Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I support the amendment, which clarifies the position in respect of a person with a mental disorder. I am pleased to hear the Minister state the Mental Capacity Bill is being drafted and that he intends to introduce it early next year. I am conscious that my predecessor as one of the University of Dublin Senators, Ms Mary Henry, carried out a great deal of work to try to reform the law on wardship and introduced a Private Members' Bill on mental capacity. This is a long overdue reform and further amendments may be necessary to incorporate the new procedure for wardship of adults with mental disorder, as the Minister stated. I support the amendment and it makes sense.

I put one query to the Minister, although perhaps it is something I should know and I apologise if that is the case. I am unsure why the age of 14 years is given in proposed new section 5(3)(b)(i). How does this affect the Minister's proposed amendment? The proposed new section 5(3)(b)(i) states that where the person in respect of whom the offence was committed "is a child under the age of 14 years, the child, or his or her parent or guardian, may give evidence as to the effect of the offence concerned on that child". I presume amendment No. 11 would only apply to a child under 14 years. However, it is unclear how this would work in conjunction with the proposed new section 5(3)(b)(i). Why is this the case? Why is it limited to a child under that age? Will this carry on into the paragraph the Minister wishes to amend with the introduction of amendment No. 11?