that needs to be spoken about more in Leinster House. We need to have more political pressure in relation to it too. I am really struck by the witnesses' contributions. At the end of the day, these are people's lives, autonomy and families we are talking about.

The Grace, Brandon, Emily and Áras Attracta cases were mentioned. I completely agree that we need to move away from models of institutionalisation and segregation as a country. Solutions have clearly been suggested in relation to how we can get there. In relation to my questions, one of the things everyone highlighted was the absence of the dedicated authority. Could the witnesses talk a bit more about what that would look like in terms of functions? Safeguarding Ireland mentioned the need for an interdepartmental working group. How does this best need to function?

As Mr. Cavanagh mentioned, the Department of Health policy proposals are very strong, cover a lot of ground and cover a significant number of the functions we had identified as being functions that would lie with the new adult safeguarding authority. As Mr. Cavanagh said, we need to analyse what the gaps are. A range of enhancements are envisaged by the Department of Health's policy as well as a broadening of scope, so there is a lot there.

We have mentioned the key areas. On an initial reading of the Department of Health's policy, one is in the area of cross-sectoral co-operation. The Department's policy has a lot of mentions of co-operation and collaboration with other State bodies. We would see adult safeguarding as spanning all sectors of Irish society. Adults at risk live outside of health and social care. We would definitely see a role for an authority or a body in this position to ensure there is that co-operation between agencies in the public, private and community and voluntary sectors. This would be a major area we would like to think about over the coming weeks.

Just to add to that, one area, for example, is that of reporting. If someone has a concern about adult abuse, there are many different places where people can go with that concern.

There is a reference to that being covered in the new policy but we need to flesh out the detail. It is very important that there would be one central place to which concerns can be reported, whether they be related to health and social care, financial issues, justice or other areas. Our understanding is that the policy that was published yesterday is the only game in town from the Government's point of view. There is a lot in it and it goes a long way towards dealing with the Law Reform Commission's recommendations. We are hopeful that we will move towards implementation. That said, we would like to come back with suggestions about gaps and things that can be added to ensure we get that comprehensive, cross-sectoral piece right. The policy does go a significant distance.

In relation to congregated settings, we know there is a higher safeguarding risk there. How can we ensure rights-based safeguarding in those settings? How can we help with the transition to living in the community over time?

I thank the Senator for her question. We absolutely agree with the need for safeguarding legislation and a robust infrastructure. Hand in hand with that we also believe that we need to enshrine in legislation the right of people to live independently in the community. There is an opportunity coming up with the reform and review of the Disability Act, which is promised in the programme for Government, to examine what additional rights need to be put on a legislative footing to give voice to the UNCRPD and put it into practice. As we see it, the issue is the model of care itself. As Senator Harmon has rightly said, people are much more likely to experience abuse in institutional settings and large group homes and we still have quite a number of people living in those settings. What we are seeing now is a pattern of repeating institutionalisation in Ireland. We are closing congregated settings over time, albeit that is happening much more slowly than we at Inclusion Ireland would like, and 2,000 people are still living in those settings. At the same time, there are now 1,300 disabled people living in nursing homes who are under the age of 65. Furthermore, our prison population is growing and a large percentage of that population are disabled as well. We are actually reimagining institutionalisation over and over again. We have to put a stop to that and Inclusion Ireland believes that enshrining those rights in our legislation is the first step in doing that.

Ms McDonagh mentioned the review of the Disability Act which will be really important as part of this process. How does she envisage stakeholder engagement could be maximised as part of that review? What would that look like? In terms of international safeguarding models, are there examples of co-design that works well in other countries and jurisdictions that the witnesses could point to?

In terms of stakeholder engagement, the Australian and New Zealand models engaged in similar inquiries around institutional abuse and were pointed to by several respondents in our survey as being ideal models. In terms of how that engagement would look, it would be direct engagement. It would not just be a matter of a simple public consultation. Survivors and their families, as well as clinicians, would be involved consistently throughout the process, including the monitoring, evaluation and the design of any recommendations.

The witnesses are all very welcome and I thank them for meeting with us this morning. In terms of the gaps they have identified in yesterday's publication, I hope we will meet again to address them. I also thank the witnesses for the supporting information that they provided to the committee in advance of this meeting. Most importantly, I thank them for the support work they provide. Ms O'Connor said that Safeguarding Ireland is not officially the public reference point but it has assumed that role in the absence of a broader system or organisation. Thanks are due for that. I know of people who have made contact with Safeguarding Ireland and been referred onwards.

My first question relates to the three recommendations proposed by Inclusion Ireland in advance of the forthcoming commission of investigation into abuse in schools. This is a very basic question and I ask the witnesses to pardon my ignorance in this regard. Have these suggestions been made to the relevant Departments by Inclusion Ireland? If so, how were they met? What are the sequelae to that?

The access to justice and participation report has been sent to all relevant Departments and Ministers. We have also written to Mr. Justice McGrath, the chairperson of the new commission of inquiry into historical abuse in schools. We forwarded a copy of the report to him and suggested engagement on it in advance of the commission stepping up. He has responded and we look forward to engaging with him more. Obviously, as far as Inclusion Ireland is concerned, we cannot go backwards in the context of Grace. We cannot undo what happened to her or her experiences, or the experiences of other survivors who were part of the Farrelly commission. What we can do, however, is look forward and really push for reform at this stage. Our report on access to justice and participation highlights that while we are looking for legislative reform, and for the 2004 Act to be reviewed and reformed in time, we cannot wait for that to happen either. There is plenty that can be done as an interim stopgap. We can just interpret the Act more fully through a human rights lens, making sure that the principles of the UNCRPD and the ECHR are fully embodied in any new commission of inquiry. We can also use trauma-informed practices, accessible information and intermediaries who are appointed by the courts to support the communication, will and preference of survivors accessing justice. There is a lot that can be done without actually reforming the legislation. We are calling for that to happen in the meantime and then, in the longer term, to reform the legislation more fully to enshrine those rights.

On the basis of the responses that Inclusion Ireland has received, does Ms McDonagh think the three suggestions will form an integral part of the process?

We are hopeful that they will. The terms of reference have been drawn up for the new commission of inquiry and they have definitely gone some way towards acknowledging survivor needs, with reference to trauma-informed practices. We await our interactions with Mr. Justice McGrath to see how far they will be interpreted and whether all of our recommendations will be taken on board in the new commission. We look forward to that engagement, which will happen in due course.

My next question is for Ms O'Connor and Mr. Cavanagh. In terms of safeguarding and the transition from childhood to adulthood, how can policy move from best interests to will and preference? How will that be dealt with under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act?

That is a really good question. Our experience of engaging with organisations that are implementing that Act with their customers or clients suggests that it is something they have struggled with. I mentioned culture in our opening statement and there is a cultural shift that needs to happen. That is why we have made the recommendation around the need for a stakeholder forum to be established by the Department of Children, Disability and Equality. Our experience of the implementation of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act is that it has been slow and quite patchy across sectors. Sectors need to come together to agree a harmonised, good practice approach. The Deputy mentioned the transition from childhood to adulthood and transitions seem to be where problems occur. I refer here to transitions across a person's life and the fact that it is always the transitions that seem to be problematic. A seamless approach, where services have a harmonised way of implementing the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, is really important. As people transition from childhood to adulthood, for example, or from living at home to living in a residential care setting, they need to be seamlessly supported so that they themselves, their decision-maker or their family are not starting afresh with every change in their life.

Last November, Safeguarding Ireland ran a national public awareness campaign co-ordinated with many groups across the health and social care sector around the implementation of assisted decision-making. Research we did beforehand found that about 46% of people were not aware that services had a responsibility in the implementation of assisted decision-making. That is both public and private sector organisations. We co-ordinated public awareness around that and the Decision Support Service, which is the lead organisation. I heard radio ads about assisted decision-making just this week. There is a push to increase public awareness of the responsibilities of organisations to provide that to people.

I have a couple of other questions but rather than eat into time, I might get in later.

We will move on to Fianna Fáil. I can Senator Murphy O'Mahony.

I welcome the witnesses. I thank them for their opening statements which were excellent and for the excellent work they do. I have a big interest in adults with a disability or extra needs who find it hard to communicate whether they are non-speaking or have complex needs with regard to communication. Ms McDonagh mentioned it in her opening statement. What supports can be given to non-speaking children and adults so their voices can be heard? Will Ms McDonagh expand on that?

I thank the Senator for taking that point. It is incredibly important to us at Inclusion Ireland. Some of our members are non-speaking. Often, they are the people for whom access to justice is the most difficult and challenging and they experience the most barriers. We welcome the question. Individuals who communicate who are non-speaking or cannot rely on speech to communicate should be given access to assistive technology and any supports they need to communicate their will and preference. There are other structural things that can be done in accessing justice and the right to participate. The court can appoint an intermediary, for example, somebody who works alongside a person. There is a training course in the University of Limerick for intermediaries and there are a number of registered intermediaries in the country funded by the Department of justice. They work alongside the person, get to know them, their communication style and preference and support the person to access justice and have their voice heard in a matter that is meaningful for them. As we said in our report, there are already resources available in the system that can support people's access to justice, it is just about joined-up thinking and putting those supports in place in advance. With any commission of inquiry or any participative structure in health, social care or beyond, it is the thinking in advance that needs to happen. Often, things are designed with the non-speaking person outside the door. They need to be at the table with their supporter or family member to co-design what will work for them. In doing so, we save time, energy, resources and make sure that person can vindicate their rights. If we impose terms of reference or a process that does not work for the person, the person is continuously left outside the door.

It is important to have them at the centre of their decision-making. How does Safeguarding Ireland think the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 could be better implemented to guarantee that adults, especially adult at risk, have a voice in safeguarding decisions with regard to themselves?

Awareness of the Act among people who may stand to benefit from it is really important. The Decision Support Service estimated that one in 20 adults may need one of the support arrangements over the course of the lives. It is a significant benefit to a potentially large cohort of the population. We have been working, as has the Decision Support Service, on increasing awareness of the Act. We believe organisations have a lot to do in transforming processes to support people. The Act is based on adopting the least intrusive approach and the presumption of capacity. We find, and I suspect colleagues in Inclusion Ireland also find, that people encounter barriers around the issue of capacity and the presumption of capacity. One area identified in the Grace case was Grace's access to her credit union account. We see quite frequently, and I think others across sectors will identify, that people still encounter difficulties with basic things like opening a bank account. There is a lot of upskilling and awareness-raising required across key organisations in particular in essential service provision so that the person does not always have to advocate for themselves to get services they have a right to.

For example, during the public awareness campaign for Adult Safeguarding Day, the message was it is not just the job of the Decision Support Service or the HSE equality office to promote the Act. For example, a private insurance company has a responsibility to advocate for the Act. If a client is looking for a service and help is needed with assistive technology or somebody does not live online and wants a one-to-one meeting, the organisation has a responsibly to extend to meet the communication needs of the person so that their will and preference is articulated and followed to the best of the ability. That lies with all services across society. That was the core message we were trying to promote.

It is a well-known Act but I am not sure it is acted on.

There is a lot of room.

It will take a long period to bed in the principles of the Act and develop people's full understanding of it. We are hearing from people with intellectual disabilities and from family members that there is often a misinterpretation of the Act. For example, one principle of the Act is for a person to express their will and preference, they might want a supporter like a family member to engage and support them with that. Family members tell us they are often shut out from those conversations, which is a total misinterpretation of the Act. If it is the person's will and preference to have a family member there to support them, that should be supported. Like with all things, when a new piece of legislation comes in, implementation is often dealt with in a very black and white way. We need to open up a nuanced conversation about it and make sure people's full rights are respected in the roll-out. I agree with Safeguarding Ireland that it is every organisation's business to make this work. It is our business at Inclusion Ireland to make sure we provide information to the public that is real and meaningful, that families understand their role and disabled individuals understand theirs and their rights. We have a road to go with it. We respect the principles of the Act 100% at Inclusion Ireland. We want to see it implemented properly. The misinterpretation is what is holding us back. More communication on that, more culture change and more focus on the principles and making sure the person's voice is front and centre are needed.

It is understanding and awareness.

Ms McDonagh said misinterpretation is holding us back. Will she elaborate on that?

We cannot underestimate the fact that sometimes we make presumptions when there is a new piece of legislation that people understand fully what we mean by the principles. Even though there have been a lot of public awareness campaigns and information sessions for disabled people, families, etc., it is a massive change and a significant culture change. It will take time to really bed in what the principles mean. If one asked the general public what does will and preference mean, we might make assumptions that people understand that but perhaps they do not. Moving on from things like next of kin is a big shift for people. We have to go the road with people, walk alongside them and give them information in ways that they can understand and not presume people understand just because they went to one or two information sessions. It is a much deeper change needed. There is often misinterpretation as a result.

It is also about being mindful of presumption of capacity, and Ms McDonagh mentioned next of kin. There is also the voice of younger people.

Even though the Act legally applies to over-18s, the general principles entail a fundamental human rights shift around ensuring people have a voice. Even in these kinds of conversations, we should be very mindful that we have the voice of younger people also at the centre. In many instances, the family is definitely required to help to articulate a child’s voice if there is limited capacity, but it is the presumption of capacity, spoken about before, that we really need to centre here.

I get that. I suppose it is about finding the pendulum perfectly in the centre. The Farrelly report dealt with the brutal case of Grace. What the system should have been like and the abject failures, even in relation to the means of dealing with the Grace issue, are obvious. The same goes for the cases of Brandon and Emily. We have an issue.

Reference was made to the cross-sectional issues. Where Tusla meets disability services regarding complex cases, be they of children or adults, it is all about protecting their rights. It relates to how we achieve the perfect set of circumstances. To refer to mental health services, the example I often use is the need to protect people through listening to their voices, but we have to be able to take into account the fact that they might not be of sound mind and might make a decision that is not necessarily beneficial to them. It is therefore a matter of balance. Sometimes in this State, the legislation can be absolutely right, given our historical human rights ethos, but we do not have the necessary protection for those who need a step-in intervention, particularly given that we do not necessarily have the perfect placements or supports. How do we deal with that?

I agree 100% that we do not always have the supports in place for people. Fundamentally, that is often what it comes down to. While the new national human rights strategy is supposed to support us in moving on from this, we have seen a lot of crisis management in our history. We actually need to be supporting people earlier and better and, as Ms O’Connor pointed out, getting very much into the preventative space. Regarding children, young people and families, there is a lot of talk about access to therapies and so on. This is incredibly important and we are rightly focused on making the system better, but there is a whole world to be lived beyond access to therapies. Children and families need support in their communities. They need support through information and advocacy, and they might need home support and a range of things that make life worth living.

Even taking out disability and all the rest of it, we have issues with intergenerational trauma and with families who need support. We do not have the early intervention. If we had more of it across the board and then got specific, we could prevent many problems and issues and save very many lives.

What we have been calling for is earlier broadening of the lens on children and families, thereby supporting people in their communities to have lives of good quality. That would prevent all the demand for more specialist, segregated provision. It would prevent crises in which we have to intervene and put in place emergency residential places. Such intervention often denies people’s human rights. People are being whisked out of their family homes and have to live three counties away with strangers. We are automatically setting up situations where abuse is more likely to happen, because if people are living with strangers with whom they never had a choice to live, there can be peer-to-peer issues and all sorts of other issues with a residence. We are setting up such scenarios although we should be addressing needs earlier and supporting people in a human rights-based way to have a good life.

I was going to refer to non-invasive screening and early intervention. We will always need special emergency accommodation. We have all come across very difficult, complex cases in which a disability can be involved, probably along with non-intervention and non-access to therapies. There may be too much access to screen time. Really nice, sound parents may have become too old and just do not have the capacity to deal with it. There may be violence. In such cases, we may proceed reactively and rely on the private sector, which does not necessarily have the skill set to deal with really complex cases. I imagine the witnesses across the board have all dealt with this. No matter how good our early interventions are, we will always need to bear this point in mind.

Yes. Such intervention should be the absolute exception in a system that works properly.

I agree.

I am referring to exceptional circumstances where an adult or child needs something in an emergency. We find in our work that if we are available earlier, focused on human rights and on offering a small amount of support when and in the way people need it, in a flexible way, we can avoid many of the crises.

I agree 100%. First and foremost, that is what we should be concentrating on, but does Ms McDonagh agree that when the nuclear option is triggered, what is being accessed is not what is needed? We are lucky if the private providers take in some of the complex cases, because they feel they might not be worth their while financially.

In an emergency, it can never be satisfactory because you will not have had the time to work alongside a person and figure out their will and preference, who they might like to live with, what environments work best for them and where they might like to live. You will not have had time to have that conversation and walk that road. Therefore, in an emergency the arrangement is never going to be human-rights compliant; you can only do the best you can in the moment. This is where we see really problematic scenarios and where abuse is more likely to occur, resulting in a very damaging experience.

Have we seen a spike in these sorts of situations? I would say we have.

We have seen an increase in the number of disabled children going to residential care, and that deserves urgent attention, for sure.

I thank the witnesses.

We will move on to Deputy Martin Daly of Fianna Fáil who has seven minutes.

I thank the witnesses for attending. I have a couple of reflections. I have read the witnesses' statements. Regarding the reflection on the Farrelly commission, it is depressing that something that should have been empowering was disempowering. I am referring to the exclusion of non-speaking people and people with intellectual disability and also to the mishandling of the publication of the Grace report. This shows the need for structural reform. With regard to the commission proposals of 2024 and the publication of the Government's framework yesterday, how do our guests feel about the framework? I suppose they have answered in some detail. Do they believe, without going into too much detail, that the framework represents a genuine effort by the Government to address the issue?

The answer is "Yes". In Safeguarding Ireland, we feel a significant policy was announced yesterday. We welcome it. We are not saying it is not what we want. We are saying there is a lot to work with. What is important regarding what was published yesterday is that we move towards a plan and resource implementation and the skill set to implement it; however, we are saying there are some gaps and points to be added to in terms of cross-sectoral matters, particularly in the area of financial abuse. Safeguarding Ireland advocates that these areas not be advanced here because this is a health and social care focused policy. We believe there is significance to what was announced yesterday and that there are pieces to be added, but what we need to see is implementation of this, rather than to see it slowly burning. It needs to progress quickly based on the timeline.

I want to refer to the offences, which I mentioned in the opening statement. They are really important and are not covered by the health policy. There are vehicles through which they could be progressed. They have been described in detail by the Law Reform Commission. It produced a draft criminal law (adult safeguarding) Bill. We have outlined the vehicles. The issue, of course, is control outside domestic relationships. This is an important area and we certainly have cases referred to us. We anticipate that this area will grow, for sure, in terms of the projection of our national demographic.

Reference was made to congregated settings and people in residential care. The offences are very important to protect people in residential settings, in the context of the great risk to them that can arise in them. Beyond the implementation of the health policy and the plan for it, we would really like to see the offences progress.

On safeguarding, a key lesson we took when we looked into the Farrelly commission was that any reform of safeguarding must not lose sight of Article 19 of the UNCRPD, which sets out the right to independent living.

In any reform of safeguarding, it is therefore important that right is still safeguarded and that we do not lose sight of it in the process of reform and deny people of more of their rights.

We have a long way to go in independent living and covering quite a number of areas. As a GP looking at it, I often think it is institutional convenience to congregate people. It is putting them in the place that is most convenient for the State, not for the person. I saw a 33-year-old with an acquired brain injury who had a brain tumour and surgery at nine years of age and whose mother is incapacitated at the moment. The respite care for that person is two weeks in an Alzheimer's unit in a private nursing home. The mother is now incapacitated and has asked for three months of respite while she undergoes her treatment and recovers. I hope she will do well but the offer will be three months in this Alzheimer's unit, for a 33-year-old suffering with an acquired brain injury. We have a long way to go in dealing with the issue of independent living and different offerings for different people. It cannot be binary, just in the home or not. Independent living may not be possible or convenient but if people are in an institution, safeguarding is critical.

I take the point made about financial abuse. One of the biggest issues I see as a GP with an ageing demographic is older people who suffer some cognitive impairment as they get older and who watch neighbours and family members taking control of their finances and removing autonomy from that person. That is a growing area. In addition, we need to communicate with the wider community. I spoke about Alzheimer's to Western Alzheimers, which will do a walk in a week's time, and tried to get the point across that they are not walking for other people who are a minority; they are walking for themselves. As we get older, there will be an increase in Alzheimer's and dementia. I am also conscious of getting older myself. People can get acquired aphasia, acquired brain injury, degenerative diseases or have a stroke in the morning. We need to be appealing to the wider population on this. It is not simply a minority report for a minority of our people. This is a report that may affect everyone in the future and might affect them quite precipitously, if they have an illness. We need better commitment to more meaningful communication to draw a wider community in.

Coming back to the Government framework and the Law Reform Commission, there is one big issue. The witnesses are looking for an independent authority. Do they see the HSE as being strong enough - that is the proposal under the Government framework - with HIQA as the independent arbiter and the chief social worker for the HSE driving the process? How do they see that working?

We have had limited time to analyse what is in the policy. The strengthening of the national review panel, NRP, which will be put on a statutory basis, covers some of the distance. The resourcing of the HSE's capacity to deliver in this is key because we know it will expand but we do not know the scale of the expansion. Resourcing is therefore another aspect. The main piece that jumped out to me was the co-ordination. As this is a sectoral policy for health and social care, it does not cover the other domains where people live lives such as for example, the area of financial abuse the Deputy himself mentioned.

I am looking at the scope as described in the policy. Referrals can be brought in from those sectors to the HSE but if the case is investigated and there are failings in the financial sector, how can the health policy compel change in another sector such as, for example in financial services? Who will oversee and co-ordinate that? That is the question.

That concludes the first round. We will move on to the second round and members may come in again. They will have five minutes this time. The first speaker is Senator Harmon of the Labour Party.

The witnesses mentioned that their organisations get a lot of calls from the public and they do not provide a public service. Are those calls increasing? In the absence of one national body, people probably do not know where to go to report or to find information. How do the organisations deal with that from a capacity perspective? What needs to be done to raise public awareness and education among the public?

I will talk about the calls. Every communication we receive is via e-mail and usually comes from someone working with adults at risk, an organisation that is encountering more people coming to its service - it might be meals on wheels, a sports organisation or a professional organisation - or a concerned individual in the community. They come to us because we are called Safeguarding Ireland. It is in the policy proposals launched by the Department of Health yesterday that any new entity needs to be very visible because it should be easy to contact the relevant body. Ideally, it should be contactable around the clock, Monday to Friday, and so on because safeguarding issues can occur at any time of day or night. Our contacts and queries tend to spike following something like the "RTÉ Investigates" documentary that was aired in July. After something like that, we will certainly see an increase. People will have been thinking that something might be a problem and might be abuse. Then when they see something that says it is abuse, they will reach out for help. In general, as awareness grows, so will referrals. Therefore, again looking at the Department of Health's policy proposals, it would be interesting to see some kind of demand and capacity projection about how many queries or referrals are anticipated and what the resolution times and so on will be.

I will add a few points. When people go to report, they are not sure whether to go An Garda Síochána, the HSE safeguarding teams or a charity they are aware of. The policy says there will better reporting. When Safeguarding Ireland comes back with a considered view on the policy, one of the things we will advocate for is that it will remain the case that there is one central national point that any concern around elder abuse goes to. The current HSE structure, for example, is nine to five. Out-of-hours services have also come up publicly as an issue in the past. We also know from research we have done that because there is a lack of awareness of where and how to report, there is under-reporting. The lived experiences of adult abuse are at a higher rate than what is reported. If it were clearer where to report to, it is likely the number of reports would increase significantly in tandem.

In the closing remarks of Ms McDonagh's opening statement, she stated:

We had Grace, Brandon, Emily and Áras Attracta. It is long past time we moved on from institutionalisation and the segregation of disabled people and lived up to the ideals clearly articulated in the UNCRPD.

Will she comment on the link between institutionalisation and segregation and vulnerability to abuse?

I thank the Deputy. It is well documented that people living in institutionalised settings, particularly larger group homes, are much more likely to experience abuse. Disabled people in general are four times more likely to experience abuse and that is not because it is inherent to disabled people; it is because of the situation and models of care they find themselves in, which perpetuate abuse and set up the kinds of structural issues that cause abuse to happen and where abuse can be fostered. We are very focused on the need for safeguarding legislation and reform. Inclusion Ireland is fully behind it and we are also very focused on the articulation of the UNCRPD in our legislation because we absolutely need to see a move forward from ad hoc crisis responses to people, which are wholly unsatisfactory and end up with people living in institutional type settings.

To us at Inclusion Ireland, institutional settings are not just about the larger settings. They are about a mindset, culture and attitude. We often use the hallmark of if you do not have a choice about where you live, who you live with or how you live your life, you are living in an institution. Whether that is with four or 60 people, you are living in a setting without those fundamental freedoms and rights being honoured and respected.

As I said earlier, the Disability Act is up for reform and review in the programme for Government. How will that shape the landscape a little more clearly? How will it articulate more clearly the right to living independently? As the Deputy said, it is about the choice and range of supports that people might need to live independently. There is a lot of confusion about what "independent living" actually means. It is about choosing to live in your community. It does not mean you live without support. In fact, there can be a whole range of supports. Some people might need round-the-clock support to live independently. Some people might need a small amount of personal assistance. It is the choice and control over your life that is the fundamental piece. Until we put power back in the hands of disabled people and their families, we will continue to see these patterns of repeated institutionalisation and segregation.

Conversely, I also worry that some of the policy drive or some of the political narrative around independence and autonomy for people with an intellectual disability could leave them at risk. I have been aware of people with an intellectual disability living sometimes in quite precarious circumstances in the community. They are extremely vulnerable to exploitation or abuse. Such people may be living with a parent who is in their advanced years and whose health is failing.

I worry about the lack of residential services for people with intellectual disabilities who need them. I know that is not a blanket need. The lack could leave people with intellectual disabilities at risk. It could be framed by the Government or service providers as promoting autonomy and independence. That is a matter about which I am concerned.

Does Safeguarding Ireland have a sense of the main barriers and the cause of the infuriating lack of progression on the Law Reform Commission legislation? It sounds like a lot of co-ordination needs to happen between several Departments. There is a need for inter-agency and interdepartmental work. Is it just that there has not been clear leadership in that regard? Is there a major cost implication that might make it a matter that the Government is avoiding? Do the witnesses have any impressions?

It is obviously hard to comment. I believe that the focus has been on health policy. That was in progression prior to the publication of the Law Reform Commission's report. That has always been the priority. It was viewed as being absolutely necessary. It may be just a factor of the prioritisation of policies within Departments. It is clear that the Department of Health now has the lead role. It is for the Department to engage those other Departments. That is alluded to in the policy launched yesterday. The extent and nature of that cross-departmental engagement is something we would be interested in seeing as part of the implementation plan. It is a matter of priorities, I am guessing.

I will follow on from what Senator Harmon said about reporting and the possibility of under-reporting. Mr. Cavanagh said that one central body would be the better option to record and escalate any issues of safeguarding. I will be cheeky by asking whether it would be possible for Safeguarding Ireland, were it to have increased resources, to provide that service, given the knowledge base, research and involvement it has had to date, and the links it has already established. I am throwing that out there as a suggestion.

My next question is for Ms McDonagh and Mr. McGranaghan. It relates to something I have experienced a couple of times, perhaps on a Friday evening or over a weekend. Families have made contact when there was an emergency with a family member, whether a child, teenager or adult, with an intellectual, sensory or physical disability. There does not appear to be any emergency planning or an out-of-hours framework. Have the witnesses been asked to provide, or do they provide, say, a template or framework document for HSE disability services?

I have a suggestion to make in relation to the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act and getting information to the public. The Irish Pharmacy Union and the network of community pharmacies throughout the country have a sufficient cohort of team members who interact with members of the public on a cross-spectrum of health issues. Perhaps that avenue could be explored. Do the witnesses have any opinions on that? I appreciate that is a bit of a shot across the bows.

I will come back on the Deputy's first question regarding the provision of reporting. Safeguarding Ireland is a registered charity. We are not a service provider. Our capacity to provide that service is not ideal. In terms of providing reporting, that should sit within the public service system. That is where it should be. We hope that with the implementation of the health and social care plan, that can be covered. However, one consideration is that when you look at the reporting of safeguarding concerns, it has wider considerations than just health and social care. If a person comes up to attend a GP and there is a concern around financial abuse, if the terms of the reporting relate only to health and social care, it does not go far enough. If there is a criminal concern or issue, that would also fall outside health and social care. We want that reporting facility or service promoted and made available to people on a cross-sectoral basis. Siting that within our public services would be a stronger and more permanent approach that than siting it within Safeguarding Ireland.

I will take the point on emergencies. We at Inclusion Ireland frequently come across emergency situations. They happen across the country. We frame them as emergency situations but it is often the case that they were entirely predictable crisis situations. If we trace back for one, two or three years before that crisis situation, hands were being held up and red flags were being raised by doctors, nurses and families, saying that the situation will arise. Unfortunately, the State does not seem to be in a position as yet to intervene early and appropriately, and with community-based supports at a time and in a way that people and their families need. We end up in situations that cost the State a fortune and that fly in the face of the UNCRPD and the human rights framework. Looking at the national human rights strategy for disabled people, we call for a lot more focus and emphasis on the prevention of those crisis situations and supporting people earlier in communities.

In relation to protected disclosures, do the witnesses have any opinions or feedback on the effectiveness or otherwise of the Protected Disclosures Act and its mechanisms?

Does anybody want to comment on that?

I can offer feedback from experiences. The importance of people feeling safe to make disclosures about what is happening in any context is recognised in the health policy. The nursing homes documentary in the summer has been mentioned. People had voiced concerns and for whatever reason, those concerns did not seem to be actively addressed. It is absolutely vital. Safeguarding Ireland fed back to the Department of Health's policy proposals in 2024. Our consistent view is that whistleblowers and protected disclosures are absolutely essential in this area.

We know that some people are in tenuous employment and they feel that this can make them more vulnerable. We have heard this particularly in relation to the healthcare assistant role. They are very well situated to see harms and abuses but also feel a lack of confidence in making reports and availing of the protective disclosure legislation.

I will continue on with that point because it is really worthwhile to explore. I refer to the vulnerability of people making disclosures. We know there are people who are in quite powerful positions who have made disclosures and whistleblown, and they have found that careers have been stunted, stalled or destroyed. We can imagine how difficult a step that is for a healthcare worker on low wages and in tenuous employment. This brings me to my point, which all the witnesses have alluded to in previous contributions, that if we have a fragmented and complex reporting system, that in itself is a barrier to making a report, unless there is one direct funnel of support. Even in a situation where we can do that, say with Tusla and child abuse, it is still difficult. It is even difficult for professionals who might feel more empowered than other people. If we have a fragmented and complex system as we have here, and the witnesses have pointed this out, then this very much needs to be addressed in this framework. I have asked the question a few times, and while the health and social model part it is fine, I am beginning to see that the framework published yesterday is not comprehensive enough when we look at the Law Reform Commission's recommendations from 2024. We probably have a bit of work to do at this committee on that aspect of it.

Is it the witnesses' experience that this fragmented sort of complex reporting is a barrier to action? Do people give up, for example, if something happens on a given day, and then it happens again a couple of times, and the person tries to get engaged but is getting nowhere? These are busy people who are under pressure themselves, and it then suddenly slides into the background and moves on. The witnesses talked about under-reporting.

There is reporting ongoing within health and social care. My experience is of people who see an adult safeguarding concern in the community and come to us thinking we are the organisation that actually provides the service and can help. We look at the query or the concern and we see often that there are multiple dimensions to it. There might be something happening in the home. There might be something happening with relation to a social welfare payment that is belonging to the adult and it may not be spent on the adult. There might be issues relating to care or medication management and medication mismanagement. There might be issues relating to the property of the person, their home, their right to ownership of their home or there might be issues to do with people having been left money in a will and never getting access to it. It is a really multidimensional and complex concern. We would signpost always to the HSE and to the adult safeguarding and protection teams regionally. There would be other dimensions to that concern, however. What we would see as being absolutely essential is that there be a body that could take all of that on and work in close collaboration with the other agencies. There may be concerns for An Garda Síochána, the Department of Social Protection and the financial institutions, and obviously for the person at the centre of all this who is really concerned and confused. Streamlining that and giving certainty as to what the process is once the referral is made and what happens next should, I firmly believe, be in the public domain. We should know. The person is often really concerned that the issues will escalate, that it will result in a lack of care for them, or that somebody will not be there to help them with day-to-day living. That absolutely needs to be streamlined. I would say that it definitely inhibits reporting.

I agree with Ms O'Connor. We also need to look at it from the person's perspective. As Ms O'Connor rightly said, that experience of dealing with fragmented systems and supports is exhausting. People fall through the cracks as a direct result of that. What we do know is that there is a national advocacy service for adults. It is chronically underfunded and now has a long waiting list. That needs proper resourcing so that the person who has a concern or who might be experiencing abuse has somebody to walk alongside them to navigate the complexities of that system and support them in all of those elements. Just last year we published a piece of research on the need for a children's advocacy service as well. Children and families are telling us that their child has been labelled as complex but it is actually the systems they are navigating which are incredibly complex. They need an advocate or somebody in their corner to walk alongside them and support the family in looking at the hierarchy of needs, support them to be resilient, support them to navigate all of those complexities, and ultimately get a good outcome for children.

Some of the abuse is very nuanced as well, especially in the context of elderly people. It is a minority of cases but sometimes there are carers who appear to be exemplars in the community but they are literally eating out of that elderly person's pocket.

Perhaps we could follow on from that. What we want to see is a framework that actually works in relation to protecting those rights. In fairness, what we all need and want to see are those early interventions and putting in the supports so we can avoid an awful lot of these sets of circumstances.

I was taken by what Mr. Cavanagh and Ms O'Connor said regarding people coming to Safeguarding Ireland and expecting something different - for Safeguarding Ireland to be their one port of call. As the witnesses have said, they then have to delineate out the financial abuse as an issue that most likely goes to the Garda, and if it is health then it is a direct connection, and that there is a difference between intentional abuse versus accidental or somebody not taking proper medical care. There are all of these aspects. The witnesses also spoke of the deficiencies in the framework that had been spoken about yesterday. There is also reactive and emergency accommodation, and the difficulty people sometimes have in accessing that. This can create an issue whereby people may see things and may point them out to some degree but do not want to go the whole hog on the basis that it was hard enough to get their child or adult into some element of care. I will start with that. What does a proper framework look like?

I will just provide a fairly top-line response on that just to clarify. The policy came out yesterday. What Safeguarding Ireland would like to do is consider that policy. We had contact with the Department of Health in advance of this coming on Monday. The Department of Health and the key people who drafted the policy have said they would be open to meeting with us in January to go through things in detail. I know some members have had an interest. We would like to come back with detail on that to inform the committee of what the specific gaps are and what are the specific solutions we would suggest. Certainly there is a significant area, as we have identified, within the whole area of reporting and we will interrogate the extent to which the policy is likely to capture that. We will identify where there are gaps and come back with a recommendation on that.

That is absolutely necessary and would make sense. There is a piece of work that we have to do in relation to that. I suppose it is about having a national adult advocacy service and a children's advocacy service and for them to be funded and fit for purpose. That makes complete sense. I always had a fear around the assisted decision making legislation in that I would imagine when certain people are dealing with agencies such as banks, and whoever else, that sometimes just for fear of making the wrong decision an awful lot of them would just default and decide to put this through the courts to make a decision because they certainly do not want to be on the hook for it.

There probably is a need to ensure that we have given people the correct guidelines in that regard, as Ms McDonagh said. Is that a particular issue the witnesses have come across? Again, our courts are backlogged and a disaster.

We get queries from people with intellectual disabilities and their family members about that. There is a lot of work happening, for example, with the Irish Banking Culture Board and others that are trying to insist on the application of the new Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act and the principles of that Act, presuming that the person has the capacity to manage their financial affairs. Often, if a person turns up at a branch and there is any doubt about the person's capacity, there can be a rush to use the more legalistic elements of the Act, rather than presuming a person's capacity and giving them the support at that level to manage their financial affairs. This just comes down to the need for a lot of education and embedding of those principles across the board. We know there are financial institutions doing work in that space to try to make sure that happens at a local level.

I have also heard that those in disability services were worried by the fact that they probably made decisions for those people. In the case of some people, we can only call it straightforward abuse. In other circumstances, however, they steered people away from harmful decisions that they made, such as people who went out, drank too much and spent all their money or gave it to someone else, for example. The fear is that this new legislation gives those people the right to do that. Is that an issue the witnesses have?

People can make unwise decisions and the legislation allows for that. That should not be a capacity issue. You still have to presume the person has capacity to make decisions. There is a nuance around it. There is a lot of work needed in that space so people fully understand the rights protected within it.

It is about guidelines and a protective framework.

The Deputy's time is up.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach. He has been incredibly decent with his flexibility today.

Deputy, you stretch everything, unfortunately. I thank everyone for their contributions. I now propose, as the contributions have finished, that we publish the opening statements on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed. Does Senator Clonan wish to come in?

I just wish to apologise. I had a bit of a crisis this morning and I am sorry for being late. Also, I thank the witnesses for the great work they do, particularly with regard to the publication of the review of the report into the Grace case. I share their concerns and I appreciate the work they are doing around safeguarding, particularly when it comes to the intersectionality with our communities. It is so important. I apologise again and I thank the witnesses.

I thank everyone for their attendance today and their valuable contributions. With the agreement of the committee, we will go into private session. Is that agreed? Agreed.