Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

It was probably not helpful of me to have made a general point on that issue in the context of quite a specific thing, so I accept what Senators Seery Kearney and Mullen say about the general point about a changing approach versus this specific situation.

As for this specific situation, and from my read of the amendment and where it is proposed to locate it, it seems to bring the court into giving directions on a very specific element of what the decision-making representative is undertaking. I think Senator Mullen is correct that the concept behind the legislation is that the decision-making representatives, having met the criteria they have set out, are qualified people and it is not necessary again for the court to start specifying to them the types of strategies that will be taking place in the decision-making representation order. It works on the basis that, having met the criteria, they will be able to undertake that. There is obviously oversight of the process, and if a decision-making representative breaches that, there are offences provided for under the legislation as well.

The matter can be discussed further, but I am reasonably confident the provision as set out in respect of the detail that is required of a decision-making representative before he or she is appointed is comprehensive and encapsulates the ability to manage financial matters or an investment strategy, as was suggested. I do not feel the court needs to be more specific in the directions it makes because I think that gets the court involved at maybe a very granular level on every single situation, which I do not think is the desired outcome.