Mr. Phelim Quinn:

I will very quickly address the last point made by Deputy Durkan. I agree with him in regard to people who have been placed in vulnerable circumstances or circumstances where they may have been subject to abuse or exploitation. For that reason, we have sought to have safeguarding legislation put on a statutory footing. It is at that point that one would have not layers of bureaucracy but rather the power to act. A safeguarding authority would have the power to act without having to go through multiple layers of bureaucracy. Admittedly, due process has to be followed, but to achieve the protection of a vulnerable individual or vulnerable individuals within a particular circumstance, safeguarding legislation would allow for that circumstance to be dealt with.

Senator Dolan asked about the claim in our opening statement that we are well placed to comment on the systemic nature of services. Over the past four years HIQA has identified a number of critical systemic issues, particularly in the area of residential disability services. Some of them are listed. Lack of accountability manifests itself through the regulation and standards framework. The framework is in place to provide a governance framework for providers of services. As Ms Dunnion has said, there has to be some form of linked accountability for those funding services on behalf of the State.

What are the millions provided by State paying for and how is that being monitored?

The other major systemic issue we have identified is safeguarding. While I fully appreciate the points raised by Deputy Durkan about congregated settings, there have been instances where we have seen institutionalised practices within large congregated settings that have placed at risk people who are citizens of this State. We need to be sensitive to the way in which people transition from one service to another and we need to allay the fears of their relatives. We need to work in partnership with their relatives around the transition.

The very heart of the Deputy's point is that it is not all about care, and I agree with him. It is about rights. It is about people who live in the State having their basic human rights met. It is for that reason we have endeavoured to engender human rights principles within our inspection workforce, particularly the principles of privacy, dignity, respect, fairness and autonomy. Once we see the State ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of People with a Disability, the language of that convention needs to make its way into the interactions we have with service providers and into our reports as well. It is about more than care, but the current construct of designated centres and the way in which services are provided tend to focus on care when we should be talking about integration of people into the community, equality and their ability to be treated fairly like all other citizens. That is where we need to transition to. It is about an assessment of people who may be vulnerable and their being treated as equal citizens. That is where we would ultimately like to go. We also need to see the human rights principles not just coming from the regulator but also transcending through service providers as well.

I will ask my colleagues Ms Mary Dunnion and Mr. Finbarr Colfer to answer some of the other questions.