Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(a) in subsection (2) by substituting “4 years” for “3 years”,”.

The amendment proposes to amend section 54(2) of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 by substituting "four years" for "three years". I want to emphasise that the amendment is proposed by the Law Society. I have had the assistance of Áine Hynes, chair of the Law Society task force on mental health and capacity, and Dr. Brian Hunt, one of the policy directors in the Law Society.

To explain why the proposal has been made by the Law Society to me and by me to this House, the purpose of the amendment is to extend the deadline for the exiting of wardships by one more year. The Law Society believes that it is a far more straightforward approach than that which is being proposed by the Minister in section 1 of the Bill. The Law Society understands that if the Bill is passed in its current form, in the region of 1,400 cases would be listed in court over the Easter period prior to 26 April 2026, and that includes the Easter vacation. We are taking our own vacation in these Houses, but so are the courts.

The listing of some 1,400 cases for extension will, the Law Society said, result in an unnecessary burden on court resources, give rise to a very significant increase in legal costs and place further unnecessary stress and burden on wards and their committees. It said it will significantly impact on the ability of the wardship courts to hear the remaining cases for discharge. It says that in order to ground the extension in each of the 1,400 cases, affidavits as to the reasons for the extension would need to be filed prior to 26 April 2026 and it is very likely that it will not be logistically possible to case manage all of those cases prior to 26 April 2026.

It is easily foreseeable that this will result in legal challenges. I am sure the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Barniville, will do his level best to ensure that there are not too many obstacles to the applications for extensions to be made. However, let us be clear about this. Unless there is some kind of agreement that practically no evidence or reasons are given, the process requires a paper trail and that paper trail involves affidavits setting out the circumstances. What the Law Society is saying is that a simple 12-month extension carries far less risk and entails far fewer legal costs, and that is the reason for its proposed amendment.

The Minister of State has said that the 2015 Act required a five-year review process and that she intends to accelerate that, and I am glad to hear that. I am also glad to hear what she said about consultation. However, Standing Orders 179 and 204 of the two Houses of the Oireachtas apply to all legislation, including this Bill. In principle, we will get a report on how this Bill has gone in a year's time, if it is pushed through. I am putting down that marker.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had hoped to speak on Second Stage, but it ran a little quicker than I expected.I welcome the Minister of State. What Senator McDowell has proposed, which is coming from the legal side, makes a lot of sense. I am sure the Minister of State will work around it to come up with a resolution that is favourable.

I was in the House in 2015 when the legislation was the subject of a significant debate. Some who were in the House at that point but who are no longer Members made invaluable contributions in respect of the legislation. Of course, as with a lot of legislation, there are often unintended consequences. The 12-month extension that is proposed here makes a lot of sense. The feedback I have received from solicitors in my constituency is that there is a lot more involved in the legislation regarding wards of court than was the case previously, and for good reason.

That said, regarding the review that Senator McDowell spoke about, one Standing Order that is flagrantly not adhered to in either House is that relating to the early review of legislation. Through no fault of any Minister, but through the fault of every Minister, such reviews just do not happen. That is something the Oireachtas, as an institution, needs to look at.

With regard to the target date of 26 April, having to go to court to get the extension will cause headaches for many people. I urge the Minister of State to find some way to address this, perhaps on Report Stage.

Overall, we could describe this as emergency legislation. That is what it is, and for good reason. However, we need to look at the unintended consequences and the bureaucracy involved. This notion of having to consult all family members ahead of a ward of court hearing is causing problems. These are issues that need to be looked at.

I am conscious that this is an amendment. I had hoped to bring up these issues on Second Stage, but did not get to do so. I just wanted to put them on the record.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be clear, a key consideration when we were devising this Bill was the impact that a blanket extension would have on the rights of wards of court and on the ongoing discharge process. For that reason, we decided not to go down that route. That was really because we felt it would not be in line with the principles of the 2015 Act or in line with our obligations under the UNCRPD. Ultimately, it could disrupt and undermine the current discharge processes that are under way in the High Court, and the momentum that is now building in terms of progressing these applications. The courts are continuing to progress discharge applications in line with the requirements of the 2015 Act. Once the legislative amendments have been signed into law, any remaining wards who have been granted an extension will have additional time to engage with the process and to understand the various supported decision-making arrangements available.

My Department has engaged very extensively with the Courts Service. It now has a case management plan in place. It has committed to a number of sittings over Easter, and is confident that it will be able to achieve this through the new deadline.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very glad to hear that. This is a bit of a legal stampede that we are creating. If the Courts Service says it can manage it, so be it. However, there will be a lot of additional expenditure for the wards, committees and practitioners involved. Being part of that stampede is not a welcome development. From what I hear from the Minister of State, she is not prepared to accept the amendment. If that is the case, I will press it but will not put it to a vote.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to hear that the Minister of State has been engaging with the Courts Service and that specific arrangements for this purpose will be put in place over the coming weeks. This is a big deal for families. There are roughly 1,000 families in this situation. I have engaged with a couple of them in recent times and have engaged with others over the years. It takes over their lives completely, for obvious reasons. They love and care for the person concerned. The last thing we want to see, as Senator McDowell so eloquently put it, is a legal stampede. I have great confidence in the Courts Service. If it is giving an assurance to the Minister of State and her officials that this can be managed, that is great. I take absolute solace from that. I have known the Minister of State for a long time. I know that when she says something, she means it. She is one of the most sincere people in politics. I can say that, hand on heart. When she says that it will not be extended beyond October 2027, if she has anything to do with it, that will be the case. I take absolute solace from and have absolute confidence in that. I am happy to go with Senator McDowell and take confidence from the assurances provided by the Courts Service.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, are out of order.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 5 is out of order.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?

Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators for their engagement on and support for this very important Bill. Most importantly, I thank them for agreeing to take all Stages today. I know that is not the norm, so I really appreciate it. We had a tight timeline. It was very important that we got this done in time to provide legal certainty to wards of court around the country. I thank the Senators, the members of the Committee on Disability Matters, who engaged intensively with me on this, and all those who contributed to the debate on the Bill in the Dáil. This is important legislation for all the people who are involved. I appreciate their co-operation in getting it passed in such a timely fashion. I look forward to not being here again to deal with this.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like the Minister of State, I am very pleased that the House came together, as it often does on legislation that matters to people and families in this country.I am not a member of the disability matters committee, but perhaps this is work that it has commenced. There are sections of the 2015 Act that need to be reviewed. We we discuss Bills, it is difficult to identify all of the possible consequences in theory. Sometimes there are none. More often than not, however, there are. When an Act becomes operational, there are consequences. There are families who would not necessarily all agree. The need to consult all children and other family members is certainly an issue.

I am convinced that the area of wards of court and the legal elements relating to it can be streamlined. Having engaged with many families, I am aware that the technical and bureaucratic nature of things, the time delays involved even when there is full agreement and the technicalities that arise can be daunting. There are other matters that I could talk about. Again, perhaps, I might do so at a different forum. There is capacity over the next three or four years to review and improve the 2015 Act. Our job is to improve legislation in a timely way. For many reasons, with the advancement in technology, care, etc., after ten years, elements of legislation can be obsolete and elements of it can be improved upon. Our job is to reflect what has happened in the meantime and to bring forward amending legislation. I urge the Minister of State, if she is not doing so already, to make space in her calendar to look at doing that.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I call the next speaker, I welcome the pupils from St. Andrew's College. They are here with Senator Clonan. I hope they are enjoying their visit. The Houses is a really interesting place to visit. They have no homework for the rest of the week. That is the tradition. That is what they say, although a couple of people there do not look like they are of the age for homework. They must be the teachers. They are very welcome anyway. I call Senator Byrne.

Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I merely want to welcome the passing of this Bill. I thank the Minister of State and her officials. Obviously, this is emergency legislation which had to be prepared at short notice. It is important to recognise that.

In the overall context, I encourage the Minister of State and the Department to take an in-depth look at the enduring power of attorney system. The point was made earlier that so many solicitors have clients come in to them to make a will who should be also getting an enduring power of attorney prepared at the same time and are not, because of the bureaucratic technical difficulties that exist there. There is a big opportunity to see what has gone wrong over the last number of years, correct it, and make it even easier and more widespread and commonplace than someone having a will.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Senators Conway and Byrne in relation to this matter. I thank the Minister of State and her officials for bringing this legislation before the House. To echo what Senator Tully said, the emergency aspect of this could have been foreseen.

The problems which are there with enduring powers of attorney are real. The result of those problems is that enduring power of attorney arrangements are not being entered into. Solicitors are simply saying, "No, Thanks. I am not doing that work.", or "Sorry, it is €3,000 or €5,000 to do that." The point I want to make is that if you sat down with an expert and they devised as many obstacles to the making of an ordinary will as have been put in place for the making of an enduring power of attorney, we would have no wills in this country either. We would have intestacies all over the place. I make that point in order to differ slightly from Senator Conway. We do not have three, four or five years to do this. It should be done in the next 12 months, because the problems are there.

There is no massive conflict of interest here. It is not as if solicitors want to impede their clients from entering into enduring power of attorney arrangements, but there is a very definite set of obstacles that they are encountering and that affect not them so much as their clients. This will lead to disputes, injustices and exploitation of people who are suffering from mental disabilities. Such people can be exploited. The presence of enduring power of attorney is a service as well for people who anticipate that their intellectual capacity is going to go into decline.

I urge the Minister of State to accelerate the process and to come back here within a year. Otherwise, a bright and enterprising Senator such as Senator Byrne will produce a Private Members' Bill to remedy the problems that exist. It would be embarrassing for the Government to have to decline to accept such a Bill.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important to confirm on the record not only the Department's willingness but also its eagerness to accelerate the process relating to the overall review of the Act. We are committed to doing that ahead of schedule. The preparatory work is already under way in terms of the lead-up to that review.

Consultation will be a big part of that. I ask for Senators' help in promoting the consultation we will engage in, because we want to ensure that we cast the net wide and get all the relevant feedback. Our modus operandi is collaboration with relevant stakeholders. To that end, I again thank the Courts Service, the Legal Aid Board, the Departments of justice and Health, the Mental Health Commission, the Decision Support Service and everybody who met with me and my officials as part of the consultation we had online in January and at in-person events in recent weeks. In particular, I thank my three officials, Jane Ann, Melanie and Orla, who have worked so hard on this.