Tony McLoughlin (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which will have a meaningful impact on many families in Ireland. Over the lifetime of a government many areas of law are examined or renewed from financial issues to family life. Often, when it comes to law reform, governments point to the existing legislation, which may be Acts from the 1930s or 1940s. In some rare cases the relevant law of the day may date back to the beginning of last century. However, in this case we must go back to 1871 to get to the legislation that provides the status quo in respect of the law on mental capacity.

I commend the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, and the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, on their work on introducing the Bill. The legislative reform of the Minister, Deputy Shatter, compares only to his time as a backbencher when he introduced several Private Members' Bills on a range of issues relating to family law. Many will look back on this time in history as having one of the most proactive governments in the area of law reform. Again, I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, who, despite a difficult funding time for health, remains deeply committed to providing for our citizens who suffer from mental illness.

The Bill will greatly assist vulnerable people with limited decision-making capacity to better manage their personal, property and financial affairs. It is clear that in the past many people with mental challenges were used and abused by members of their family. Many who showed a slight level of mild mentally abnormal behaviour were made wards of court and decisions were made for them, raising, perhaps, the possibility that those decisions would not have not been made with the input of the person themselves.

The proposed change in the law is welcome. Part 3 provides that a person whose capacity is or will soon be in question can appoint another person to assist him or her in making decisions regarding personal welfare or property affairs. Let us consider, for example, a person in the early stages of the dreaded Alzheimer's disease who has been diagnosed but who has the ability to make some decisions with the assistance of a trusted friend or relative. Such a person can make these personal decisions before their condition gets much worse. Section 11 provides that the authority over decision-making will reside with the person who does not have the capacity to make a decision, while the assistant decision-maker must understand and clarify the will and preferences of the person with the mental challenges and try to ensure that these are carried through.

The option of entering into a co-decision-making agreement is another proposal in the Bill for those who need added support to make decisions jointly. The Bill states that a co-decision-making agreement has no legal effect unless the court approves it by issuing a co-decision-making order. This is welcome and allows, under the eye of the court, for changes to be made or provides for a period of review if circumstances change, such as those relating to the condition of the person. In essence, this is the central plank of the Bill. We all know that some people may need a little help in obtaining information and in understanding their options. The decision-making assistant option will suit such people.

The other option is the co-decision-making option, which may be most suitable for people who need a trusted person to make a decision jointly with them. Many people will be able to using informal arrangements rather than formal agreements. Under the Bill protection in such cases is available.

In many cases there will be a court-ordered decision-making representation. Let us consider a case where a person is involved in a bad car accident, goes into a coma and cannot communicate, or where a person suffers a severe stroke in an instant. The reality is that the law must provide for that scenario. Family representatives or others will be required to act for these people as they would if they had their full senses. The Bill provides for the courts to ensure that this is the case. Let us consider a case where a wealthy man or woman with a number of businesses, perhaps employing 100 people or more, finds himself or herself suddenly in a position of mental incapacity. This is a precarious position for the person in question and for the many people who depend on him or her for their livelihood. It would be wrong to appoint a person with a poor financial track record, for example, a bankrupt, or an appointed person who is not allowed to claim the relevant expenses to perform his or her duty. This is dealt with in the Bill. In such a case the law must act swiftly. I believe we have the proposals in this legislation to deal with such a scenario.

I welcome the proposal to create the office of public guardian to replace the ward of court system. The service will be managed by the Courts Service with the back-up of civil servants. The office of public guardian will, among other things, supervise decision-making assistants, co-decision makers, decision-making representatives and solicitors for the relevant persons. The office will establish and maintain a register of decision-making assistant agreements, co-decision-making orders and decision-making representatives orders along with other relevant supervision. It is clear that the Minister is keen to ensure that an information website is maintained to communicate the guardian's role, which is vital. I believe the passing of the Bill would be a good day's work on behalf of most vulnerable citizens and I welcome it strongly.

See this speech in context