Apologies have been received from Senator Nikki Bradley.

The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss breaking barriers, disability and financial inclusion. On behalf of the committee, I extend a warm welcome to the following witnesses from Sage Advocacy: Ms Bibiana Savin, CEO; Ms Martina Larkin, legal support; and Ms Helen Fitzgerald, case management and support. From the Banking and Payments Federation Ireland, I welcome Ms Bernice Evoy, solicitor and head of legal and regulatory; and Ms Michelle Byrne, head of consumer banking.

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

I remind members of the constitutional requirement 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 ask witnesses to please note that the microphone will turn on remotely once they begin speaking. I call Ms Savin to make her opening statement. She has five minutes.

I thank the Chairperson and committee members for the invitation to appear before them today as part of their consideration of the topic, breaking barriers, disability and financial inclusion. I am the CEO of Sage Advocacy. I am joined by my colleagues, Ms Martina Larkin, legal support unit lead, and Ms Helen Fitzgerald, case management and support, and assistant CEO.

Sage Advocacy welcomes this opportunity because in our daily work we see how financial exclusion is a lived reality for many of our clients, whose right to make decisions, access their own money, protect their property and participate in ordinary life is too often frustrated by systems that are fragmented, risk averse and inaccessible or slow to respond.

Sage Advocacy is the national advocacy service for older people and survivors of institutional abuse. We provide a free confidential service, independent of family, service providers and systems' interest. Our motto, "Nothing about you without you", is not a slogan. It is a principle that must be constantly put into practice. It means that the person's own will and preference must be heard, respected and acted upon even where their circumstances are complex or others disagree, and especially where the person is at risk of being spoken over, ignored, treated as a problem to be managed or, worse, an asset to be exploited.

In our work financial exclusion is not abstract. It is the person who cannot get to the bank branch, use digital banking, pass telephone security checks because of hearing, communication or cognitive difficulties, or access their own cash while in hospital or residential care. It is the person whose bank card or pin is held by someone else, the person who is asked for consent in a way that they cannot understand or communicate.

The barriers we are discussing today are not personal problems. There are problems which are increasingly clear patterns. The scale is significant.

In 2025, we dealt with almost 9,000 incoming calls and 3,700 referrals. Our advocates closed over 1,400 cases that had a financial component. We provided detailed data about this to the committee in our submission.

Behind every number is a person, often under pressure, often isolated and often facing a system that is difficult to navigate, even for those with confidence and support. Financial abuse must be named clearly. It is the misuse, exploitation or theft of a person's money, property or assets. It can be subtle and very often the person at risk knows and trusts the person causing the harm. It may be hidden behind dependency, family conflict, institutional silence or assumptions about vulnerability. It is especially difficult to challenge when the person causing concern is also the person relied upon for care, transport, housing, communication or emotional support.

There is now much guidance in place for financial services on how to deal and engage with people who require additional support to stay in control and manage their finances. That is welcome. However, guidance alone is not enough if it does not change what happens at the counter, on the phone, online, in a hospital ward, in a nursing home or in a person's kitchen. Good practice is still too dependent on the right branch, the right staff member or the intervention of an advocate. Rights should not depend on luck.

Our experience shows that the barriers are real, but they are not inevitable. They are created by culture, policies, practices, assumptions and systems, and they can be changed. Ireland has the legal and policy foundation to do better. The task now is implementation, ensuring that principles become practice, that guidance includes accountability, and that people most at risk of exclusion are not left to navigate complex systems alone.

Our core messages are simple. Accessible, non-digital and supported routes to financial services and public payments must be maintained as core services, not exceptions. Third-party and agency arrangements must be subject to stronger safeguards and regular review. Front-line staff need consistent training on disability, capacity, supported decision-making and safeguarding. Regulators and public bodies must have the tools to monitor whether the guidance available is changing practice on the ground. The Criminal Assets Bureau's approach of profiling and moving on people with ill-gotten gains needs to be expanded to include people involved in serious financial abuse. Independent advocacy should be recognised, resourced and embedded, not left as an afterthought when harm has already occurred.

We also need to stop treating disability and ageing as separate worlds. Many people acquire disability in later life. Others live with disability throughout their life and grow older within systems that do not recognise changing needs. Survivors of institutional abuse may experience disability along with unrelieved trauma, poverty, isolation and profound mistrust of authority.

The true measure of financial inclusion is not how the system works for those who can speak loudly, travel independently, use technology confidently and challenge decisions easily. The true measure is how it works when the person's voice is quiet, contested, unheard or stifled. That person has rights. That person has preferences. That person's money, property and assets belong to them. The State, financial institutions, services and society have a duty to ensure that protection does not become control, that support does not become substitution and that vulnerability is never used as a reason to silence a person. Sage Advocacy stands ready to work with the committee and all relevant bodies to ensure that those rights are made real.

I thank Ms Savin for her opening statement. I call Ms Evoy to make her opening statement on behalf of the Banking and Payments Federation Ireland.

I am grateful for the invitation to attend. I am joined by my colleague, Michelle Byrne, head of consumer banking at BPFI.

BPFI members are committed to ensuring that all customers, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, have equal and effective access to financial services. At its core, this is about enabling people to participate fully in financial life to the greatest extent possible. This approach is informed by a recognition that vulnerability can be both temporary and ongoing, and includes a wide range of factors, including health conditions, disability, age-related needs, those with reduced decision-making capacity due to dementia or an intellectual disability, and those who communicate differently, including as a result of a sensory disability or an acquired brain injury.

Our members work to enable customers to manage their finances to the greatest extent possible and to have access to financial services on an equal basis, supporting independence, autonomy and dignity in how individuals engage with financial services. A key focus in practice is balancing access to appropriate supports with the need to respect everyone's right to make their own decisions. This approach is underpinned by a strong regulatory and legislative framework, including the consumer protection code 2025, the standards for business and supporting standards for business, the individual accountability framework and the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015.

Turning to the Act, all stakeholders must have a full understanding of the Act, including BPFI members, Government Departments, State agencies and regulators. The matter of the management of their finances by consumers in vulnerable circumstances is intrinsically linked to decision-making capacity. In recognition of this, a structured, sector-wide focus on preparedness has been in place for a number of years. This has included the long-standing work of BPFI's vulnerable customer forum, alongside the establishment in 2017 of a dedicated Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act working group to support engagement and readiness ahead of the implementation of the Act.

This work has evolved significantly over time. BPFI members have undertaken extensive work to identify best practice in supporting customers who find themselves in vulnerable circumstances and to prepare for the implementation of the Act, which came into force in April 2023. This has included the active participation by BPFI on the working group that assisted in drafting the code for financial professionals under the Act. Building on this, implementation across our members has centred on developing a clear understanding of the principles underpinning the Act, followed by comprehensive and ongoing staff training to ensure those principles are applied consistently in practice.

The principles underpinning the Act include the presumption of capacity. This is key and goes to the heart of the Act. It means that disability, illness and frailty associated with the ageing process or vulnerability associated with unexpected life events should not be impediments to a person retaining control over their own financial affairs. It is critical that service providers, including financial service providers, do not focus primarily on physical or decision-making "deficits" associated with, for example, the ageing process or an intellectual disability. We all enjoy the presumption of capacity, and it is only after all efforts have been made to support a person's decision-making that the person can be regarded as having reduced capacity.

The functional approach to capacity means that it is time- and issue-specific and refers to a person's ability to understand, at the time a decision is made, the nature and consequence of the decision in the context of available choices at the time. Staff and BPFI members are trained to understand and apply the decision support mechanisms provided for under the Act. Engagement across the wider ecosystem also remains a key feature of this work. BPFI continues to engage closely with stakeholders, including the Central Bank of Ireland, Safeguarding Ireland, the director of the Decision Support Service, Sage Advocacy and the Irish Banking Culture Board.

Turning to the consumer protection code 2025, BPFI welcomed the code, which came into force in March of this year, and in particular chapter 3, which deals with consumers in vulnerable circumstances. The code places obligations on regulated entities to manage their affairs and systems to counter the risks of financial abuse. Most regulated entities have had established processes in place for some time, providing a strong foundation to build on, and this has been further strengthened through an increasing focus on earlier identification of risk and more proactive intervention where concerns arise. In practice, this includes providing training on the identification of red flags, recognising that financial institutions are often the first line of defence, particularly if a consumer may not be aware that she or he is being financially abused.

BPFI members, as regulated entities, must comply with the code and with reporting obligations, signposting customers and sharing information appropriately. These obligations are supported in practice by dedicated vulnerable customer units with trained staff and established processes for recording and escalation.

I must ask Ms Evoy to conclude as the time is up.

My apologies. I will move to my conclusion.

The individual accountability framework further strengthens that process by ensuring clear oversight and responsibility at senior level. We also have the European Accessibility Act.

I thank the committee for the invitation to today's meeting. BPFI members remain committed to improving financial inclusion and reducing barriers to access. Achieving full financial inclusion requires the involvement and commitment of all stakeholders, including financial institutions, policymakers, regulators, Departments, State agencies and advocacy groups.

I thank Ms Evoy. I propose that we publish the opening statements on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed. I will now take questions from members. I remind them to adhere to the business scheduled for discussion. Members will have seven minutes each, to include answers from witnesses.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. We have also received submissions from other parties. Based on what I have read in the submissions and what has been said this morning, I see a gap between the positions of the two organisations represented today. We have had feedback from Sage Advocacy on people's experience in practice, while the witnesses from the BPFI have outlined their aims and objectives and the efforts being made on their part. I have a few questions on all of that. I propose, if it is okay with the Cathaoirleach, to use some of my time to facilitate a back-and-forth engagement and conferring between the witnesses from these two important organisations. Their input is relevant to the committee. I am landing this on them but they will see where I am going in a minute.

What follow-up does the BPFI carry out on the implementation of the codes and procedures for members? If there is follow-up to ensure implementation, we would not be getting the feedback from the Sage Advocacy witnesses that people have voiced to them by way of the 12,000-plus contacts and interventions in which they were involved in 2025.

What consultation does the BPFI carry out with disabled persons' organisations and others on the co-creation of policies? I note the submission we received from Tilting the Lens, which is the organisation involved in that bridge of co-creation with financial institutions, businesses, etc.

Will the witnesses give us more information on the vulnerable customers forum? How is the helpline for vulnerable customers advertised? I must plead ignorance in that I was not aware of it but I am very pleased to hear about it. The helpline is a good starting point in terms of increasing awareness. However, based on the figures from Sage Advocacy, I cannot say there does not seem to be a problem with awareness. Moreover, as awareness increases, suggestions are made and problems are identified, that will have an impact on staffing levels within the organisation.

I hope the witnesses can see where I am going with my questions. Problems have been identified and codes of practice are in place but it seems there are some gaps. How might they be resolved? There might be a to-and-fro engagement on those points, perhaps beginning with Ms Evoy and Ms Byrne.

The to and fro will be between me and the witnesses or between the Deputy and me, in fairness.

I acknowledge the Chair's role but I am keen to engage with both organisations.

I thank the Deputy. In terms of how we work with stakeholders, the BPFI is very supportive, particularly of the work of Safeguarding Ireland. In fact, we sit on the board of that organisation. That is really useful, important and impactful in engaging with advocacy groups because Safeguarding Ireland is really active in that arena. Recently, we worked very closely with Safeguarding Ireland on the publication of a guide to helping people stay in control of their money, benefits and assets. It is a really important guide for everybody, including policymakers and State agencies. It is available on Safeguarding Ireland's website, which is linked to our website. We have done a lot of work with that organisation and will continue to do so.

We are very supportive of the need to introduce overarching safeguarding legislation in Ireland.

I am sorry for interrupting Ms Evoy. She said the information she mentioned can be found online. Is it available in any other format? The feedback from Sage Advocacy is that digitalisation is a barrier for many people.

Hard copies of the guide, in plain English, are available, as well as a brief summary. The banks, Safeguarding Ireland and the BPFI can provide the document to those who want it. Not everyone needs a hard copy but I agree with the Deputy that it is very important to have physical documents available, as, indeed, they are.

There are also some very good guides available on our own website, in plain English, on helping people to safeguard their money now and into the future. They include very good detailed information on contacts, including where to go if a person needs to contact a vulnerable customers unit. That information is also included in the Safeguarding Ireland guide I mentioned. The guides are produced as a collaboration between our members and Safeguarding Ireland. All the stakeholders are involved in their production and publication. We do our best to ensure they are actually helpful in addressing the needs of those who may need to read them.

May I ask whether they are sent out to-----

Does Deputy Toole want to hear from the Sage Advocacy witnesses as well?

I am just trying to tease this out. Are the guides sent out to residences, section 38 and 39 organisations and respite houses? The feedback has referred to the need for more outreach to communities.

I will defer to Ms Savin on that question.

We are using the guides Ms Evoy referenced in her opening statement. Indeed, we referenced the same guides in our submission, which will be published. We have a team of 45 regional advocates and seven information and support advocacy co-ordinators who provide support over the phone. With this team of highly skilled staff, we go out into the community every single day, including to homes, nursing homes, hospitals, hostels and, recently, prisons. We are carrying out the task of raising awareness of our tools and guides and of financial abuse. At every opportunity we get to support a client attending a financial institution to carry out banking business, when we observe there is not congruence with the guiding principles of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, we speak up and we help the person.

It is important that the services are designed with support in mind. Often, when we are supporting clients to attend a bank branch, for example, there is not a private space to speak, the staff do not have adequate tools to engage in the communication or there is not the time to properly discuss details of the issue. We work really well with the vulnerable customer units. We reach out every time there is an issue and that works really well.

I apologise for interrupting Ms Savin but we are running over time. Deputy Toole asked a few questions that were not answered properly. If she wants, she may come back in on the second round with the same questions. The next speaker is Senator Murphy O'Mahony.

I thank the witnesses for giving their time to be here, for their opening statements and for the work they do in this field. This is a very important topic. As has been pointed out, the person taking advantage is nearly always known to the victim. It is often the person caring for the individual in question or giving him or her a lift down to the bank. It is quite a complicated issue and it is great that we are having this discussion.

My first question is for the representatives of the BPFI. Nearly everything now has gone digital and many people, especially vulnerable people, find it hard to keep up with that.

How does the BPFI work with people who cannot engage digitally for whatever reason and ensure they are not being taken advantage of?

In our opening statement there were some examples of how enhanced accessibility works in practice so if the Senator does not mind I will-----.

That is fine, Ms Evoy can elaborate on those.

I will rely on those because this is information we got from our membership about what is available, which is exactly to the Senator's point. The first one is accessible digital channels where there are websites and mobile apps designed to support screen readers, keyboard navigation and user-adjustable settings.

The second point that they made was about inclusive customer service, where there are multichannel support across branches, such as digital, phone and webchat, including AsIAm autism-friendly accreditation. There needs to be provision of easy read guides to banking, alongside processes to capture and record customers’ support needs centrally, reducing the need for individuals to repeatedly communicate their requirements. I thought that was an important point because somebody might be better able to say what their requirements are more accurately on one day than another.

In regard to accessible infrastructure, where there are branches, those branch networks are designed with accessibility features to support ease of access. There are specialist supports where services such as sign language interpretation together with dedicated helplines for financial abuse, bereavement and arrears are available.

Finally, accessible information is important where materials are available in alternative formats including Braille, large print, coloured paper and audio files. Those are some of the examples where there is enhanced accessibility available.

I thank Ms Evoy. I also thank Sage Advocacy for the fantastic work it does. Are their representatives aware of any public awareness campaign that would show vulnerable people what is acceptable and what is not? Often if people are being taken advantage of, they believe it could be normal, so are the representatives aware of any public awareness campaign that would let them know what is acceptable and what is not?

Sage Advocacy run campaigns and recently Safeguarding Ireland ran a campaign about financial abuse, how to protect oneself and what to do in situations of abuse. Ms Evoy mentioned the guide that was launched recently, which has comprehensive advice on types of personas and scenarios. The examples in the book are quite relatable. We are disseminating that information as well on our channels and website and we have the information also in print format for our clients. When are advocates are going on the ground to meet older people and do presentations in care centres, community groups or hospitals they bring those tools with them. We send newsletters around as well and we have advocacy clinics and over-the-phone engagement constantly with the team dealing with-----

Does Ms Savin think all of that is enough or should there be more?

There is always room. Unfortunately we see in our work that nobody calls an advocate to share good news. Everybody comes to us when they are really at crisis point and we have seen financial abuse start from a couple of euro per day to almost €900,000. That is the range we are dealing with. In situations like that we need to have those conversations about what is not right. Many people do not think of it. It could start with a small sum of money from one's purse and then end up with the person having it in their hands, so it is very subtle when it starts. There is a stigma associated with abuse. We have seen clients being so ashamed it has happened once they recognise it was not right.

It is best to leave it go early and report it.

Absolutely. We report that and engage the HSE safeguarding teams and safeguard the person. We get in touch with the vulnerable customer units. There is a multi-agency approach in addressing abuse. There is more that can be done, as I mentioned in the opening remarks, including a Criminal Assets Bureau approach of profiling and pursuing those people who are carrying out abuse because they get exposure not only to the one person we know; there could be many others. They should become a person of interest for somebody looking at how they have obtained ill-gotten gains they cannot account for.

The BPFI representatives outlined very well their training and procedures, etc. How do they ensure that it is not just a policy by financial institutions but is carried out?

It is important to say it is set down in regulation now. Regulated financial service providers have no choice but to comply with the provisions around having systems in place. It must come from the culture, policies and the processes. There must be reviews and there must be training. That actually goes right to senior level now and board level because somebody has responsibility at senior level under the individual accountability framework. It is really embedded now. We are not regulators. We are an industry lobbying body. The Central Bank of Ireland has introduced the regulation so we really welcome that, as do our members. It is very-----

It has to be done.

Exactly.

That is good. I thank Ms Evoy.

The witnesses are all very welcome. Tá fáilte roimh go léir. Sa ai o zi frumoasa.

I have a couple of questions. I have to declare a conflict of interest with Sage Advocacy. The chair of its board of trustees, Mark Mellett, is a former colleague of mine and somebody I have a lot of interactions with.

My understanding is that Sage Advocacy focuses mostly on elderly citizens. As the World Health Organization points out, all humans will become disabled at some point for an average of eight years of our lives. For a lot of people that is at the end of their lives so I imagine there is a lot of intersectionality between elderly people and disability. In that regard I have two questions. Has Sage Advocacy engaged with DPOs? These are disabled person's organisations that are run by disabled citizens, as per the United Nations Convention on Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD? Does Sage Advocacy engage with those DPOs and which ones has it had the most contact with in that intersectional space?

Second, how does a vulnerable person of Sage Advocacy's support?

We are engaging with organisations in various forums where we participate together. The most engagement we have is with the National Advocacy Service for People with Disabilities. We have engaged with the National Disability Authority, NDA. At committees our advocates or managers are part of working groups where those organisations are also operating in terms of working group collaboration on specific projects.

At the moment, 79% of our client population is over the age of 65 so the Senator is right that we deal primarily with older persons. We have clients with disabilities or in vulnerable circumstances who are younger, aged maybe 40 or 30. We occasionally help members of the younger population as well and in that regard we link in with various organisations such as AsIAm.

If I am one of those vulnerable people, how do I avail of Sage Advocacy's services and get that support?

Clients can self-refer to us or their relatives, friends or families can make a referral. We accept referrals over the phone, through our website and via email. Recently, we have started to do advocacy clinics where we provide notice we will be in a public space and people can come there.

In relation to the first question about DPOs, Ms Savin mentioned a couple of big institutional organisations like the NDA and the National Advocacy Service for People with Disabilities. They are publicly funded and many of the people who work there are not disabled citizens. That is not a criticism of them nor is it a criticism of Sage Advocacy. It is just an observation. Since I have been elected, I have found that through contact with DPOs, and the UNCRPD is very explicit about this that they must be the front line of engagement and there is a level of insights those engagements generate.

I strongly recommend that Ms Savin reach out to disabled persons organisations, although she should not reach out to service providers or State agencies. A good friend of mine, a disabled citizen, said that would be like asking IBEC or ISME to represent the interests of workers. They prefer trade unions do that for them. That is what those DPOs are. They are for and by disabled persons. I encourage that. Similarly with the Banking and Payments Federation of Ireland.

In relation to BPFI's remit, to give an example, I have a disabled adult son and he opened a bank account. When we went into the local branch to do that, the staff were lovely but he has dysarthric scanning speech so it takes him a very long time to say something. It is not intelligible in many cases to people who do not know him. Through no fault of the staff in the branch - they were lovely young people, just after graduation and doing the retail banking experience - it all took place in a funky open space and went on for a very long time. The main assumption is that somebody like me - a white, middle-aged man - is somehow trying to manipulate a disabled or vulnerable person. I was just there to try to help him. We used the in-branch phone to set up digital banking. Are there ISL supports available to customers who come in who have hearing or speech issues or do customers have to provide those supports themselves? Do banks have documents in Braille for disabled citizens who have issues with sight? I had never heard of the bank's help line. I had never heard of any of these things before and I have been in this space for a long time. Do banks encourage members to proactively engage and prompt customers about these supports?

I thank Senator Clonan. We do prompt them insofar as we are publishing guides. We then have campaigns to say that a guide to safeguarding your money now and in the future is available. Contact details for one of our vulnerable customer units are given in the guide.

However, the vulnerable person has to go looking for that.

Yes. We work with Safeguarding Ireland. Our work feeds into the advocacy groups and other groups. We hope our information is available. If there is any way the Senator thinks we could make it more available, we will be happy to do.

I did not ask this question but the BPFI should reach out to disabled persons organisations and hear the kind of lived experience that I have just related there. The people were lovely but it was a very unsettling experience for both myself and my son because it all happened in the public area-----

I am sorry to hear that.

It is no problem. That proactive piece is absolutely essential. I have run out of time. I have to apologise as I have to go to the health committee and then do a Commencement matter but I thank the witnesses for the work they are doing. I urge them to engage with DPOs. Go raibh míle maith agaibh. Mulțumesc.

I too will be going to the health committee after this and then I have to do a Commencement as well. It is not anything to do with the witnesses when I have to leave. I thank the witnesses for their presentations.

Recently, I met with a lady in her late 80s who received a letter from her bank regarding changes being made to try to encourage people to go online. She panicked because she does not have any family and was depending on her neighbour to collect her pension every week from the bank, using her card and whatever. It is great to hear the advocacy and the service provided by Sage but also that BPFI is trying to stop any forms of abuse. However, this lady is so dependent on her neighbour collecting her pension because she has nobody else to do it and she is housebound. In terms of Sage, are there people who would help out somebody in that situation and actually go to the house? They would have to fill out forms and build a relationship with the person. That is my first question. When she got the letter from the bank she panicked and, because she knew, me she rang me and asked me to come to the house and go through the letter with her. We rang her particular bank and discussed it. Obviously, I did the questions and it was all on speaker so that she could hear what was going on. She was happy then that she did not have to do anything. However, sometimes letters like that can cause issues for older people and they get upset.

Are supported decision-making principles reflected in banking and financial services? What are the most common forms of abuse? They are my two starting questions.

I thank Senator Byrne for the question. The situation that she mentioned earlier is quite typical for our advocates. They get calls and referrals and they meet people who are absolutely lost when they get messages like this that they cannot understand. For those who have literacy issues it is even worse because they do not know anything and they are so reliant on somebody that they can trust. It is back to the difference between a trusted person and a trustworthy person that needs to be beside the person. As advocates this is our role - to sit beside the person and support them, present them with options and navigate the details together until the person understands, using language and terminology that is adequate. The person then decides what they want to do and we offer support. Our advocates accompany people to financial institutions. They engage with financial institutions over the phone or in writing. A problem we have called out, and it was successful on a number of occasions, was to ask for outreach banking support. Certain firms were able to come with an advocate and visit the person in a nursing home, which is great. We call for more things like that. Some of our clients are bed-bound or would incur considerable stress and cost to attend the bank branch. In those cases, it is important that the bank agrees to send a representative to visit the person. It is possible. My colleague may want to add more in terms of engagement with the clients. We do this all the time and we are more than happy to continue doing that work.

The majority of cases have some sort of financial element to them. We have 45 advocates nationwide to support people with regard to their finances. In relation to assisted decision-making, ADM, and banking, we can see there is a good improvement in relation to contacting the vulnerable customer teams on behalf of older people regarding financial issues they might have, such as not being able to access their finances or someone else having access to their bank card. We support them to stop all of that. As Ms Savin mentioned, it would be good to have more visibility from banks whereby they can actually go and visit the clients. Clients might be at a stage where they can no longer remember their security questions or the address they registered with, or their signature may have changed since they first set up their account. They are then blocked from accessing their finances. It takes our advocates a significant amount of time to reunite somebody with their finances. It can be quite challenging. Since ADM came in we have seen an improvement in terms of being supported by the vulnerable customer teams.

On the Assisted Decision-making (Capacity) Act, to Ms Fitzgerald's point, a lot of training has gone on in member banks. There was a lot of work in the lead-up to the Act coming into effect in 2023. That training continues. There is always room for improvement, of course. That training has to go from the frontline all the way across firms. There is an understanding of the various support mechanisms. Fundamentally, there is an understanding about the presumption of capacity and the importance of the will and preference and autonomy. We are aligned. A lot of work has been done and more can be done.

Are there any reforms the witnesses can think of that are needed urgently to support issues like this? That is something I would like to hear about.

Before the witnesses answer that, did Ms Savin want to come in very briefly? We will come to the Senator's question then.

On the topic of financial abuse, we just wanted to say they are connected with payments. Sometimes it is collecting the pension and not paying it to the person and using their bank cards, or doing online banking on behalf of an older person without them knowing that it happens or forcing them to donate property or assets or put them in the will. Those are some of the attempts. My colleague, Ms Larkin, might come in for the second question on reforms.

I thank the Senator for the question. There is a number of reforms that we would see as extremely helpful in this regard. We have mentioned the regulation and resourcing of independent advocacy. In our submission, we also spoke about the immediate progression of adult safeguarding legislation, as well as implementation of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission report in 2024 around offences. When we are talking about the most common forms of abuse, we are looking at theft, fraud and offences that are often not prosecuted because they are seen as financial abuse, but they are offences. To follow through, there should be an effective remedy that is broader than financial institutions and goes to An Garda Síochána. My colleague mentioned the Criminal Assets Bureau. We need that profile of following the money to effectively address the offence that has taken place. It is often people who are known to the person who are committing these offences. The important thing is that there are effective remedies for those situations.

We need comprehensive cross-sectoral adult safeguarding legislation. It is all there in the Law Reform Commission's report of 2024. It is looking at it from a civil point of view, to Ms Larkin's point, and criminal. It is really important and it is long overdue. It should be an independent agency with oversight. It is all there. We should, as stakeholders, seek to progress it.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe as seo. When we were earlier in the year dealing with assisted decision-making, the wards of court, the exiting and the need to forego pre-legislative scrutiny, I had interactions with a number of organisations that would have been involved in providing services for people with disabilities. I will give the whole context initially. I am talking specifically about St. John of God's. They would have been worried initially about decision-making from the point of view that, in what they would probably now say was maternalistic or a paternalistic way, they were worried about some of their service users. What they did was with the aim of protecting them. They said they bought into this and they bought into the idea, as difficult as it was, from a point of view of assuming capacity and allowing people to make the mistakes and learning from that. They actually found it to be positive, as difficult as it was and as much it was a shift.

One of the issues they came up with that has been very worrying is that beforehand they would have been able to deal with banks as regards sorting out somebody with capacity. They would get an element of support as regards a bank account and whether multiple signatures were needed and all the rest of it. They found that in an awful lot of banks it had become incredibly difficult for people with disabilities to get the situation and circumstances resolved. If there was any element of the slightest question about anything or a lack of understanding of the intricacies of the banking sector, the banks became risk-averse and were not taking the chance or setting this up. Therefore, they had to set up some circumstance where they may have had a connection with a credit union or whatever. These were all situations and circumstances that did not exist previously. It has come up for a number of people. This question is for BPFI in particular. What is it going to do to address it? First, I will put it to Sage Advocacy. Would it find this to be the case? I accept that we need an awful lot of protections in relation to financial abuse, and I will deal with that afterward. I ask the witnesses to first address the issue I have raised.

I thank the Deputy for his question. The question was whether we have seen or heard that criticism. In our detailed submission, we spoke about risky workarounds. Prior to there being formal decision support structures under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, where there was an all-or-nothing approach, there were risky workarounds in place. The core principle here is that there are now formal tiered decision support structures in place that have oversight and supervision and seek to balance that positive risk approach, taking away that risk aversion or trying to address it while also ensuring there is a safeguarding side to things. That is a challenge. In terms of financial institutions and the broader society, there have been challenges in implementation and an acceptance of the shift from this best interests idea over to supporting decision-making.

I get that. I am talking about an example close to Dundalk, which is, therefore, close to the Border. It was about making a decision in relation to going shopping in Newry or whatever. That suddenly had created a dilemma because of assisted decision-making. That was also a particular issue. It is about how services can work alongside the assisted decision-making set-up and scenario. In a perfect world, what people are looking for is to have assisted decision-making set up for very serious financial determinations or health determinations or whatever else. Sometimes, however, they are being set up for everything and it has created a situation. There is also the issue in relation to access to banking services without workarounds.

I am conscious of time. I do not want to take over all the time from BPFI. For a lot of people, people gave support in a bona fide supportive way. As the Deputy spoke about, there is a very high incidence of financial abuse. Where there are not the protections of the decision support structures and there are these kind of ad hoc arrangements, people can be vulnerable to abuse. It is trying to find that balance. I appreciate the Deputy is saying is the support structures can create barriers. Certainly from our interaction, some of the banking companies have good examples of fantastic practice, where bank officials have met individuals to ensure the support, structure and services that they access are tailored to their needs. That is the ideal, whether there is a decision support structure or not. That is the important bit - that it is tailored to the person's needs.

I will not repeat what Ms Larkin said, but I agree with her about balancing the risks in the context of financial abuse and supporting a person to make his or her own decision. There is an issue around discharge of wards of court. It is working well where decision-making representative orders are made. Where it is probably working less effectively and where work needs to be done by all stakeholders is where a co-decision-making agreement is in place. There are definitely issues. We work closely with the director of the Decision Support Service, DSS, and we have a good relationship with her. We need to work with the DSS and the Judiciary, Sage Advocacy and other stakeholders. What we are looking at there is to have an arrangement that works for that person. It is relatively early days in terms of the discharges of the wards of court.

I am aware it was delayed and there is a particular extension but stakeholders need to acknowledge there are difficulties with that cohort. It is less so when you have the order from the court, but with the co-decision-making agreements, some work is needed across industry, not just one section of industry.

We have been accustomed to the principle of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act since 2015. For almost a decade, our work was about going out in the communities and engaging with firms to speak about the principles before the legislation was commenced in 2023. We have considerable experience in supporting people in putting their arrangements in place. We are, I think, one of the organisations with the highest number of interventions supporting Part 5 applications for assisted decision-making in Circuit Courts around the country. I think we have had in the region of 1,400 since the legislation was enacted, which is phenomenal, so we know that the problems mentioned are the ones we were dealing with a lot. Since November 2023, we have been calling for the creation of ADM stakeholder forums. There are a lot of forums at the moment and I am part of the HSE ADM transitional oversight group. There are bilateral meetings. Organisations meet in twos and threes but there is not a forum where all the stakeholders, including some of the ones Ms Evoy mentioned, come together. As it has been three years since the implementation, maybe it will now be set up.

I thank all the witnesses for coming in. I am sorry I am late but I am on the health committee as well and the meetings clash.

This is an extremely important discussion about looking out for the rights and interests of people who are vulnerable through disability. Do we need an independent safeguarding authority? I mean independent from other organisations, including State organisations.

We do. We very much welcome the work that the Department of Health and the HSE are doing on progressing the safeguarding policies but we need an independent safeguarding body that has a wider than just the health and social care sector. The financial sector, given the meeting we are in, is one of the sectors that need to be added. We need to look at setting up the interdepartmental working group to seek the implementation of safeguarding policy. It should be a combination of the Departments of justice, Health, Social Protection - it is paying out €27 billion in welfare payments, so it is an important stakeholder - housing, and Children, Disability and Equality, which is the Department that deals with the implementation of ADM.

For people who might watch - and have nothing else to do - will the witnesses explain how Sage and an independent safeguarding authority would compliment each other in this area?

We will continue to carry out the work we have done since we were established in 2014. Nothing will change for us. We have been guided by these principles since then and we will continue that. There is a multitude of perspectives and intersectoral perspectives that would need to be taken into consideration. When there are incidents of abuse, which do happen within the sector, it is important that somebody outside the sector carry out the review and that all stakeholders be involved for greater awareness. At the moment, there are bilateral talks but not comprehensive collaboration.

A safeguarding authority would cover a range of other areas in addition to financial abuse.

Yes, like coercive control.

It is important to stress that as well. Is it the witnesses' impression that there is significant financial abuse being perpetrated on people with disabilities? It is a huge apprehension and concern for parents who have children with disabilities. They know they are not going to be around forever to look after their adult children's interests. I am happy for anyone to take that question.

The majority of our clients are aged over 65 years and may have acquired disabilities as they aged. A lot of our work involves older people. A lot of our cases have elements of financial abuse where our clients are not able to access their finances because somebody has stopped them or they have moved into long-term care and maybe the property has been possessed by an adult child. We support a lot of clients to try to stop that from happening.

I am sorry, but what was the second part of the Deputy's question?

As a GP in the community, I have witnessed financial abuse, unfortunately. I have also spoken to a number of solicitors in the community. We are not specifically talking about older people here, but disabled people who are getting older and the people who have looked out for them all their lives, usually their parents, and who may not be around any more to be a safety net for them. I am just wondering if it is the witnesses' impression that it is a significant problem.

I think it is. A recent survey by Safeguarding Ireland demonstrates that. There is a high prevalence of financial abuse, much of which happens in the person's home and is done by someone they have known and trusted.

I have heard things like credit card and bank account numbers being taken and funds being transferred.

Unauthorised online banking transactions, yes.

Vulnerable people are really afraid to report that to the Garda because they are dependent on these people, who are supposed to be looking out for them.

Coming back the safeguarding authority, it would get us out of a situation where organisations, whether State or private, were investigating themselves. Is that not the basic principle?

Yes.

It is independent. Is it the witnesses' view that the message should go out from this really important discussion that we need an independent safeguarding authority?

Yes.

Okay.

I thank all the witnesses for being here. It is a really important discussion.

Returning to Senator Clonan's question to Banking and Payments Federation Ireland, I strongly encourage its representatives to take practical steps to improve the accessibility of its services for disabled people, including people with hidden disabilities. In particular, they should ensure that member banks use or recognise the just a minute, JAM, card for people with disabilities such as autism or learning or communication difficulties to discreetly signal they need more time. They should also ensure that member institutions provide sign language interpretation for deaf and hard-of-hearing customers, that documentation in Braille or other accessible formats for blind and visually impaired people are available, and that the relevant guides they mentioned can be clearly accessed in branches and on websites. In the Public Gallery is Ciarán Delaney, who is a very informed and dedicated advocate with lived experience of these challenges. I am sure he would be very willing to offer guidance to the sector on how accessibility can be meaningfully improved.

On the National Federation of Voluntary Service Providers, it was mentioned that some people who had had accounts for years were losing access, with ATM cards not working or accounts effectively frozen. What does that do to a person's independence, confidence and ability to build money management skills?

I thank the Deputy. On some of the practical steps he mentioned, I can confirm that many BPFI members already provide services in sign language, Braille, large print, coloured paper and audio files, so they have accessible information for their customers and specialist supports, including sign language and helplines for people who may need those. The JAM card is something with which they are familiar.

In addition, I think I mentioned earlier that inclusive customer service, involving autism-friendly mechanisms to assist people, and easy-read guides are available.

I think we discussed the Deputy's point in the context of the discharge of wards from court. We need an Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act forum because it is across all stakeholders that we need to sort out and address the issues arising. Usually, there is a workaround, but workarounds - one of the other speakers mentioned this - can actually have unintended consequences. It is not ideal, and we really should not be relying on workarounds. I echo what Ms Savin said. The DSS has done superb work, as have other stakeholders. We need to move towards that to make sure that everything is embedded and runs smoothly. These are the early years. We have an ageing population. We will have a bigger and bigger volume of cases, not people discharged from wardship, for obvious reasons, but in the arena of support mechanisms. I thank the Deputy for his question.

The second point the Deputy made was the impact this has on people. I will give two scenarios in which we support people, one in the community and one with people in residential care. We have clients who live in their own home who may have mobility issues or something may have happened to them where they have some sort of disability and they need to rely on family or a carer to use their bank card to pick up their weekly food shopping for them or some kind of other arrangements to support them. We had one case where the person's card was cancelled because the PIN was entered incorrectly by somebody who was supporting him and he was left without access to his finances for over a week, until the referral came to Sage and we supported him to get the card set back up. During that time we had to use another service to buy him food just to make sure that he actually still had food. It had a massive impact on him in the space of that week. In other scenarios we support a lot of residents in nursing homes where they are supported with their finances when they move in - maybe by a family member in another service - and they accrue a significant amount of debt in the nursing home. A referral will come to us to try to support the person to ensure they do not receive a notice to quit. When we attend we may discover some sort of financial abuse that has occurred. These people have not had nursing home debt or any sort of debt in their whole lives and now they are being told they have accrued €40,000 or €50,000 in debt. It has a massive impact on them. They are afraid of losing their new home and they are afraid of having to return to the community where they are not able to live in the way they used to live before. It has a massive impact on them during their day-to-day lives.

I thank Ms Fitzgerald for that. It was said that some financial institutions are seeking letters of incapacity from doctors before allowing somebody to open or use an account. Is there any legal basis at all for that being a routine requirement or is that a form of defensive practice?

Under the ADM, capacity should be assumed, so if we are supporting somebody to access their finances or to set up a bank account when they move into long-term care, they should be afforded every opportunity to do that without having to be asked for a capacity assessment. Moving into a nursing home has nothing to do with your capacity.

I have a question for Ms Savin from Sage Advocacy. When someone has no trusted person, what should the State provide? Is it that there would be a statutory right to independent advocacy for everybody in terms of financial inclusion?

Yes. Having access to an advocate is the right thing to do in that scenario because the advocate puts the focus where it is meant to be: on that person, on their wishes, on their preferences and on what they want to do.

How well resourced is Sage Advocacy to meet the level of need generally that is out there?

We have been receiving additional funding recently and we are very grateful for that but the demand is constantly growing so, unfortunately, we have some waiting lists at the moment. As was said, we had 45 advocates and seven information and support advocacy co-ordinators. It is not enough. We need more.

Does Sage Advocacy have any approximate sense of how many it might aim for, ideally?

The more we got, the greater the demand came, so it is hard to say. We rely on funding, and the most important thing is that we achieve sustainable funding. At the moment, a lot of the funding arrangements are for a very short period of time, which means fixed-term contracts and-----

Precarious.

-----not competitive in the current market. It is important that advocacy is resourced on a long-term basis and, of course, a statutory basis.

I thank Ms Savin.

Go raibh maith agat to all the speakers so far. Ms Savin spoke passionately in her opening statement, so I thank her for that and for the work Sage Advocacy is doing. She mentioned in her opening statement some examples of subtle financial abuse. Could she outline some of those? She mentioned earlier that demand is growing. Does she think that is because people are finding out more about Sage Advocacy or that financial abuse is on the rise?

I think it is a combination of all these factors. It is demographic, it is the financial abuse, and it is the complexities of the situations. There are so many dependencies to financial abuse. What I mean by subtle is that it starts with help, with "I am here to help you" or "I know you cannot do these things". There are people who offer help even with online banking, maybe saying they are in a position to help the person to arrange for the shopping to come to their home. In that process, if the person is not able to carry out that transaction themselves, they rely on a neighbour, say, or a friend or a relative, and it starts like that. It starts with small sums and then it gets bigger. We have seen terrible things being done to people in that regard. It all started very well with the intention of being supportive but, unfortunately, that is not the case. That is not to take away from the absolutely great help that a lot of families and carers are doing. I cannot emphasise that enough. Unfortunately, we only hear about the negatives, but there is amazing work being done out there for people who need help.

Absolutely. I am sure the majority of people get great care and do not suffer from financial abuse, but that is what the committee is tasked with talking about.

The BPFI spoke a lot about training happening on the ground. Does it have a sense of the percentage of members who, say, have been adequately trained, the frequency of training that is happening and maybe any examples on the ground of how that is happening? On the same topic, I am thinking about how fast financial abuse and fraud is changing as we are in this digital environment. How often are the guides that were mentioned earlier updated?

Things are moving very fast. As we know from fraud, we are all consumers of banking. Equally, with financial abuse, if you like, it too is moving fast. Our members highlight the red flags - Ms Savin and Ms Fitzgerald have touched on them - when there are unexplained changes to withdrawal and activity on the bank account and the person feels intimidated or controlled. These are all things that, regardless of whether we are in the old-fashioned world or the digital world, are relevant. I refer to things like believing that you do not have a choice and must go along with what another person says; a person having your bank card, password or PIN and being secretive about that; someone knowing about your accounts and asking for money; or a person suggesting a quick-win investment. The banks do their best to keep up in the same way as BPFI members have to be very aware of patterns around fraud and, equally, financial abuse such that they recognise the red flags. If red flags appear on a person's account around financial abuse, they must act. They now actually have a regulatory obligation to act and will do so if they see those patterns. Training is embedded in firms. Again, that is a regulatory requirement under CPC 2025, which came into effect on 24 March of this year. Training must occur in firms. Any regulated financial service provider must train staff from the front line all the way up.

That obligation is obviously overseen under the individual accountability framework. It goes right up to senior management and the board, where there is an obligation. It is embedded in firms. It has to be said that firms are building on processes which they already had but, from the Deputy's point of view, it is good to hear that it is enshrined in regulation and that was very much welcomed by our members in March.

Senator Clonan spoke about being in the bank helping his son set up a bank account. I also have experience, for example, of being in shops trying to teach some of the children I was working with in the neurodiverse space how to use their money and that feeling, when you are asking them to use their own money and take it out of their wallet, that people might presume you are engaging in financial abuse. Both I and Senator Clonan, having been in this space for many years, would not have been aware of the helpline and the advocacy service to the extent that it is available. I am wondering what ideas would Ms Evoy have in how we can promote awareness of these services and the guides? For example, should it be going into secondary schools where there are special classrooms and autism classrooms, or more into section 38 and section 39 organisations? Sage Advocacy stated the majority of its clients are older people, but as we move into this digital space, the disabled community and the neurodiverse community are at risk.

At the moment, there is a campaign, Staying in Control of your Money. This is a Safeguarding Ireland campaign. It is on the radio and it is on social media. I guess it is incumbent upon all of us when we see something, maybe to share it.

That is a good idea about schools. I dare say it is not information for sharing with those who have additional needs. As a society, we should all have this education and it is really important. It is a good idea, arguably at primary level, to have suitable education around all of the issues which the Deputy mentioned. That would be my view.

There is a very active campaign via Safeguarding Ireland. Staying in Control of your Money, Benefits and Assets is an excellent simple guide. It is very long, but it is a really good resource. There is a plain English useful summary. It would be useful to circulate those in our networks as much as we can.

On the Deputy's idea of engaging with a younger population, there is a lot to be said about the potential of intergenerational approaches. Given the culture and society, as Ms Evoy said, it is important. What can be also said is that need for campaigning around advanced planning. If people are aware of what they can do to plan in advance - the Decision Support Service, DSS, has that campaign at the moment - they should put the arrangements in place now when they are in a position to do so and then avoid trouble further down the line.

This is probably a final search for recommendations from the witnesses. If I list what we have covered so far as being immediate and urgent necessary actions, to resource independent advocacy, safeguarding legislation, the Law Reform Commission recommendations to be implemented, the possibility of an assisted decision-making forum, and following on from Deputy Keogh's suggestion, maybe a national campaign on minding or control of your money and assets, is there anything else we can add to that?

Yes. There is room for further and enhanced engagement with An Garda Síochána and, as I said earlier, the Criminal Assets Bureau approach. There is evidence of severe financial abuse happening in the community and it takes a while for this to be prosecuted or to come to light. There should be greater awareness of what can be done. We should normalise the conversations that certain things are not right and should not be done and then what one can do when they require support to raise this issue. Most importantly, when financial abuse happens, it is usually tied with coercive control. Ms Larkin spoke about the offences that we should press on and also about the interdepartmental forum to oversee the implementation of safeguarding policy. We need safeguarding legislation as well. We have a long list.

This is the place to make us aware that we can try to pull it together and then it goes into the committee report. Would Ms Evoy and Ms Byrne like to add anything?

We need the committee to be proactive on the safeguarding legislation. That is really important. We would really support that independent agency point that Deputy Daly mentioned emphatically, but Deputy Toole has a good list there.

We have plenty to get on with.

I also wanted to ask if there is anything else. It has been covered. I would like to give both groups an opportunity if there is anything they want to add that they did not get a chance to do so far or if there is anything we can do to help the situation.

There are a couple of things. We have spoken in a broader context, and it has been mentioned, of risk aversion, substitute decision-making and risky workarounds. Even though we have the letter of the law at the moment in terms of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, there is that shift away from best interests. The implementation on the ground is slower to pick that up and we need an increased focus on that. It is to be hoped some of the forums we are speaking about will assist in that but there is a need for as much support and driving that culture change and that cultural acceptance of not every individual being a rights holder and needing to be supported in exercising their rights meaningfully.

The other thing is a focus on the existing legislation, such as the Equal Status Act, which includes not only financial services but a range of services. There is a need to continue to look at awareness campaigns around reasonable accommodations that must be provided to design accessible individualised services to ensure they are not blocked.

I thank Ms Larkin.

I agree with Ms Larkin and I am happy with that response.

Okay.

I thank all the witnesses for presenting at the committee today and for their opening statements. Those statements will be useful for us, as Deputy Toole referenced, to put into our report. I thank them for taking the time to come here. Is it agreed that we will now go into private session? Agreed.