David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. It is a bit odd - I have commented on this before - that we have 113 amendments at this very late Stage, Report Stage, and all but two of them are Government amendments. That is astonishing. I hope the Minister of State will convey this to her colleagues and to those involved in the Civil Service in the drafting. It is both a drafting and a political matter. It is shameful that we have this kind of thing, a backlog or a furious push of legislation every Christmas. Why does it happen? It is bad management and it should be stopped.

With regard to the particular import of these amendments, they are not all drafting amendments. Some of them are and some of them are just changing words, that is, tinkering around. Even though there is quite a considerable number of them, I suppose that is fair enough although, God knows, one would imagine it would have been spotted before now.

One of the principal amendments in the entire range deals with taking the function out of the Courts Service and putting it into the Mental Health Commission. I have been contacted by some of the relatives and they are not particularly happy about this. They were not happy about it being part of the Courts Service because of their experience with wards being referred to as lunatics and all this unhelpful language.

I am asked if the Minister of State knows what she is doing. For many of these people it is not so much a question of mental health in terms of a disability, mental functioning or mental capacity. Many of these people are the way they are as a result of accidental injury. It is acquired brain damage and the relatives are fairly sensitive about this and do not feel it should come under Mental Health Commission. It is not a question of mental health, depression or this, that or the other, it is acquired brain damage. One of these people said to me that all those who have family members who are wards of court have said that it for them to have confidence in the new system, it would need to be delivered outside the Courts Service, preferably as an independent stand-alone service responsible to the Government directly. This person will be pleased that it is moved out of the Courts Service but I am not sure the person is terrifically chuffed by the idea of it being put into the mental health area. This person wonders if the Minister of State has looked at the question of the fully independent provision of this kind of service. This person welcome the move away from the Courts Service but finds it difficult to understand why it comes under the remit of the Mental Health Commission. The premise of the Bill is that it would be delivered under the Courts Service with the director of the decision support service being appointed by the Courts Service and being responsible to the Courts Service. The person I referred to is concerned about that.

I have a bit of a grouse which the Minister of State need not bother to refer to because we have been through this. I would point out again the enormous constellation of amendments, all but two of which are from the Government. The other issue is that I am concerned at the introduction, at this late Stage, of a move, without consultation with the relatives, as I understand it, from the Courts Service, which is welcomed.As somebody said to me years ago when they were talking about a translation of Finnegans Wake, "it is being translated into Japanese, but out of what?". In the case of this service, it is going out of the Courts Service, but into what? Most of the relatives would like it to be a fully independent service.