Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: "(e) section 85(7);"

I express my opposition and concern about the speed and inaccessible nature of the Bill. It will have far-reaching consequences for disabled people, older people and individuals experiencing mental health difficulties. At all stages it has excluded them. There has been no meaningful engagement with disabled people and disabled persons' organisations. There is still no easy-to-read version of the Bill. The amendments are coming so quickly we do not have time to interrogate them properly. Not alone is this bad lawmaking, but it is contrary to the principles and requirements of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD. Now we have just 90 minutes to discuss more than 60 amendments, many of which we saw for the first time on Monday afternoon.

The original rationale for rushing through the legislation was the ending of wardships. Some of the amendments tabled by the Minister will extend wardships. Will the Minister clarify whether it is still his intention to have the Bill progressed through the Oireachtas by the recess in two weeks' time? If not, why is important and complex legislation being pushed through? To whose benefit is it to do so?

The amendments I have tabled address concerns about respecting advanced healthcare directives for individuals engaging with mental healthcare. An advanced healthcare directive is a statement someone can make on the type of medical or surgical treatment they want or do not want. It is an established instrument for individuals to outline their will and preference if they are unable to make these decisions in future. Under the 2015 Act people detained in hospital for mental health treatment are specifically excluded from legally binding advanced healthcare directives. The Act intentionally removes their right to have their advance wishes respected even though they had capacity to make decisions about their mental health care and treatment at the time of making the directive. It is shocking this was included in the original Act. It is even more reprehensible that it is not being removed by the Minister now. To be clear, this exclusion is not applied to any other group of people. It is wrong and harmful and further stigmatises mental health. On Committee Stage the Minister conceded this area would have to be addressed but located in terms of the reform of the Mental Health Act. However, this is still a way off and the Bill could resolve this human rights issue much sooner. I cannot comprehend why there is not action to preserve people's rights.

I welcome that amendment No. 35 reflects the changes brought about by repeal but the Act still singles out pregnancy as a specific medical state different from all others. It imposes a specific requirement on directive makers to clarify whether they intend their advanced directive to apply during their pregnancy rather than presuming they would have a reasonable expectation that their wishes regarding medical treatment would continue to apply in the event of pregnancy even if this is not specified in the directive. Other Deputies and I did not submit amendments on this in good faith because the Minister committed to addressing the issue. On Second Stage the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, stated the Government would repeal this provision of the 2015 Act. The Government has not done so. Will the Minister clarify why not? The pre-legislative scrutiny report called for repeal of section 85(6) of the 2015 Act. This is the amendment I would have submitted and the one we should be discussing.

See this speech in context