Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Returning to safeguarding, I note from one of the briefings provided, and this information comes from one of the reports, a table setting out the profiling of safeguarding concerns, by year and by CHO, between 2016 and 2020. CHO 7, which covers my home area of Dublin South Central, comes out as having the highest number of safeguarding concerns, with 8,743 for that period. Is that because we have a higher population, a higher concentration of disability services or something else? I would appreciate an answer to that query.

The representatives from HIQA might be best placed to answer this next question. Is there a difference in safeguarding reporting between section 38 and 39 organisations and service providers? Is there a difference in the numbers reported and in the likelihood of issues arising? I ask that because I am conscious there are staffing concerns in the context of the two differently funded organisations. A migration is under way from section 39 providers into section 38 organisations. That is because members of one group of staff are considered to be public servants, and having all the attendant supports of that status, whereas the others are employed by private providers and do not have the same pensions and opportunities. Do consequences arise from that disparity in funding? I ask that because it certainly causes difficulties in other areas.

Concerning the interaction of the macro policies with the personalised plans in respect of the needs and wants expressed by individuals, where a safeguarding issue has been established and clearly flagged, is there a policy conflict as that process is gone through? If a person needs to be supported on his or her own or in a different way, do we then end up with a conflict in how that person is catered for and how his or her needs are met? I refer to his or her personal requirements and wants being met. When a safeguarding issue is identified, what is the exact pathway of response?

We are having high-level conversations here and I appreciate the powerful testimonies we have heard. I refer, however, to situations where HIQA notes that a safeguarding issue exists and what happens from that point. I am aware of several incidents in the context of different organisations around the country - and the nature of our role means we hear of such incidents nationwide - where safeguarding issues have been identified, but where nothing has changed several months down the road, if not longer. There have been conversations, applications to the HSE and further discussions, but nothing has changed. My question, then, concerns a situation where a service provider is reliant on funding to deal with a safeguarding issue. I heard much in the contributions concerning service providers having to do X, Y and Z, but service providers do not always have the discretion or funding to do all that. Where is the urgency in the system? How is urgency injected into the system? How do we ensure there is an immediacy of response and ensure that someone is not languishing in an abusive situation for a long time, while discussions about policy and funding are ongoing? None of us would want to experience someone's daily lived experience in that kind of situation.

I have heard of some intolerable cases from throughout the country. It is just appalling and outrageous.

The HIQA report refers to 20% non-compliance. Will our guests unpack that for me? I am familiar with the childcare sector, where someone might get a report from the childcare inspector to say a matter amounts to non-compliance but the matter might be very trivial, while something else that has also been recorded as non-compliance may be considered a very serious matter relating to a failure of staffing or proper staffing ratios. When our guests refer to non-compliance, can we have some idea of the range of the issues that arise?