Norma Foley (Kerry, Fianna Fail)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach as ucht an ama agus an deise seo a thabhairt dom. The Commission of Investigation (Certain Matters Relative to a Disability Service in the South East and Related Matters), the Farrelly commission, is an independent statutory commission of investigation established in 2017 to investigate the care and protection of Grace and others in a former foster home, family X, in the south east, which had been the subject of abuse allegations. Grace is the pseudonym chosen to protect the identity and privacy of the young woman who lived with the foster family. The commission, in naming and describing persons who were involved in Grace’s case in its reports, sought to ensure the maintenance of the protections provided for in the terms of reference with respect to Grace’s identity while reporting on the matters under investigation.

Grace was born in a hospital in the south of Ireland in 1978. Grace has an intellectual disability and is non-verbal with a requirement for life-long care. Grace is now 46 years of age. Grace was made a ward of the High Court in March 2010. The office of the general solicitor, as Grace’s committee in wardship, and her legal team represented Grace’s interests before the commission. The commission submitted two substantive interim reports on its investigations to the Department of Health which were published on 1 October 2021. The final substantive report from the commission was published on 15 April 2025. The commission of investigation gathered 312,000 pages of documentation over the course of eight years with the final report running to almost 2,000 pages.

The commission’s independent findings on the extent to which Grace suffered any abuse are as follows. There is a finding of serious neglect on the part of Mrs. X in relation to the lack of attention to Grace’s dental care. There is a finding of neglect on the part of Mrs. X in not ensuring that Grace attended the day centre more regularly and more consistently. The commission is satisfied that there was neglect in the standard of care provided by Mrs. X to Grace based on evidence given in relation to Grace’s clothing and personal hygiene. There was a level of financial mismanagement or abuse by Mrs. X of Grace’s disability allowance in breach of her duties as agent. The evidence to the commission did not establish neglect of Grace in the provision of food and sustenance to her over the years she lived with family X. The commission is not satisfied that the evidence was such as to establish that marks or bruises sustained by Grace were as a result of her having been subjected to physical abuse. The evidence did not establish that Grace had been subjected to sexual abuse over the years that she lived with family X. The commission is not satisfied that evidence provided established or supported a finding that there had been emotional abuse of Grace.

The commission makes a number of findings in the final substantive report about decision-making in relation to Grace’s care throughout the period July 2007 to March 2010. The commission’s report found that the general absence of oversight and monitoring of Grace in her placement by the South-Eastern Health Board and the HSE inevitably permitted the areas of neglect established in the evidence to develop or persist over time more or less unchecked. This was a fundamental failure of their duty of care to Grace in the circumstances. The commission further highlights shortcomings by the South-Eastern Health Board in the investigation of sexual abuse allegations made against family X and the lack of proper consideration to the position of Grace and her care in that context.

For the information of the House, with regard to the provision of an executive summary, which I requested to be included, the commission’s expressed view was that it would have been impracticable to do so, having regard to the detailed factual background derived from the evidence contained in its three substantive reports, which collectively amount to around 2,800 pages. It stated in its final substantive report that, “The commission's substantive reports should be read together for the purpose of fully understanding the commission’s findings.”

One of the commission’s terms of reference known as part X relates to whether the facts and information gathered in the course of the inquiry warrant scope for any further work which the commission could undertake in the public interest. This included 47 cases where other children had stayed with Mr. X and Mrs. X in their home as part of fostering or respite arrangements. The commission’s statement on part X conclusions indicates that there is an absence of information in the possession of the commission identifying issues for further investigation. This is with respect to matters to do with the role or conduct of public authorities in respect of seven cases identified, akin to the type of concerns raised in respect of Grace, save for two cases, where the role of public authorities has already been investigated and reported upon by the commission. The commission states that there were no prosecutions recommended by An Garda Síochána or directed to be taken by the DPP in the case of any of the 47 people referenced in the statement on part X. Following extensive consideration of these matters by the Department of Children, Disability and Equality in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, the Government has taken a decision that there is not a clear basis for moving forward to a phase 2 of the commission of investigation. I requested the commission to inform those with whom the general solicitor engaged of my intention to publish the report. The commission was not of a mind to do so. I did have the contact details for the ward of court for Grace but not for anyone else involved in the work of the commission. As the House will appreciate, the work of the commission has rightly been private and confidential. Consequently, I sent a notification to the ward of court to alert Grace's representatives that I would be publishing the final substantive report. I also inquired about Grace's general well-being. In response, the general solicitor, as committee of Grace, advised that they have arranged for regular reviews of Grace's care in a residential home by independent social workers.

I also met with the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court at her request. She confirmed that considered and extensive submissions were made on behalf of Grace to the commission of investigation. The general solicitor was clear that management of the submissions made to the commission remains a matter for the commission itself. In that meeting, the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards of Court indicated that Grace is extremely happy and is living a meaningful and fulfilled life supported by a small team who are very committed to her well-being.

For the information of the House, I also received correspondence from the commission of investigation stating that it had fully discharged its obligations under section 34 of the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004. That section outlines that before submitting the final or an interim report to the specified Minister, a commission shall send a draft of the report, or the relevant part of the draft report, to any person who is identified in or identifiable from the draft report. It also stipulates that the draft report must be accompanied by a notice from the commission specifying the time allowed for making submissions or requests. The commission further confirmed its view that all steps were duly taken in considering submissions received, including those made on behalf of Grace.

The report has been sent to all necessary State bodies, including the HSE and Tusla, which took over responsibility for child and family services from the HSE when it was established in 2014. The HSE and Tusla are considering the report in detail and will take any action required on foot of its findings. While it is never possible to say with 100% certainty that a safeguarding issue could not occur in any setting in the future, there has been a marked change in the way we as a country operate in respect of child safeguarding, in terms of both the way vulnerable children are looked after when in the care of the State and the manner in which vulnerable adults with disabilities are cared for in the range of services available to them.

The circumstances of Grace's case were truly unacceptable and rightly caused great concern when they came to public attention. I again pay tribute to the whistleblowers who made protected disclosures relating to the handling of Grace's case.