Sorca Clarke (Longford-Westmeath, Sinn Fein)

I thank the witnesses for the conversation and information this morning. My instinct as a TD and a human is to ask why we are still having this conversation. There is no single authority or relevant legislation, and the policy we have is 11 years old. The public would be absolutely horrified if this were to be a headline on a national newspaper, and they would be right to be absolutely horrified.

I will begin on safeguarding. Mr. Taylor said something earlier on which I would like to get more information and more detail. I believe we need a single authority but I want that single authority to be effective. I want it to have teeth and to maximise the power it has. I also want it to be accountable. In terms of what accountability looks like, I do not want to keep talking about HIQA but what came across very strongly when HIQA was before the committee was that where a complaint is made, an individual is held to account, and the entity, which in some cases is a corporate entity, is not held to account. How do the witnesses see this aligned with the clinical governance that was mentioned earlier? If this authority were to emerge in the morning, what would be the accountability, to whom would it be accountable, where would the Minister fit in to it and where would the individual and the corporate fit in to this framework? I know it is a bit of a mouthful but that is my first question.

The work done by social workers is phenomenal. They do it in some of the most difficult of circumstances. In terms of safeguarding, I fully agree with the content of the opening statement on the moral imperative. If we begin from there, and from somewhere that is very person centred, what comes out will always have a level of value added to it, simply from starting with these perspectives. There was a reference in the opening statement that when concerns were raised by social workers they were ignored by the HSE. In the realm of safeguarding, to separate those who need separating from those who would be responsible for providing it and ensuring it is adhered to, what were the repercussions for the social workers who raised concerns? Were there repercussions? Did those individuals who were ignored then face additional scrutiny? Were there consequences for them coming forward to raise concerns?

Embedding nursing home residents' voices in their day-to-day life is a wonderful idea. It is a home and not an institution. They should not be excluded from their communities. I know there are some places that do it very well but in my experience they do so despite the lack of support rather than being encouraged. We need to fix that.

I believe there is a role for advocates but this is a role for effective advocacy. We have seen in some circumstances that those with little or no training, and even less knowledge, have put themselves in a position that has been damaging to other people outside the scope of safeguarding. Do the witnesses see an advocate being an individual with a wide range of qualifications or would we have special advocates in very specific circumstances?