Hildegarde Naughton (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Bill before us, once enacted, will pave the way for the long-overdue ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. One of the commitments in the programme for Government involved the ratification of the convention; therefore, I very much welcome the legislation.

The Bill will repeal some antiquated legislation, namely, the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871. In that regard, I am happy to note that a separate section is included in the Bill to deal with that issue. It is very important and deserves to be dealt with in a separate section.

The Minister of State has amended the original draft legislation significantly. She and her officials are to be commended for the manner in which they have gone about putting the Bill through the Oireachtas. They conducted what I can only describe as a consultative process and the legislation is all the better for it.

I am glad to see that the Minister of State has rightly dealt with the vexing issue of informal decision makers. It was a worry for some NGOs and experts in the area that such an inclusion might result in a watering down of other provisions. Additionally - it is hard to think it possible in this day and age - the Bill contains a provision that no person can give consent for the non-therapeutic sterilisation of a person who lacks capacity. Previously, this could have been sanctioned by the High Court. I am glad, therefore, to see this declaration stated boldly in the legislation.

There are a few queries I would like to raise. I am glad that the new section 103 provides for a prohibition on clinical trials. In that vein, I ask the Minister of State the rationale for allowing the High Court to adjudicate on organ donation. I realise it is a very complex issue. We are talking about someone who cannot decide for himself or herself having the High Court decide whether and in what circumstances that person should donate a part of his or her body. Perhaps the Minister of State might outline the reasoning behind this provision. I see the logic in the High Court having jurisdiction over decisions to withdraw medical treatment in the same way that it does in the case of persons who are in a vegetative state. This legislation seems to do nothing to change the current law and actually provides a safeguard for those who lack capacity.

There is one final provision I wish to mention. The issue was raised by my colleague, Senator Cáit Keane. The Bill contains provisions that allow people who are ready to leave wardship to apply to the court to be discharged immediately on commencement of the legislation. The status of all persons will be reviewed within three years. Additionally, the status of persons detained in approved centres under wardship will be reviewed soon after the commencement of the Bill. While all these provisions are very welcome, I have been contacted by families with loved ones in the wardship system. They generally welcome the legislation, but the Minister of State will be aware that the loss of wardship funds before and during the crash is a source of great concern to them. A figure of £50 million was floated as far back as 1990. When someone was made a ward, families and loved ones had absolutely no say in the matter. His or her financial affairs were transacted without recourse to him or her or the family. It is a common case that millions in funds were lost during the years. There was a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General which the Oireachtas considered and which was not complimentary, yet to date nothing has happened. The Courts Service states the funds perform well overall, but that does not take account of those wards who may be at a loss when they transfer out of the system on the passing of this legislation. While I accept that invested moneys were lost during the crash, it seems to be the case that no cash fund was maintained. All of the moneys were invested speculatively in the hope of a return. I am not impugning anyone; it just seems wrong, when a ward's monetary award was invested without consultation, that on leaving the system he or she could come out at a loss. I urge the Minister of State to look at the matter.

I commend the Minister of State for the manner in which she has piloted this legislation which is hugely complex and very important. It is probably one of the most important Bills to pass through this House in the past five years, although it will probably receive little fanfare, but the impact it will have on people's lives will be long lasting.