2026-03-04

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I want to acknowledge the work undertaken by the Department and the Courts Service to brief members of the disability matters committee on this legislation. We were provided with two detailed briefings to help us understand both the operational process involved in discharging wards of court and the urgency of the legislative amendment before us, with the 26 April deadline looming. Those briefings were helpful in outlining the scale of work under way and the practical challenges involved in transitioning a significant number of cases through the court system. It was on the basis of the briefings and the clear urgency involved that the committee recognised the need to grant a waiver on pre-legislative scrutiny for this Bill. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a very important part of the legislative process. However, in this case it was made clear to us that the amendment is time-sensitive and necessary to avoid legal uncertainty for vulnerable individuals and therefore, the committee was satisfied that a waiver was appropriate. The starting point for this legislation is the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, which represented one of the most important reforms of disability law in the State in many decades. The Act abolished the historic wardship system for adults. This was a system rooted in the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871, and replaced it with a modern, rights-based framework for supported decision making. That reform represented a significant cultural and legal shift. For many years, the wardship system operated largely through a medical model of disability, where individuals deemed to lack decision-making capacity could have decisions made on their behalf by the court. The 2015 Act moved Ireland towards a social and rights-based model, recognising that many people may require support to make decisions rather than having their legal capacity removed entirely. The legislation places emphasis on the will and preferences of the person, ensuring that individuals are supported to exercise their autonomy wherever possible. Under the Act, the Decision Support Service, DSS, was created and tiered decision support arrangements were established. The decision-making assistance agreement supports people to make their own decisions by helping them get information, understand it and then make decisions. There is also a co-decision making agreement where the person chooses somebody they know and trust to be their co-decision maker and they make specific decisions jointly. In the case of a decision-making representation order, the Circuit Court appoints a decision-making representative to make decisions on the person's behalf. These reforms were an important step in bringing Ireland closer to compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, which recognises that persons with disabilities have the right to legal capacity on an equal basis with others. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Act 2022 commenced in April 2023, beginning the process of transitioning individuals currently in the wardship into the new decision support framework. Under the legislation, the High Court sitting as the wardship court must review the case of every adult ward and make a declaration regarding their decision-making capacity within three years of commencement. This means that the statutory deadline for completing these capacity declarations is 26 April this year. However, since commencement important progress has been made, with 399 wards having been fully discharged. Some 38 of those individuals require no decision-making support, 40 require co-decision-making agreements, and 313 were discharged with decision-making representatives. However, despite the considerable work undertaken by the Courts Service, the Judiciary, DSS and legal representatives, the reality is that current figures indicate that approximately 1,050 wardship cases are currently outstanding. Discharge applications are progressing, but the scale and complexity of this process means that it will not be possible to complete every capacity declaration before the statutory deadline in just 53 days. This creates a serious legal issue as the 2015 Act does not provide for the legal status of individuals who remain wards of court if a capacity declaration has not been made by that deadline. Without legislative intervention, individuals could find themselves in the position of legal limbo or uncertainty after 26 April. Such uncertainty could create serious difficulties for the individuals concerned, as well as for their families, carers and service providers. Questions could arise regarding who has legal authority in relation to their welfare, financial affairs or decision concerning their care. For that reason, the legislation before us is necessary and urgent. The Bill addresses these issues while preserving the core intent of the original Act. Importantly, the Bill does not extend or change the statutory deadline of 26 April 2026. Instead, it provides the wardship court with discretion to extend the time frame for making a capacity declaration in individual cases where there is good reason to do so and where it is in the interests of justice. This extension will operate on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that the court retains oversight and that each situation is considered carefully. A further extension may be granted in exceptional circumstances, but there is a clear outer limit. The total period of any extension or extensions cannot exceed 18 months meaning that every affected ward must have a capacity declaration no later than 25 October 2027. This approach reflects a careful policy balance in considering how best to address the issue. Three policy options were examined and these were outlined to us very clearly in our briefings. The first option was to do nothing, which would leave individuals without legal clarity after the deadline. The second option was to extend the statutory deadline. However, that option carried risks, including the potential for legal challenges, and advocacy groups are concerned that such a move could undermine the commitment to ending warship. The third option, and the one reflected in this Bill, maintains the statutory deadline but allows the court to manage cases through limited proportionate extensions, where required. This option provides legal certainty for individuals while allowing the transition away from wardship to continue in an orderly and structured manner. It also avoids disrupting the significant work under way in the courts. While the amendment is necessary, it is also important that we view it as a practical operational measure rather than a slowing down of the reform process. The transition away from wardship remains an important rights-based reform and we must continue to ensure that the remaining cases progress as efficiently as possible. I am conscious that some families and carers have expressed confusion about the process of discharge from wardship and what that will mean in practice. Valuable information has been made available to organisations such as Citizens Information, the DSS and Family Carers Ireland, which launched the CarerAid Project. In my own locality, I found some really good documents published by the Western Care Association as well. However, we must continue to ensure that clear, accessible information and practical supports are available to wards so that individuals and their families fully understand the process and options available to them. I understand that the Department had a consultation event this Monday for wards, families, committees and wider stakeholders at which issues with the discharge process were discussed. We must ensure that the needs, wishes and rights of the individuals concerned remain at the centre of the process. I understand that the Office of Wards of Court was represented, along with DSS and the Legal Aid Board. I also understand that the Minister is willing to put on more of those events if they are helpful. Many wards of courts are people with intellectual disabilities who are being supported by their families or organisations like the Western Care Association in Mayo. The move away from wardship represents an important step in recognising the autonomy and dignity of people who require decision-making support. This autonomy can include deciding where they will live or having some input or autonomy over who will take care of them. We are living longer now and many of in this room will likely get a diagnosis of dementia or Alzheimer's and it will most likely be our family members who will become our decision supporters. Under the old system, once a person became a ward, they lost all of their legal capacity whereas now they will retain autonomy and continue to participate in decisions about their own life. The new system is designed to support the voice of the person for as long as possible. This amendment ensures that the transition to the new framework can continue fairly, lawfully and without placing individuals in legal uncertainty. For those reasons, I support the Bill and I look forward to its progression through the House.

There are serious concerns with the Bill. As is often the case with the Government, it waits until the last minute to try to rush through legislation. The concerns raised by academics and service providers need to be listened to. The University of Galway has raised concerns about the treatment of minors, the lack of meaningful engagement and the criteria for extending timelines. I want to raise concerns about the treatment of minors in this State when they are held involuntarily either as wards of court or through the mental health system. As often is the case, the State lets down the most vulnerable and those with the most complex needs. I am supporting a mother whose son was in the care of the State. She fought tooth and nail to have him held under the Mental Health Act 2001. This was heartbreaking. There were nights when I heard her cry. She told me she was a broken woman due to what she suffered. This system is flawed because to get him to court, he had to go to child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS. CAMHS would see him, but he would not engage with them and did not go. After much campaigning and fighting by his mother, she eventually got her son in front a judge and the judge sectioned him. He then went missing seven times in 21 days while he was on a court-ordered mental health hold. How can facilities not be equipped to manage and mind a 17-year-old boy who could be a danger to himself? He section just ended on Monday. He got an emergency discharge, but who is responsible for him? He went missing on Tuesday. His mother contacted An Garda Síochána and officers found him at 12 midnight on Tuesday. He is a 17 year-old child, but the problem is that in three weeks, he will be 18. Who will look after him then? Who will be responsible given he has such complex needs? To see their beautiful son and brother go through this has caused heartbreak for his mother and family. It is so hard. Will the Minister of State step in with regard to what we are discussing? Will she also talk to Tusla and the HSE? More needs to be done to protect vulnerable children like this young boy. Facilities for vulnerable people are closed. In my constituency, we have a brand new dementia centre in Heather House. All it is waiting for is to be registered by HIQA. Everything is done. I have at least ten people who will go in there and, again, these are vulnerable people. Will the Minister of State find out when Heather House will open? We will support his legislation but we flag that we have some concerns. The way the State treated wards of the State in the past was absolutely appalling. We need to do everything to ensure and make possible that they are heard, protected and supported. Will the Minister of State re-engage with those who are raising genuine concerns to make sure they are listened to and that we do not make mistakes? Everyone is in agreement that this a really important Bill and we need to get it right. We need to get it right for that boy that I referred to and for his mother, Liz, given what she and her family have suffered.

The assisted decision-making Act represented one of the most significant legal reforms in the history of the State. It abolished the adult wardship system, repealed the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871 and replaced a plenary substitute decision-making model with a graduated rights-based framework designed to support autonomy and maximise decision-making capacity. Its full commencement in April 2023 marked a profound shift in how the State understands legal capacity, moving Ireland closer to compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to our own constitutional principles of dignity and autonomy. That reform was long called for by disabled people and their advocates and was very welcome. The Act provided that all adults in wardship were to exit that system within three years of commencement of the new process, that is, by 26 April 2026. It is now clear that this deadline will not be met. Research recently published by the National Disability Authority, NDA, drawing from data of the office of wards of court, sets out the position clearly. Some 2,173 adults were in wardship at the commencement of the new process in April 2023. By the end of November 2025, 250 had been discharged, so 1,602 adults remained in wardship, or approximately 74% of the original cohort. The discharge process has advanced, but at a much slower pace than envisaged. In that context, there is a real risk of legal uncertainty if no legislative provision is made for cases not concluded by April 2026. I do not believe it would be responsible to allow a statutory cliff-edge to arise. For that reason, the Social Democrats will not oppose the Bill at this stage. However, there is no doubt that this Bill must be strengthened if it is to preserve the integrity of the original reform. Firstly, annual reporting since 2023 has made clear that the pace of discharge was not on course to meet the target. We are therefore entitled to ask whether sufficient planning was undertaken at commencement and whether the DSS, the Legal Aid Board, the National Advocacy Service for People with Disabilities and the Courts Service were adequately resourced to meet the volume anticipated. Were sufficient court medical visitors and assessors available? Was structured, accessible engagement with wards and committees commenced early enough? Research undertaken by the NDA identifies several practical barriers to discharge, including fear and uncertainty about the management of funds after discharge, reluctance to move from a familiar system to a new and untested one, complexity and resource intensity of proceedings, and confusion about the role of the decision support service. If we are extending the deadline, the Minister must set out clearly what additional resourcing and structural measures are being put in place to ensure completion within the extended period. Second, the Bill proposes to allow the High Court to extend the discharge period where "good reason has been shown" and "it is in the interests of justice to do so", subject to an overall long-stop date of 25 October 2027. These are serious legal standards but they are quite broad and experts at the centre of disability law and policy in Galway have expressed concern that without clear parameters, the discretion may be too open-ended. We therefore need to consider whether the legislation should clarify what constitutes "good reason", explicitly require that any extension be strictly necessary and proportionate, and link extensions to demonstrable steps required to facilitate meaningful engagement and transition. An extension should be a bridge to completion, not a resetting of the clock. Third, the Bill provides that wards are to be notified of proceedings. Notification alone is not enough. The NDA research records that despite significant information efforts by public bodies, many wards and committees experienced what was described as "an information vacuum" and confusion about roles and responsibilities in the new system. This tells us that issuing information is not the same as ensuring understanding to a reasonable degree. If the transition is to be rights-based in practice, accessible formats, practical navigation supports and independent advocacy must be consistently available. Where extensions are granted, the additional time should be used actively to support informed participation, not simply to maintain the status quo. The reform was grounded in recognition of personhood. Legal capacity is not a technical formality; it is recognition that adults have the right to participate in decisions affecting their lives to the fullest extent possible. That participation must be meaningful. Fourth, as Deputy Gould referred to, an issue arises in relation to minors who are wards of court. If an extension mechanism operates in a way that carries wardship beyond the young person's 18th birthday, we risk denying them entry into adulthood under the new rights-based framework at a critical life stage. That would be a serious consequence arising not from individual circumstances but from systemic delay. This warrants careful examination on Committee Stage. Turning 18 should mark entry into adulthood under a modern decision-making framework, not continuation under a legacy regime by default. While the delay affecting minors arises from systemic backlog rather than age-specific rules, particular care should be taken to ensure that young people turning 18 are prioritised so that they do not experience avoidable delay in entering adulthood under the new framework. Fifth, the NDA research also highlights a related structural issue. There is increased resort to the High Court's inherent jurisdiction in detention-related cases in the absence of a complete statutory framework. That development has significant resource implications and underscores the urgency of progressing protection of liberty and safeguards legislation. If we are serious about reducing court backlog and ensuring coherent legal architecture, this cannot be deferred. Sixth, the Act provides for a statutory review of its operation within five years of the commencement of the relevant 2022 amendment provisions, effectively pointing to a review around 2028. That review must be robust. There remains ongoing academic and legal debate about the extent to which the current functional assessment model fully aligns with Article 12 of the UNCRPD. That debate should be engaged with seriously and transparently. The Minister should set out how the review will be structured, how those most affected will be meaningfully involved, and how lessons from the wardship discharge process will inform future amendments. Reform of this magnitude is iterative. It requires ongoing evaluation and refinement. Seventh, concerns have been raised regarding potential inconsistencies between the assisted decision-making framework and the mental health amendment legislation, particularly in relation to advance healthcare directives. It is vital that the Minister clarifies how coherence between these two frameworks can be ensured and how Ireland's human rights obligations will be upheld across both regimes. I do not believe it would be responsible to allow a legal vacuum to arise, and on that basis, we will support the Bill at this stage. However, support for avoiding legal uncertainty should not be mistaken for complacency. This extension must be temporary, tightly defined, matched with resourcing, accompanied by regular reporting and reviews, and focused on meaningful engagement with wards of court. It must be particularly careful in respect of young people. The move away from wardship was grounded in principles of autonomy, dignity and recognition of legal personhood. This amendment must preserve that spirit. If implemented with discipline and transparency, it could provide legal uncertainty while safeguarding the integrity of the original reform. If not, it risks signalling that deadlines in rights-based reform are elastic. The people affected deserve better than elastic timelines. They deserve clarity, dignity and completion of a reform that has been long promised. I look forward to constructive engagement on Committee Stage to ensure the ambition of the 2015 Act is realised fully in practice.

I welcome the chance to speak on the legislation. We are dealing with a Bill that aims to make sure vulnerable people are not left in limbo because the State itself cannot process cases on time. While I will not go into technicalities that others have covered, the heart of this Bill is simple. It is to ensure that no person who depends on the courts for capacity-related decisions ends up caught in a gap created by missed deadlines or slow administration. If the scheme fails to meet its own schedules, people should not pay the price. That is a principle I will always stand over. When we talk about protecting vulnerable people, we cannot ignore another crisis that is happening right now, which is hitting disabled people and their families far harder than most. This Chamber fully appreciates that over the past months, we have seen major protests in Dublin with hundreds of disabled people, carers, families and supporters marching to demand fairness. In one demonstration, held on 28 February, we saw up to 400 people gathering to highlight the devastating blow delivered by budget 2026, which has left disabled people up to €1,400 worse off. I would link that to the situation we are in now. These people need help. They desperately need someone to mind them in many cases. They need someone to make a decision for them, in many cases, but they are suffering themselves. We should not have left them in that situation, and the budget should not have left them in that situation. The groups that are advocating for these people are calling very clearly for a €400 emergency disability payment because many cannot make ends meet under the current pressure. This is not coming from one group or one organisation. It is coming from a coalition that includes the Irish Wheelchair Association, the Disability Federation of Ireland and Access for All Ireland. I was talking about the assisted decision-making Bill. I sat in with a family member recently who was anxious to get some help. The family member for whom this person was looking for help is severely incapacitated. When this person asked the body I was sitting before why the family member had not gotten the help, the body said that the family member did not want it. It looked to me like the person who was incapacitated and not able to make that decision was being listened to and the family were not being listened to. That is really along the link of this as well. The groups also said that the removal of the previous one-off supports I was talking about a while ago has left disabled people choosing between heating and eating. Anyone who has ever dealt with real hardship knows that this is not an exaggeration; it is the lived reality of thousands of households today. As I said, we could talk a lot about what we will do in caring for people. In fairness, I found the situation I mentioned a while ago astonishing. The person who is incapacitated had a say while the family, who are getting older and need the care and attention for that person, did not have any say even though they are the people who are caring for this individual. I can understand where this comes in. I can understand why we should support many aspects of it. However, I would like to know from the Minister of State how soon it is going to be implemented. Is it going to deliver for those who need it to be delivered? Maybe the Minister of State can clarify that as time goes on.

I am very glad to have the opportunity to debate this legislation this evening. Before I get into the specifics of the Bill, I want to talk about the enduring power of attorney, which comes under the assisted decision-making Act and is incredibly complicated. I have dealt with this with a few constituents in my own county of Mayo. Trying to get the power of attorney is very difficult, complicated and unfriendly. The system is very difficult to navigate through. I always tell and advise people to make sure they get the power of attorney even at times when they do not need it because they may need it in the future. Most people do not look at it until there is a diagnosis of ill health, whether that is dementia or whatever else. It is important that people do not leave it too late. Some of the people involved in the process have told me there is a real struggle. We need to look at simplifying it. We should look to see how we can make it a simpler process. One constituent outlined to me how it involves multiple trips to the solicitor. This particular individual is a wheelchair user, and that posed additional costs and stresses and so on. Then of course there are lots of other difficult scenarios, and trying to navigate them has been incredibly difficult, as I know from dealing and working with constituents. I ask the Minister of State to really look at that. I know it is complex, and there are legal considerations, but the other side of it is that these people are very vulnerable as well in many cases. That should really be looked at to see how we can maintain that legal ground and make sure we are doing everything right legally. We have to give everyone the opportunity to make sure because some people will fall through the cracks here. I understand the DSS has been getting between 80 and 100 phone calls per day in terms of queries. That is another example of the difficulties out there. We need to make sure that people who need the service, whether they are elderly or people with disabilities, should be able to get a physical copy of the form and send it in the post without ever having to go online. That option should be available to them. My understanding currently is that it is an online process, but I will stand corrected if that is not the case. I was informed by a constituent in relation to it. The specific legislation we are debating today is obviously about wards of court. The Government is trying to move people out of the old system and into the assisted decision-making system. However, it has failed to meet the legislative deadline it set for itself and so is ultimately extending it. I want the Minister of State to explain today, if she can, why the deadline was not met. What are the barriers she has come up against in relation to it? What are the steps that are being taken to address this to ensure that the next deadline will not be pushed out further? I listened carefully to the Minister of State's contribution earlier and the figures she provided. She said that that 390 wards of court had been discharged, with 38 of them requiring no decision-making assistance. I am concerned about that figure. What safeguards are in place, and what criteria are applied to ensure there is a smooth transition from the old system to the new system? If people are not allowed to touch their bank accounts for decades and all of a sudden, they are given access to their assets and their money, there is a real and significant fear - I know the Minister of State is aware of this - that they could spend all their money on Monday and end up homeless on Tuesday. That is a significant concern. I urge the Minister of State to ensure we protect these people. Does the fact that these 38 individuals have been deemed to be capable of making their own decisions mean they should never have been wards of court in the first place? If that is the case, what is the Minister of State's position in relation to it? Will there be an apology for same, etc.? I thank the Minister of State for her work on this. It is a very important issue. It is important that we get it right, and it is important that we protect these very vulnerable people and make sure we create a system that is as simple and straightforward for them as possible.

I will follow up on what Deputy Lawless said about people coming into assets after a period of time. I do not think it is going to be overnight, as such. There have been studies, some of which are actually quite offensive, in which homeless people have been given money. I have seen this in the United States. One guy got in the region of $500,000 and it was gone within six months. There are, therefore, issues. If people are not used to handling money or other assets, there has to be some sort of process tied into that. I do not think it will happen overnight, but it is something of which to be cognisant. I listened to the Minister of State's contribution last night; I was in the Chamber for most of it anyway. I support most of the elements within the Bill and the whole intention behind it because it deals with a real and immediate risk that people who are wards of court could be left in a legal vacuum because the system has not been able to complete all the capacity reviews in time. Of course, no one wants that to happen, and the legislation will hopefully give the courts the flexibility they need to prevent it. When we are in opposition, as others will say as well, we have to ask why we are here. The deadline in the 2015 Act did not just suddenly appear. As a State, successive Governments have had years to prepare for the transition away from wardship. The Decision Support Service was trying to do its best in these circumstances but, in my view, was not given the levels of staffing or funding required to meet the challenges. The courts could have been asked to absorb this kind of surge of complex reviews in many cases without getting the additional resources they needed. I do not know that for a fact. I am not totally familiar, but it has been suggested that the courts were not getting the resources to deal with it over a period of time. Maybe the Minister of State would come back on that. The main criticisms have been that the system was under-resourced from the word go, so if we are moving forward with a new model, there is a question of whether it will get that resourcing. If the legislation is to work as intended, the extension mechanism will need to be managed, for example. It cannot be a rolling deferral. People have been waiting for a long time to exit the system, which we have all acknowledged is outdated. If extensions are granted, there should be very strict time limits. I do not know if anyone here in the Chamber has spoken about an ongoing consistent review but the committee has discussed the question of set periods of time. Second is a question which relates to training in the past or, more important, going forward. Will professionals in healthcare, social care and in the legal field apply the functional capacity tests in a uniform way? Will the resources be put into training to make sure that, in all sectors, these decisions will be made in a measurable way? Obviously discretion is needed in certain instances but it should not be left to an uneven process, on the basis of either region or sex. If we do want this very welcome rights-based system, we have to invest in it. I am sure the Minister of State will say the resources will be applied over the coming years, but often those promises have not been followed up sufficiently quickly. It is something to take on board because we do not want to replace one flawed system with another that looks better on paper but leaves vulnerable people without adequate protection. My key point is resourcing. The Decision Support Service needs sustained investment. The courts need additional capacity. People in the system need accessible information and consistent support to ensure their views, preferences and free will are entirely taken on board so that things are not just put into the legislation but exist in the real practical application of things. I welcome the Bill. It is better than leaving people in legal uncertainty, but unless it is met with resources, it will be just a stopgap. I wish the Minister of State well in bringing this legislation forward. It is not a field in which I consider myself an expert or in which I am particularly knowledgeable, but others on the committee know more and I hope they will put forward amendments, which the Minister of State will look at in due course. to make the Bill as strong as possible and I hope that she provides the resources.

I thank the Minister of State for being here. I listened to her last night when she said that urgency was required with the Bill. I and Deputy McDonald tabled a Private Members' Bill on this as long ago as 2017, so I hope we will not be here as long again to get what we need pushed forward. Sinn Féin supports reform of how wardships of court are legislated for. It is a no-brainer. We certainly have to move away from wardship. We have an obligation under the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That is why the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Bill is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that we need to push through as fast as we can. The deadline of 26 April refers most to the adult section of it. I think we will revisit it again when it comes to people under 18 or 19. There is a big cloud around that at the moment. That people who are still involuntarily detained under the Mental Health Act did not have a right to advance their wishes about the treatment they were getting is absolutely mad. I have done a lot of work on this. I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for the amount of work it has done on this Bill over the years. The engagement with the stakeholders and service users has been phenomenal. The other side of this, which we often speak about here, is doing the right thing and giving people their rights and choices. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Bill also extends to people with early onset dementia, for instance, so that they will have the right to get proper care and have the opportunity to nominate somebody who will be able to ensure they get the best quality of care and that their wishes are totally respected. That is a basic human right. The anchor date is 26 April to end the current regime. We will revisit this. We would have loved to have tabled amendments to strengthen it but there is urgency around this and there is also the issue with the High Court. It does need certainty. It represents a great opportunity to strengthen human rights and ensure everyone is respected regarding their right to make a decision for themselves. It will lead to huge changes for those with psychosocial disabilities, mental health difficulties, early onset Alzheimer’s, which I already mentioned, Parkinson’s or whatever. When we worked on the Private Members' Bill some years ago, I remember dealing with stakeholders. When you listen to the families who have gone through the system, a lot of whom are not with us anymore, unfortunately, the dignity was gone, their souls were broken, they had lost their voice and the right to ask for a fair chance and fair try. These are the most vulnerable people. I am not happy with everything – of course not – but I am a realist. Things do not move that fast here. I hope to God the courts will enforce this by the end of April and we can come back and work together to improve the Bill and move it further so people will have better lives.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Bill 2026. I thank the Minister of State and her officials for their efforts to update this largely technical but important legislation which impacts many of the most vulnerable in our society. This is a targeted, necessary measure to provide legal certainty for people who remain in wardship arrangements as we approach the statutory deadline of 26 April 2026. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, commenced on 26 April 2023, rightly set a three-year timeframe for the court to review and transition every adult ward of court to the new rights-based framework. However, the reality is that the system has not been able to complete that work in time. I understand that of around 1,800 wardship matters, only 286 have resulted in discharge orders, with about 1,537 still pending. In those circumstances, doing nothing would risk leaving people in an unacceptable legal limbo, with knock-on uncertainty for families and clinicians alike. What this Bill does is straightforward. It gives the High Court discretion, on a case-by-case basis, to extend the time for making a capacity declaration in circumstances where the deadline is imminent, there is good reason, and where an extension is in the interests of justice. A further extension is available only in exceptional circumstances and there is an outer limit of 18 months, bringing us to 25 October 2027 at the latest. It also addresses a practical problem for young people in wardship who turn 18 after 26 October 2025, where practitioners have said they need more time to assemble the necessary evidence for the court. Again, the approach is discretionary, proportionate and capped at 18 months. The original reform was, and remains, profoundly important. The 2015 Act replaced a paternalistic wardship model with a more modern framework, and while an extension must never become an excuse for drift, this Bill has taken on feedback from practitioners and strikes a practical balance while also preventing a cliff edge as we approach the April deadline. We should also be cognisant of the views of stakeholders. For example, the Law Society has raised serious concerns about the operation of the Decision Support Service, including long processing delays for arrangements like enduring power of attorney and difficulties with the digital portal. Advocacy organisations have also been highlighting practical barriers and the lived experience of navigating the new framework. Those warnings matter because there is a real-world risk here. If the pathway out of wardship is slow, complex or intimidating, then people can end up stuck between two systems, reformed on paper but not in practice. So, alongside passing this Bill, we need a very clear operational commitment from the Minister and the relevant bodies. Clearly resources matter. The courts, the wardship office, medical assessors, legal aid and the decision-support infrastructure must be scaled so that applications are processed quickly and predictably. Otherwise, we are simply moving the bottleneck from April 2026 to October 2027. Processes need to be accessible and understandable where possible. That means plain-language guidance, assisted pathways for people who are not digitally confident, and proactive supports for families and representatives. The goal is empowerment, not more paperwork. I would also like to see enhanced transparency in reporting. We should be able to track progress month by month, possibly through a digital dashboard, of how many reviews listed, how many declarations made, how many discharges completed and the average timeframes so that this House can ensure the extension is being used as intended, and not only as proposed. I support this Bill because legal certainty and continuity of the protection of vulnerable people is not optional. However, I also say clearly that the reform promise of the 2015 Act must be delivered in full, with urgency and with the person at the centre of every decision. If we get the resources and the user experience right, this Bill will do what it should: prevent legal uncertainty now, while keeping the system moving decisively toward dignity, autonomy and rights in practice.

In the last term, I was a member of the mental health subcommittee and we dealt with the progress of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Act 2022. In fairness, the committee did its due diligence, and we saw some of the issues we are seeing here today in relation to the timelines that were put in place. As we speak today, there are over 1,000 cases outstanding. That means 1,000 people who are currently wards of courts are facing a cliff edge. To me, this is just bad planning by the Government. It also shows a lack of foresight by allowing this cliff edge to develop. Can the Minister of State tell me how many of these over 1,000 people are minors? What plans are in place to tackle the root causes that have led to the court backlog? This Bill does nothing to address the root causes of delays, which are significant. We need to use this time to look at what can be done. We need to properly resource the Legal Aid Board. I was at a justice committee meeting last week and we heard how under pressure the Legal Aid Board is at the moment and how much pressure it is going to be under in the future given other things it is dealing with that it has not dealt with before, for example immigration cases. We also need to see the full resources in place for the National Advocacy Service and the Decision Support Service. A part of this Bill that I have a personal opinion on, because it affects me on a personal basis, is the ability to make advance healthcare directives. The Minister of State will be aware that I have multiple sclerosis. I have been threatening for a number of years to make an advanced healthcare directive. At the moment, as usual, I feel invincible but I do not know whether that is going to be the same tomorrow or next year and this is something I need to look at myself on a personal basis to make sure the care I receive in the future is the care I want to receive. That is great for me, but a two-tier system may be developing. Perhaps the Minister of State can answer some of the questions because people who have mental health difficulties may not have the same ability to make that advance healthcare directive. For example, a person who has been involuntarily detained may have the ability to make an advance healthcare directive. I have met a number of people over the years who have been involuntarily detained in a mental health institution. They may have been treated with electroconvulsive therapy, ECT, for example, and may not have liked the experience. They may then get themselves to a place where they are okay and are able to make an advance healthcare directive. However, I am unsure whether that advance healthcare directive they can make for their future healthcare would still be in place because at one time there was a lacuna between the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 and the Mental Health Bill. Has that lacuna been resolved? One thing I hate to see is somebody beside me not having the same rights as I have just because they have a mental health issue and I have a physical health issue. If that could be addressed, it would be much appreciated.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak. As the Minister of State knows, we are supporting this Bill, but as has been said on multiple occasions, it needs to be treated with caution. The timelines around this are really tight and an awful lot of people are going to be left in difficulties. We need to ensure that all wards of court are given the opportunity to engage with the assessment process. It is only fair to allow all wards to be assessed. By going by the Government's dates, 1,400 cases will still not have been heard. Also, some of the amendments provide that there must be provision for wards who reach 18 years of age after the deadline. This Bill must serve to stop the confusion and lack of understanding around the entire ward of court system to ensure the wishes of an individual being made a ward are adhered to during the application for wardship. This includes issues such as whether they want to be made a ward at all, consent to medical procedures, where they wish to live or how their property is to be disposed of. The HSE should ensure that lawyers used in the ward of court proceedings have appropriate expertise in law on the decision-making capacity and human rights obligations for persons who may be vulnerable. The HSE should also produce a national guideline for legal and medical practitioners to ensure the protection of the rights of a prospective ward of proceedings because, at the end of the day, while most of the time people are made wards for their own good and protection, there is a human rights issue and every person deserves their human rights to be upheld. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 remains non-compliant with the UNCRPD due to its approach to the functional assessment of capacity, which leads to a denial of legal capacity. By fast-tracking this amendment Bill through the Oireachtas, the Minister of State is missing out on an important opportunity to improve the Act's compliance with Article 12. Special effort should be made to ensure that a person who is made a ward or is transitioning into assisted decision-making above all is for the person's best interests and that no other person, be they family members, carers or solicitors, stand to gain financially from the assets of the person due to be made a ward. Again, the more up-to-date and progressive Bill is to be welcomed but not without certain precautions, and it should not be fast-tracked but carefully debated and scrutinised to ensure that the human rights of all persons concerned are upheld.

As there are no further speakers, I now move to the Minister of State for her concluding statement.

.I thank all of the Deputies who spoke on his really important Bill both last night and tonight. I acknowledge Members who contributed to the debate and indicated their support for progressing what is urgent and important legislation. I really appreciate the fact that support came from both sides of the House. A lot of different issues were touched on both tonight and last night, so I going to do my best to address as many of them as possible within the time I have. Immediately following approval by Cabinet for this amendment Bill, which happened on 20 January, at which point it was a proposed Bill, on the same day I convened an online meeting of stakeholders to apprise them of the planned amendments and to provide an opportunity for them to pose any questions they might have. My officials circulated an information note to all stakeholders, which set out clearly the planned changes to the Act. We held a further separate dedicated consultation session with the Disabled Persons' Organisations Network to discuss the upcoming changes and to invite their views and feedback. Written feedback was invited and, indeed, received from disabled persons' organisations. Department officials also briefed the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, on the proposed amendments to the legislation. As I said yesterday, officials from my Department held a consultation meeting and event for wards, committees and wider stakeholders on Monday of this week. At that, we were able to hear at first hand the issues that are arising both with the discharge process itself and regarding some concerns around what life may be like once a ward has transitioned to a new support arrangement. I am absolutely happy to run another of those events if there is a demand. It is important to note that event was attended by key stakeholders involved in the operation of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, for example the Office of the Wards of Court, the Decision Support Service, the Legal Aid Board, the NDA, the National Advocacy Service and, most importantly, wards, their families and their committees. The reason I am saying this is that I want Members to know I always place consultation, communication and stakeholder engagement at the centre of what I do. My officials also do that, and did that really well. That is because we fully believe it is crucial that both wards and committees are supported as they move through this process of transitioning out of wardship and into a rights-based framework of decision support services. There were a number of questions about why discharge has been so slow. Deputies Gogarty, Quaide and O'Rourke asked specific questions on this. I acknowledge that while the pace of discharge for wards has been slow, there is a serious concern that a significant number of cases will not have received a capacity declaration by the deadline. That is why we are where we are. However, we undertook a survey in previous years in collaboration with the Courts Service. We did that in June 2024. The survey sought the views and attitudes of wards and committees on the process to discharge wards from wardship in order to identify the reasons the pace of wards and committees applying for discharge from wardship have been slow. That survey clearly found three recurring themes. One was reluctance to change from a familiar system. The second was satisfaction with the existing arrangements. The third was uncertainty about the costs of the discharge applications. Wards and committees have also reported concerns about the future management of funds. That came up a number of times, both today and yesterday. The survey also indicated that committees are taking a wait and see approach to commencing discharge applications. That is why we have engaged so much with them so we can really try to bring them with us on this journey. Deputies Kerrane, Buckley and Mark Ward specifically raised the topic of minors. To answer Deputy Ward's clear question of how many children this impacts, the answer is none. The reason for that is that the wardship regime is ending for adults. These amendments do not change that from an adult's perspective. I know Deputy Kerrane had a specific question about the extension for children entering adulthood. The statutory anchor date of 26 April will remain in place for all pending cases, just to be clear. The ADMC Act itself applies to minors only for the exception, in terms of when they reach the age of 18 after 26 October 2025. From 25 October 2027 is when we are now putting in that extension. That is not a target date. That is an end date. The statutory deadline of 26 April of this year remains as a goalpost. We were very clear that we did not want to remove that because want to keep the momentum going. In the case of minors reaching the age of 18, the requirement to discharge them within six months will remain in place. However, experience has shown that cases involving a young person who was in wardship as a minor can be among the most complex to access. Therefore, for the sake of fairness and consistency with the provision for adults, this Bill will also give the wardship court the discretion to extend the time period for making a capacity declaration in those cases but only in exceptional circumstances. Deputies Kerrane and Quaide raised the issue of exceptional circumstances and its definition. Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to determine what good reason or exceptional circumstances are, but that is common. The courts are entrusted with the administration of justice under the constitution. I am really confident they can be trusted to exercise their discretion in accordance with the requirements of fair procedure. The expectation has been reinforced in the Bill by the inclusion of "in the interests of justice", and that is a criterion as well. Ultimately, capacity declarations must be evidence-based and that will not change. Deputy Ó Murchú raised a specific concern about correspondence from St. John of God intellectual disability services about decision-making representation orders. When wardship courts make a declaration regarding a ward's capacity, that is done on the basis of evidence before the court. That also includes the results of a functional capacity assessment. The guiding principles of the Act dictate that any intervention that is made is proportionate and made in a manner that minimises the restriction of the person's rights and freedom of action. It must have due regard to the relevant person's right to dignity, bodily integrity, privacy, autonomy, control over their financial affairs and property, and it must respect the individual's right to private and family life. It is also important to recognise that, once the wardship court declares that a ward lacks capacity to make certain decisions, this declaration is then kept under review by the Circuit Court. A number of Deputies, Paul Lawless and Mark Ward in particular, raised issues about advanced healthcare directives and the enduring power of attorney, EPA. Just to deal with Deputy Lawless's query about enduring power of attorney and being online only, the service is absolutely digital first but it is not digital only. It is really important the constituents he is speaking about are aware of that and decision support services are there to provide that exact service for that reason. Deputy Devlin used a very important phrase earlier when he said this has to be about empowerment and not paperwork. That is absolutely what we are committed to doing. A number of Deputies raised queries about resources and wider issues or concerns they have about the Act. On resources, as part of the development of the Bill, the Courts Service has provided the Department with estimates which ensure that the further deadline of 27 October will be met. To ensure this, in December, the courts assigned additional judges to make a declaration of capacity. We now have a total of four judges working on this. It is also important to say that everybody now has a legal aid certificate in place. I know Deputy Gogarty in particular had concerns that resources might come after the fact, but since December, there has been a huge impetus on this. A number of resources have been put in place to ensure we can move forward with any new extensions that may happen to the deadline. On the review of the Act, there was an awful lot of feedback about the Act itself. It is my Department's intention to commence a review of the Act this year. It is due in 2028 but we are very committed to ensuring we are listening to feedback from Deputies in this House and who are on our Oireachtas Committee on Disability Matters, but also, and most important, that we are listening to people who are impacted by this and to those who represent them, work with them and support them. We will be commencing that review and work will start on that this year. It is something my officials and I are determined will be absolutely inclusive and consultative. I really appreciate people's support for this Bill. I am ever mindful of our obligations under the UNCRPD. This is an important part of our commitment to ensuring we realise those. We will continue to work towards the objective of realising these obligations by fully transitioning all wards of court to a new, rights-based, supported decision making framework. We will do so as soon as possible. With the benefits of these amendments, we will be able to do it in a manner that is fair and orderly while we maintain as much legal certainty as possible for the people at the heart of this.