Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his reply. I would be grateful if I could tease this out with him. I defer to his knowledge of the Bill as he has been with it for a long time. The amendment specifically goes to an area where a person is making decisions on behalf of another person as a decision-making representative. Is that at the higher level of intervention and support where person A is entrusted with a decision on behalf of person B? The Minister is bringing the legislation through the Houses. Regarding the final point he made, while I understand the spirit underlying it, this is about releasing people to exercise their wishes in every situation and to support them to the extent they need to be supported having regard to a particular issue where they may lack capacity to some degree or at a particular time or in a situation in which they lack capacity. However, there are circumstances where person A makes the decision on behalf of, and for the benefit of, person B.I think that is what Senator Clonan's amendment addresses.

The second question I had, albeit the first that came to mind, was whether it would be fair to characterise the Minister's opposition to this amendment as follows. He is pointing to the provisions in the law which go to the assessment as to who is to be entrusted with this decision-making and decision support capacity. He is standing back from imposing a requirement in the law that directions in respect of the decisions that must be taken are given. Is that the nub of this? The Minister rightly points to the testing and the required qualifications of the person who will be entrusted with this decision support, but Senator Clonan's amendment asks for more because it asks for the giving of directions in respect of the investment strategy. I do not wish to speak for Senator Clonan, but that seems to me to be a different issue. Is the Minister making a policy choice to stand back from going to that extent in the way proposed in this amendment?