I welcome the opportunity to speak on the home support providers Bill. It is long overdue, as my colleague Deputy Gibney said, that there is a statutory scheme for the registration and inspection of home support providers. Regulation and oversight are essential, particularly where care is delivered behind closed doors in people's private homes and to people in vulnerable circumstances. This Bill establishes a process for registration and inspection but it is largely silent on the principles, standards and obligations that should underpin the delivery of professional care in a person's home. That silence is not a technical oversight. It is a substantive gap, and it needs to be addressed. The Bill does not set out the scope of home care, the professional duties owed to care recipients, or the safeguards required when care is delivered to people who may lack decision-making capacity. This omission is particularly striking, given the extensive work already done in this area. As far back as 2011, the Law Reform Commission in its report on the legal aspects of professional home care identified key principles that should inform any legislative framework. These include independent living, privacy and dignity, quality of care and the protection of adults receiving professional home care. These principles are not adequately contained in this Bill. Section 21 of the Bill allows for regulations concerning needs assessments, the care, welfare and well-being of service users and the preparation of support plans. This is positive but regulations alone are not enough. There must be a clear statutory requirement that home care is delivered through a rights-based approach, one that not only considers needs but the outcomes desired by the person receiving care. The Bill is also silent on contracts for care. There is no legislative requirement for a written agreement that protects autonomy and independence and safeguards against financial abuse. This is despite the fact that contracts for care in nursing homes are already subject to oversight under consumer protection legislation. There is no justification for a lower standard simply because care is delivered in the home. Safeguarding is another critical gap. Many recipients of home support lack decision-making capacity and may have no family or informal supports. Questions therefore arise such as who signs the contract, who receives information and who can raise concerns? These are safeguarding issues, yet the Bill does not address them. The Law Reform Commission's recent work on adult safeguarding informed by national safeguarding standards provides a clear framework that should be reflected in this legislation. While the Bill provides for complaints procedures, complaints are only one part of safeguarding. There must also be statutory provision for the recognition and reporting of safeguarding concerns, appropriate information sharing, the appointment of safeguarding officers and the mandatory training of staff on human rights and respect for will and preferences. Crucially, the Bill makes no provision for access to independent advocacy. We already recognise the necessity of independent advocacy in nursing homes and disability services. The Department of Health's own safeguarding policy confirms its importance. There is no credible reason why people receiving care in their homes should have fewer protections. The Bill lacks guiding principles. The Law Reform Commission has been clear that principles matter because they shape how statutory powers are exercised. Accountability in particular must be explicit for providers and individuals within organisations, for their actions and interventions. This is especially important where care is provided to people in vulnerable circumstances out of public view. Registration and inspection are necessary and welcome but they are not sufficient. The legislation must be strengthened to include guiding principles, enforceable standards, safeguarding obligations, access to independent advocacy and accountability mechanisms. If we fail to do so, we risk regulating the process of home care without really protecting the people who rely on it. This would be a serious missed opportunity and one we should not allow pass.

Sentiment score: 0.28