Victor Boyhan (Independent)

I will come back to the Minister of State on capacity. We are talking about people who may suffer from acute mental illness. They may have already been in some form of State care. They may not have parents, for that matter. They may or may not have advocates. This relates to advocacy. Who is the guardian or advocate for someone who is very unwell at 16 or 17 years of age? I know the Minister of State has received advice on this and there are concerns.

If we accept the amendment, we are stitching this into the legislation. While it is all very well to say the amendment is technical, the fact that the Minister is asking for the amendment is significant. Those who have given her legal advice and parliamentary draftsmen have thought about that and clearly made a strong case for the amendment to be included in the Bill. It is no good for us to agree this and have a problem later on. The issue is who is advocating for somebody who is very unwell at 16 or 17 years of age and may not have the ordinary supports that many of us have. There may be people who purport to be acting in the interests of a child – we must never lose sight of the fact that they are children in law. Children aged 16 and 17 could be vulnerable on a number of fronts.

What protections will be in place? What advice did the Minister of State receive on this? Did it concern her that a number of people raised this matter with her Department, in particular capacity in respect of 16 and 17-year-olds who are exceptionally vulnerable? In some cases, these children are living on our streets. That is the reality. Who is protecting and advocating for that vulnerable group that may be in State care, have been thrown out of State care or fallen out of State care by their own actions? I would like to know more about the advice the Minister of State was given.