2026-03-03

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to address the House on Second Stage of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Bill 2026. This is urgent legislation, intended to ensure legal certainty for wards of court who are moving to a decision-making process, as set out in the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act of 2015. I appreciate the understanding shown by members of the Joint Committee on Disability Matters, which recognised the need to enact this legislation into law before the end of the month and granted a waiver of pre-legislative scrutiny for the Bill. Nonetheless, it is vital that all legislation is properly considered by the Houses of the Oireachtas and I look forward to having the opportunity today and tomorrow to listen to the views and concerns of Members of this House. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act is important legislation which ultimately transforms how people are supported when they may not have capacity. The Act prioritises the specific needs and wishes of the individual and it represents an important milestone in bringing Ireland into closer compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 brought about an end to wardship in the Irish State for adults, by repealing the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871. It replaced the wards of court system with a new rights-based model for appointing tiered decision support arrangements. Since the commencement of the Act in 2023, wards of court have been moving out of the wardship regime into the new decision support framework. Those exiting wardships can be discharged with three different arrangements: with no decision-making support, with a co-decision making agreement, or with the appointment of a decision-making representative. To date, 391 wards have been fully discharged, with 38 individuals requiring no decision-making support, 40 requiring co-decision making agreements, and 313 being discharged with decision-making representatives. The Decision Support Service established by the Act oversees the co-decision making agreements and the decision-making representatives. It performs a vital role which ensures proper protections for the individual to whom those arrangements apply. Moving to the purpose of this particular Bill, I want to clearly explain why the amendments are needed and what they propose to do. First, the amendments outlined in this Bill relate solely to the statutory deadline that applies to the process for people exiting wardship. Currently, that deadline is 26 April 2026, and while the ambition was always to make sure people exited wardship on time, it has become clear that this deadline will not be met for a variety of different reasons, including a slow pace of discharge proceedings, among other reasons. That is why we now need to make provisions, through this new Bill, for an extension to the statutory deadline. It is of the utmost importance that the transition from wardship is done in a fair way, and that individuals are given as much legal certainty and information as possible when exiting the wardship regime. My officials have been working closely with the Decision Support Service and the office of the wards of court within the Courts Service to support wards of court and the committees for the wards and to ensure that they are provided with accurate, reliable information on exiting the wardship regime. This year, all wards of court have been granted legal aid certificates and have legal representation, which is really important. It would be remiss of me to discuss the topic of wardship without acknowledging that for many wards of court or family members of a ward of court, there are legitimate concerns or apprehensions about the process, or about life after discharge, and as Minister of State with responsibility for disability, I am making every effort to hear those concerns. Just yesterday, my Department held a consultation meeting in the Camden Court Hotel, where members of the public had an opportunity to hear from the bodies involved in discharge, to raise their concerns and to engage with other people who might be in similar situations. I attended this and would like to note separately that the 2015 Act is due for formal review by April 2028. Preparations for that are expected to begin later this year. We are going to do them ahead of time. Hearing from those who have a lived experience of this legislation will be crucial to any review and will include former wards of court, those who have made enduring powers of attorney, or those who have had to arrange for decision-making support for a loved one under the legislation. A number of steps are involved in the discharge process. Under section 55(1) of the Act, the High Court or "wardship court", as it is referred to under the Act, is required to make a capacity declaration in respect of every adult ward of court. The capacity declaration is a key step in the discharge from wardship process and it requires the completion of a capacity assessment and the formal submission of a report to the court. As it currently stands, all capacity declarations must be made by the statutory deadline of 26 April 2026, and that very much remains the anchor date to which the courts are working and continue to towards. However, the reality is that we are not going to meet the deadline date for all wards, with approximately 1,050 wardship cases currently outstanding. The 2015 Act does not provide for a situation where a capacity declaration will not have been made in respect of adult wards within the timeframe allowed and that is why urgent legislative amendments are required. They are required to avoid legal uncertainty for the large number of wards who will not receive a capacity declaration before the deadline. Without such amendments, the legal uncertainty that would arise for these wards could create complications with important matters, such as their care and treatment, provision of services and placement in facilities. The Bill provides a pathway to avoid this scenario by providing power to the High Court to grant on a case-by-case basis an extension to the deadline. The period of this extension must be necessary and proportionate, and granting the extension must at all times be In the interests of justice. In exceptional circumstances, the extension can be extended, once again, where it is in the interests of justice. However, no extension or extensions can exceed an 18-month period or go beyond 25 October 2027, whichever occurs earlier. This means that despite an extension being granted, there will be certainty for wards that the capacity declaration will be made by 25 October 2027 at the latest. Once these amendments are enacted, the Courts Service will have to arrange for a judge to: consider the case for each individual ward; decide on the appropriate length of time for an extension; and grant the extension, if warranted. It is going to take some time for each ward to be reviewed by the Courts Service but I know there has been increased judge allocation recently, which is absolutely going to help this situation. For those wards of court who are under 18, the situation is slightly different as they will only exit wardship when they reach 18 and the deadline for a capacity declaration for these wards is six months after they reach the age of 18. The Bill proposes that a similar extension to the time period for their capacity declaration can be granted in the same circumstances as those for the adult wards. This will ensure that their discharge process can also be carried out in a timely manner but recognises that it may need to be extended in the interests of justice. The Bill also ensures that wards of court are kept up to date and informed of the progress of their discharge. If the court decides to grant an extension, especially if the ward was not involved in that decision, he or she must be informed of it as soon as possible. I know Deputies will appreciate the importance of ensuring that wards are not left in uncertainty and that this Bill is both necessary and urgent. Let me now turn to the detail of the Bill, which is divided into two sections. The key provisions include the following. The Bill amends the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 to enable the wardship court to extend, in certain circumstances, the time period for making a capacity declaration under section 55(1) of the 2015 Act. Section 1 of the Bill amends section 54 of the 2015 Act by the insertion of two new subsections to give the wardship court the discretion to extend the time periods set out in section 54(2) or section 54(3) for making a capacity declaration under section 55(1) in individual wardship cases in certain circumstances. The first new subsection 54(2A) provides for an extension or the time period set out in section 54(2) for making a capacity declaration under section 55(1) in relation to an adult ward in certain circumstances. This subsection will allow for an extension for such period as the wardship court considers necessary and proportionate in the circumstances where the court is satisfied that a good reason has been shown that the statutory deadline of 26 April 2026 will not be met and where it is also in the interests of justice to grant the extension. Subsection 54(2A) will also allow for a further extension in exceptional circumstances provided that a further extension is also in the interests of justice. The wardship court may discharge or vary any order for an extension of time that it makes. Where the ward has not participated in the making of an order, he or she will be notified of the making of any such order as soon as practicable after its making. The outer limit for any extension of time will be 18 months or until 25 October 2027, whichever is the earlier. The second new subsection 54(3A) provides for an extension to the timeline set out in section 54(3) for making a capacity declaration, in certain circumstances, in relation to wards who reach the age of 18 after 26 October 2025. This subsection will allow for an extension for such period as the wardship court considers necessary and proportionate in the circumstances where the court is satisfied that good reason has been shown that the statutory deadline for making a capacity declaration will not be met in an individual case, and where it is also in the interests of justice to grant the extension. A further extension will be permitted in exceptional circumstances provided that this is also in the interests of justice. The wardship court may discharge or vary any order for an extension of time that it makes. Where the ward has not participated in the making of an order, as I said, he or she will be notified of the making of any such order as soon as practicable after its making. The outer limit for any extension of time in respect of wards who reach the age of 18 after 26 October 2025 will be 18 months. Section 2 of this Bill is a standard provision, which sets out the Short Title and citation of the Bill. To conclude, this Bill is a key measure for the fair and orderly transition of individual wards from the wards of court system to a new rights-based supported decision-making framework. It provides for legal certainty for those wards who have not had a capacity declaration completed by the statutory deadline for the end of the wardship regime. It does this by maintaining the statutory deadline of 26 April 2026, helping to avoid any disruption to the court processes already under way, while providing the courts with the discretion to extend that deadline in certain circumstances insofar as it is necessary, proportionate and in the interests of justice to do so. I thank Deputies for listening. I thank members of the joint Oireachtas committee for their co-operation and interest and for attending briefings on this with my officials over the past number of weeks. I thank my officials who have drafted this and who are with me today. I look forward to the Deputies' questions.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. We did agree with waiving pre-legislative scrutiny on the basis that the capacity is not within the system at this point in time to ensure that all those wards of court are exited. We had some unease in relation to doing this. In fairness, the Department and those representing the courts were able to give us a briefing. I will very quickly go through, let us say, some of my worries in relation to this. As I stated, we did not want to create a set of circumstances where people found themselves in legal limbo. However, representatives from St. John of God intellectual disability services approached me, and the committee also had other correspondence in relation to this. The big worry was that in relation to discharging, they found that: There are real concerns that the process of discharging individuals from wardship is not consistently reflecting the spirit and guiding principles of the assisted decision-making Act. While the intention of the legislation is to promote autonomy and supported decision-making, the practical implementation can appear more restrictive than the law intends. I would be somewhat worried in relation to the numbers. Some 390 wards have been fully discharged; 38 individuals required no decision making-support; 40 required co-decision-making agreements; and 313 were discharged with decision-making representatives. The St. John of God representatives provided me with examples, without getting into the ins and outs of names, of those who had been within their service who had been wards of court. The particular issue was that they would have found that these are people with capacity. They may have had an inheritance, and they were legacy wards of court due to the money they had. That was seen at a point in time as safety and security but the representatives believe, and believe they have shown over many years, that these people have capacity. Therefore, the spirit of this legislation, as difficult as it is for them, is that we remove, in some cases, the guardrails at times and provide people with the freedom to make decisions within certain constraints. However, they said that in an awful lot of these cases, a decision-making representative was put in. They said the idea was that a decision-making representative would only be used when a decision of importance was in the offing, such as a major health determination or a major financial decision. I met them at Hilltop services in Dundalk. The example they gave was that if someone wanted to go shopping in Newry, they would have to make contact with the DMR, so where there was an attempt to provide freedom back through the Act it was not happening. The reason we agreed not to put it to a vote, which we would have lost even if some Government Members were quite worried that would be the case, was that we did not want to create a situation for those who may have found themselves in limbo. One thing I am happy about is that the representatives of the Department and the Courts Service are engaging with St. John of God intellectual disability services. It is vital that they get to a point of reconciliation, for want of a better term. They had also spoken about certain protections and reassessments that could happen around capacity. That needs to happen. That is in relation to the process that is ongoing. I ask that the Minister of State take an interest in that and ensure that we get to the bottom of those issues because as much as we need to ensure the process is given the legislative cover to be elongated, because the capacity was not there in the first place, we need to ensure the process is correct. There are wider issues with assisted decision-making, particularly in relation to banking. Banks are being far too protective - for example, where disability services were able to get a bank account with two names on it, that is no longer the case - and they are creating a lot of hassle. The review process will be vital for that. The first time that St. John of God representatives came to me, they were worried they would be removing protections for people, but they say they have taken account of the spirit of the law. They have introduced their own guardrails around it and it has worked for people. Mistakes have been made but people have learned. It is providing people with that freedom and I am not sure that is there at the moment.

The Minister of State said there are 1,050 cases outstanding. It would be very helpful if she could tell us how many of those are minors. As we approach 23 April, and it is approaching quickly, it is worth noting this is not something that came out of the blue. The figures speak for themselves. Successive annual reports from the Courts Service showed the pace of discharge from wardship was incredibly slow. Many see this legislation as very last minute. No one here will stand in the way of such an extension – it is necessary – but we must also look at the reasons it is necessary and take steps to ensure we do not need a similar piece of legislation in 18 months to extend it even further. There is a question mark over why it has taken the Government so long to act on this. It has left vulnerable people in an even more uncertain situation. I acknowledge the Centre for Disability Law and Policy in University of Galway, which has provided a really detailed note. It has raised five issues, which I said I would raise this evening. One is the vague criteria for activating the extension of the timeframe. The legislation refers to “exceptional circumstances”. We need to look at what that actually means and get a definition since what may be exceptional to one might not be to another. That is really important. The centre has also highlighted the fact there is no requirement to appropriately engage with the ward of court, the actual person. That is also concerning. We need to look at the level of engagement, the accessible information and the engagement that the person themselves is having or that the committee has for them. The centre also highlighted discrimination against minor wards. Usually they automatically come out at 18 years and that will not be the case. We know that at 18 you are transitioning in life, whether in education or otherwise, and it is a really critical time in a young person’s life. We will see that delayed. It is so important that those young people have engagement and are heard. There are no plans in place to tackle the root causes that have led to the court backlog. This is a really important point. The Bill does nothing to address the root causes of the delays, which are significant. We need to use this time to look at what can be done. The centre raised the failure to resource the public bodies, the Legal Aid Board, the National Advocacy Service and the Decision Support Service. That needs to be looked at. The fifth concern related to some of the wider issues and the lack of meaningful engagement. That has been raised a lot by wards themselves, their families and the committees in relation to the lack of engagement or accessible information that people can easily understand. That needs to be looked at. They have also raised concerns about the Act itself and the review, which is very important. We might not see it until 2027 and it might be closer to 2028. Given the delays we have seen to date, we need to see a detailed plan on how that review will be undertaken. It is really important that the Minister of State would do that. We need to know what it will look like and to have a timeframe. I will share with the Minister of State the document from the Centre for Disability Law and Policy in the University of Galway, which is very useful. Finally, as the Minister of State noted, this Bill specifies only that the ward is entitled to be notified of discharge proceedings after the fact or as close to after the fact as possible. That feeds into the point that has been made repeatedly about the lack of engagement and accessible information. We need to look at all of that to make sure the person is engaged with as meaningfully as possible, that they can participate fully and that the person acting on their behalf can participate fully in the discharge process. We need to make sure we do everything we can to get it right. I reiterate that we need to make sure we are not here again for a further extension.

It is certain the statutory deadline of 26 April will not be met. We all agree on that. We have been left with a very messy way to approach legislation. It is very disappointing that we are only now debating these important changes, that we are doing it at the very last possible hour and that the Government is rushing these incomplete changes through without the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny. We are doing so because the wards of court deadline will not be met. I too thank the Centre for Disability Law and Policy in University of Galway for the note it provided for us. It was very useful. I have been at a number of briefings and spoken to a lot of stakeholders on the issue. It is complex but very resolvable. By the end of January, only 323 wards of court had discharged from wardship, with 78% of the 1,472 cases still pending. I do not believe this Bill will address the issues that has led to the court backlog. The root causes have not been addressed. These include the lack of support available to people in the process and a failure to have the Act properly explained to them in language understandable to everyone. Rights campaigners have told me there is a lack of appropriate accessible information and practical supports for the wards and their families. The legal profession may not have sufficient numbers with the skills and experience to support the discharge process, which is also a concern for me. The public bodies tasked with the implementation of the Act, such as the Legal Aid Board, the National Advocacy Service and the Decision Support Service remain both understaffed and under-resourced. It was not just Oireachtas Members who were denied the opportunity to engage on this important change. Disability rights advocates have been highly critical of the approach taken by the Government. For instance, Disabled Women Ireland, in its submission on the draft heads, noted it was offered a single 30-minute session with the Minister of State on 28 January, which its representatives attended without being provided advance information on the heads of the Bill. This was circulated to them days afterwards, when their opportunity to query the Bill with the Minister of State had passed. Disabled Women Ireland was not the only interested party to note the lack of engagement. The Centre for Disability Law and Policy in University of Galway noted the lack of meaningful engagement with those who will be most specifically impacted by these changes, namely, wards and their families. The Bill will not address the shortcomings in the current system. We need to hear from the Minister of State how these will be addressed. Furthermore, the extension provided in the Bill will need to be re-extended beyond the proposed 18-month timeframe and I fear we will be back here debating similar legislation. I am concerned that these changes are being made without adequate consideration of the wishes of those most impacted by them. The Bill seeks to provide legal certainty in wardship cases by enabling wardships to be extended. It is concerning that there is a specification that only some wardships will be extended in certain circumstances. The criteria on activating extensions of the timeframe in specific cases are extremely vague and there is no requirement to fully engage with wards of court detailed in the Bill. The Bill allows for judges to determine when an extension to the deadline for wardship is required but lacks detail on what the exceptional circumstances to allow such an extension are. This is placing an extreme amount of power in the hands of these individual judges to extend the length of time somebody can be denied their decision-making rights. The Bill should have and could have been more definitive by allowing extensions in circumstances where it had not been possible to inform the ward of their rights in an appropriate and accessible manner. Ultimately, limited extensions in these undefined certain circumstances mean that wards and their committees may not have time to engage with those who can appropriately support decision-making options. What is further absent from the Bill is the right of wards to be afforded time, training and information to take up supported decision-making options. Wards should be afforded the opportunity to understand their rights, express their will and develop skills to engage with supported decision-making. The Bill provides no requirement to engage with wards during the proceedings; rather, they only need to be notified of discharge proceedings. Another concern is how this Bill may discriminate against minor wards. The extension of the deadline from six to 18 months for child wards creates an unnecessary delay in young people being able to exercise their decision-making rights as others can do. A glaring failure of the Bill is that it does not address the non-compliance of the Act with the State's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Act is not compliant due to its approach to the functional assessment of capacity, which leads to the denial of legal capacity. At the time of the passing of the Act, the Centre for Disability Law and Policy outlined the ways in which compliance with the convention could and should have been improved. Today, the Minister of State has presented us with a Bill that prior to now has not adequately engaged with the most important stakeholders in the process and has been fast-tracked due to the Minister of State leaving it to the last minute to implement it to avoid pre-legislative scrutiny. It is not complaint with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, it does not address the major problems with the Act itself and it discriminates against young people, denying them the opportunity to engage in an element of the decision-making process. I stated earlier that this is a very messy way to do legislation. It is an appalling way to do legislation, dictating to a stakeholder without adequate engagement. The Minister of State simply must be aware of that.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I want to speak about the transition from wardship to supported decision-making, drawing on the recent research from the National Disability Authority, NDA, the analysis my colleagues mentioned from the Centre for Disability Law and Policy at University of Galway and conversations I have had with concerned families, committees and wards themselves. I want to focus on two of the five points my colleagues mentioned from the Centre for Disability Law and Policy in Galway. One stated that there are no plans in place to tackle root causes that have led to court backlog. That should be of significant note for the Minister of State. The other point was that, importantly, there has been a lack of meaningful engagement with those most impacted, namely, wards and families. That has come up consistently from wards, committees, families, from University of Galway and from the NDA research itself. The new system is not just legal reform; it is a rights-based shift. Supported decision-making is supposed to be supporting with, not doing for. However, we all know the transition has been very slow. The Minister of State's figures show 391 people have been discharged, while over 1,000 remain. The barriers are very real. They include a fear of losing financial protection, confusion, a lack of information and anxiety about managing large funds without court support. There are a couple of important areas that I hear consistently from families, committees and wards themselves. One is assessments and investments. On assessments, there is the question of how a single day of assessment can be deemed sufficient. Families need clarity, consistency and a process that respects the complexity of individual capacity. I ask that the Minister of State engage on this. Investments and financial management are an important issue and must be addressed. There is a clear call to ensure that the transfer of wards of court decision to the Decision Support Service does not result in continued substitute decision-making, that the persons with disabilities and their families are consulted on the transfer, and importantly that safeguards are in place to protect the property and finances of discharged wards. Related to that, it is important there is an investigation and complaint mechanism to address investments previously made by funds and managed by the wards of courts system. Families are overwhelmed. Large funds are being deposited into bank accounts across the State with no real support to manage them. The Government can and should step in, and provide a resource, a help-line, guidance or support. Currently, for example, all State savings have a maximum investment ceiling. Some will face managing funds exceeding those limits with no guarantee of equivalent security. An exemption from these maxima for former wards' funds would relieve anxiety for families managing vulnerable relatives' money. This is something, for example, that could be considered. It is a complex area and all options should be considered. Related to that is the call for an information hub on investments and assessments and on how wills and the fair deal scheme should be navigated. These issues really matter. Committees and families were appointed by the High Court, yet they feel that once the transition is finalised, they will have no voice. That has been relayed to me and others. These are important points and I ask that the Minister of State take them onboard. Similar to the points made by University of Galway is the NDA report, which the Minister of State will be familiar with, named The Journey from Wardship to Supported Decision-Making. It calls for more in-person sessions, clear guidance and properly resourced agencies. It calls for legislative action, but at the heart of it is a call for partnership. We should all be able to agree that the success of this reform will be measured by whether people feel heard, respected and empowered and whether families feel supported and not abandoned. As we advance this legislation, it will be really important that the Government commits to genuine, ongoing engagement with those that this transition is meant to serve.

I welcome the chance to talk on this important Bill. I also welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber. The Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Act 2015 brought the outdated wardship laws into line with modern Ireland. It was a stepping stone towards beginning to view disability from a social rather than a medical model. However, I have serious concerns regarding the current implications of the Act and the proposed legislative changes we are discussing. There continues to be a lot of confusion regarding the Act for people impacted as well as for their families and for services. The Act itself has also brought a lot of conflict between the parents of adults with disabilities and service providers and others such as financial institutions. In relation to wardship, one of the reasons cited by the committees for not initiating the process to transition out of wardship is that they feel there is not adequate information and that they have not been communicated with well. However, there is also evidence that some committees and wards choose not to engage with the information being made available by various public bodies. There does seem to be a large amount of information out there. A project was completed by Family Carers Ireland on the implementation of the Act. In the organisation's care aid project, free monthly legal advice clinics for family carers were provided in 2024. Of the 37 clinics carried out, 20 were related to people with dementia and 17 concerned people with an intellectual disability. In the cases for people with dementia, 40% of people were seeking advice on how to make an application for a decision-making representative order for the purposes of applying for the fair deal scheme. A further 39% of people were seeking information on how to support a family member who may require the assistance of a co-decision-making representative or may require an application to appoint a decision-making representative to make certain decisions about their financial affairs. The project found that there are a number of issues being faced by people navigating the 2015 Act. Difficulties have arisen in finding legal practitioners willing to take on cases related to the Act. There is a real lack of clarity and consistency from service providers, in particular from financial services, on how the Act is integrated into their policies and practices. There is an opportunity here for the Decision Support Service to address this with clear guidelines. Difficulty in navigating and using the service's online portal was another issue raised, along with delays in processing support arrangements with the DSS and difficulty obtaining a legal statement of capacity, which must be provided by a legal practitioner. I welcome the fact that a specific, enduring power of attorney, EPA, website has been created. This will no doubt take a lot of pressure off people in navigating the process of creating an EPA. However, I must highlight that there continues to exist a digital-first approach for a cohort of people who may prefer to use paper-based forms. I hope we can see a campaign that is similar to the promotion of the decision-making process for EPAs. For many people, when they get to the stage of needing an EPA, their capacity can diminish rapidly. A campaign on the importance of making an EPA when people have the capacity to do so must be prioritised by the Minister and the DSS. In respect of the changes being debated, it is reflective of the entire assisted decision-making system that the Government must look at extending the deadline for all wardship cases to be discharged. Wardship is an outdated system with warding based in an Ireland that is thankfully long forgotten. However, the Government did not realise the true complexities involved in discharging people from wardships, along with the confusion it brought for so many households. The amendment only provides further confusion. The amendment of section 54 of the Act allows for judges to extend a deadline to discharge from wardship under exceptional circumstances. However, there is absolutely no clarification on what constitutes an exceptional circumstance. I have examined recommendations provided by the centre for disability law and policy in the University of Galway and I agree that a more just approach in these circumstances would be to only activate the extension in circumstances where it has not been possible to inform a ward of his or her rights in an appropriate and accessible manner and for judges to ensure the extension of the deadline is used only to support the ward and his or her committee to engage meaningfully and participate fully in the discharge process. I am also concerned about the lack of consultation with current wardships. I have only found sections in the Bill that refer to notifying the ward. One in seven of the 250 people who have been discharged from wardships so far have been deemed to have full capacity and are not in any decision-making arrangement under the current system. This would imply that many of those who were locked in the wardship system are entirely capable of making their own decisions or, as one judge described it, being the captain of their own ship. This underscores the importance of not just exiting the wardship system but ensuring there is engagement with wards throughout the process. This Bill does not provide for any engagement or consultation with the ward. A number of bodies such as the National Disability Authority and the National Advocacy Service have highlighted the lack of supports for wards in trying to navigate the discharge process. This is an opportunity to address this advocacy deficit. I would welcome that, in cases where an extension is granted under exceptional circumstances, this period be used to fully support all wards and their committees to understand the charge process and to prepare them for life after wardship. I also want to highlight a grave concern brought to my attention by the centre for disability law and policy. The current Bill, if enacted, discriminates against minors who are wards of court. A minor ward of court, who is due to be discharged from a wardship by their eighteenth birthday will, if this Bill is enacted, remain without any decision-making rights until long after their nineteenth birthday, due to the 18-month extension that exists for these wardships. While the principal Act closed off new applications for wardship, this is only for adults. It is still the case that children can be made wards of court. This is not only discriminatory but is a serious breach of the rights of the child and the rights of the disabled person under both UN charters. The Government continues to speak about an inclusive Ireland but its actions does not meet its words. For a disabled person, particularly those with intellectual disabilities, the focus must be on learning independent living skills to ensure they can live an independent life or have some sense of independence with the right support. This Bill does not provide for this. It closes off the key transition period for children with disabilities into adulthood and further institutionalises them when we, as a State, should be doing everything we can to support their right to independent living. The main purpose of the Bill is to allow for extending the deadline of exit from wardship due to the current backlog of cases. However, this Bill does not actually address the root cause of the backlog, like the lack of support and information available to people to understand the discharge process, the lack of legal professionals available to navigate the process and, most notably, the lack of resources made available to the key bodies in addressing these issues in the Decision Support Service, Legal Aid Board and National Advocacy Service. An information campaign must be provided to help people understand what is happening with wardship, like I have highlighted with the initial rollout of the Act. This must be done between three bodies: the DSS, Legal Aid Board and National Advocacy Service. I also recommend running legal advice clinics for people who are impacted by the current wardship process so they can get general information and advice on the process. This should be made available to wards and the families impacted. We must also increase resources to the National Advocacy Service to ensure all wards have access to independent advocacy. If we are to move forward with this Bill, automatic rights to independent advocacy to allow wards to engage in the discharge process must be granted. I ask the Minister to outline how she intends to address the key causes of the current backlog, rather than just granting an extension. This is again largely a cold and entirely legalistic medical model of viewing disability and negates addressing issues impacting people with disabilities from a human rights-based perspective. The slow process of discharge is something that the Minister and her Department have been aware of since 2024 and they would have been well aware that the 2026 deadline would not be met. I am unsure as to why the Government has been so slow to act on this and with such a blunt instrument of only an extension. I am critical of this because there was has been no pre-legislative scrutiny, as has been mentioned. As a House, we have not had the opportunity to fully engage with a real debate on the issues impacting wards and their families. This is the Government again scrambling and trying to rush through half-baked legislation and reflective of a Government continuing to fail people with disabilities. In the briefing document provided by the Department, it was noted that information sessions were provided to stakeholders. However, the feedback I have received from these has been very negative. The centre for disability law and policy noted that the information sessions did not allow for any meaningful engagement with wards and committees. This again points to a lack of resources for the key bodies involved with the implementation of the Act and those who are supporting people with disabilities who are wards. A review must be carried out under the Act before April. However, the current delays of discharge from wardship raises serious concerns about whether any review will even be possible as the Act has not been fully implemented. I ask that the Minister addresses this as a matter of priority and answer if she thinks it is appropriate to carry out such a review, given the failures associated with implementing the Act and the lack of resources she has provided in implementing it. I fully welcome the central aim of the Act in removing the outdated wardship system. However, this Bill only further reinforces a failing system and does not address any of the central problems that exist with wardship and fails to acknowledge the rights of people with disabilities. If the Government truly wants to support people with disabilities, it must address the issues we all have outlined this evening.