No apologies have been received. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider Committee Stage of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Bill 2026. I welcome the Minister of State with responsibility for disability, Deputy Emer Higgins who is accompanied by officials from her Department.

As always, I will advise on privilege. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she does not adhere to the constitutional requirement.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they must not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statement is potentially defamatory in relation to the identifiable person or entity, they will be directed by me to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction I may make.

A total of nine amendments have been tabled and the grouping list has been provided to members. Before we commence consideration of the Bill, does the Minister of State wish to make some opening remarks?

No, not particularly. I thank everybody who engaged with me when debating Second Stage in the Dáil. We had a lot of contributions. I hope that my closing remarks summed up our position, viewpoints and perspectives on some of the issues that were raised. Many of them will be covered in the amendments today. I am happy to leave my comments at that and move straight to discussing the amendments.

There is a technical issue so we will suspend the meeting for a few minutes.

We will consider each section of the Bill as we go forward. Does the Minister want to speak to section 1?

I appreciate a number of amendments have been tabled. I wish to reiterate the Department's and my own perspective is that none of the amendments are necessarily helpful or in some cases needed to the Bill. I am happy to proceed as is with section 1.

Some of the amendments cover some of what has been covered in my catch-all amendment. It concerns the idea I have brought up with the Minister of State previously about ensuring we have proper-----

Will the Deputy speak to the section, not the amendments?

I will speak to the section. We all accept we do not want people to be caught in limbo which is what we are looking at at the minute. I brought up the issue. To be fair, the Department and the Courts Service were very good and there is ongoing engagement with St. John of God. That is all welcome from the point of view of the fear that people were literally going from being wards of court into a decision-making representative, DMR, system. The Minister of State pushed back on the basis of the checks and balances. We just need to ensure people are aware of the checks and balances and that it they are pretty robust.

The other question is about making sure there is proper engagement with all the stakeholders, most particularly with the person who is the ward of court. We all know there are wider issues in regard to the wider legislation and I will deal with them later. There will be an opportunity, with a review, to deal with some of those issues in regard to the banking sector, etc.

Everything is covered. We had the private briefing session and the debate on Second Stage. Everything is covered within the Bill in general and in the section itself so I am not in favour of amendments.

To clarify, there are no amendments to this section.

None have been tabled. I will deal with the point raised by Deputy Ó Murchú. I reiterate that immediately following the approval by Cabinet for the amendment to this Bill, which happened on 20 January, that very same day I convened an online meeting of stakeholders to apprise them of the planned amendments and provide an opportunity for them to pose any questions or concerns they may have had. My officials also 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 invite their broader view. Written feedback was invited, and indeed received, from disabled persons organisations. As Deputy Carrigy referenced, my Department officials briefed this committee but they also held consultation meetings and events for wards, committees and wider stakeholders. That took place a number of weeks ago and I attended that meeting as well. I reiterate we absolutely are consulting people on this legislation.

On the point of the wards of court needing to be central to this, the guiding principles that underpin all elements of the Act relate to wards of court and they also apply to the changes being made to this Bill. Every aspect of the process for the discharge of wards of court has to follow those principles. Those principles are clearly set out as giving effect to the relevant person's will and preference insofar as is practical to permit, to encourage and to facilitate in as far as practical the relevant person to participate as fully as possibly in any intervention that affects them. Every aspect of the process for the discharge of the wards of court has to follow this principle and that is because the principles are rooted in human rights. They are absolutely the right thing to do and we are fully committed to making sure that happens. That is why the Bill is very carefully worded from a legal standpoint to ensure that an extension can be applied to a broad range of circumstances, always mindful that it can only happen in the interests of justice. In line with the principles with this Act, an extension can only be granted where more time is required to ascertain the will and preference of the ward of court and when it is in the interest of justice or of their case. I am very confident that is being dealt with in this Bill.

We have put down the worry that there is engagement with the group that I dealt with. This biggest issue is making sure nobody gets caught in limbo and that there will be a wider review, which I will deal with in the amendments.

There were a number of amendments tabled to section 1. Amendment Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, are all in the name of Deputy Quaide but he is not here to move them.

I move amendment No. 8:

8. In page 5, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 146 of Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015

2. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 146:

“146. (1) The Minister shall, in consultation with the Minister for Health cause a review of the functioning of this Act (other than Part 8) to be carried out before the 5th anniversary of the date of enactment of this Act.

(2) A review carried out under subsection (1) shall:

(a) consider if the process of exiting wardship of court allows for maximum engagement with the ward;

(b) include engagement with relevant stakeholders including, but not limited to:

(i) families and/or representative organisations;

(ii) health, mental health and disability service providers, so as to ensure that maximum capacity can be allowed for taking into account where existing daily supports are already enabling wards of court to make decisions;

(c) consider allowing for the revisiting of decisions made as court wardship was exited, if capacity wasn’t sufficiently allowed for, and ensure that assisted decision making representation and co decision making should be used only where necessary, and that decision making representation is used preferably for the period of important single decisions including, but not limited to major health and financial decisions.”.

All of us who have engaged with anybody know the issues that exist in regard to the banking sector for those with disabilities. We know there has been an impact on the operation of disability care providers and there is an acceptance of this by the Minister and the Department. A review was considered and it will happen early, which is necessary. This amendment seeks to make sure we address these issues.

I am reiterating the point that we need to ensure we deal with all of the stakeholders, which are the families who at times feel the new system does not necessarily meet their approval. We have heard of issues from disability care providers. We also hear about fears from time to time that the system may still be overly protectionist and not engaging from the point of view of the spirit of the legislation, which is assuming capacity. I used the example of wards of court, who were wards of court from a legacy point of view and who had money they had inherited but with no decision upcoming. There was a belief in those who provided them with care and supports that they would exit being ward of court and not go into a DMR. There is the issue with that particular organisation, St. John of God disability services; it is very happy the engagement is ongoing and I hope that will come to a solution that suits. If there is an opportunity to revisit a d if there are any cases that have gone through where somebody was left in a scenario, as in Dundalk, where if they needed to make a very simple decision such as going shopping in Newry, that they would not necessarily need to talk to the DMR, who in many cases is a solicitor.

It is just to make sure we do all we can to ensure the spirit of the law, which is about assuming capacity while also providing the necessary protection.

I thank Deputy Ó Murchú and my officials who arranged that engagement with St. John of God. Ultimately, it is up to the courts to determine the situation for these people going forward. I know the Deputy is trying to provide some specific details to the review process. The main thing to say is that we got quite a lot of feedback on the Act and the Deputy is right that much of it related to financial matters. For that reason, it is the Department's intention to commence a review of the Act a little earlier than scheduled, so the review will now commence this year. It is due in 2028, but we are committed to ensuring we are listening to feedback from Deputies at this committee, but most important, from the people at the centre of this and their families. We need to make sure those who are impacted by it and those representing, working with and supporting them have the opportunity to feed into the review. I am absolutely committed to doing that and, as I said, we will commence the review and work on it will start this year. My officials have already done a lot of preparatory work and it is part of our commitment to ensuring we deliver exactly the system the Deputy described, whereby we are realising our obligations by fully transitioning all wards of court into a new rights-based, supported decision-making framework.

To reiterate, I have concerns about some aspects of the amendment the Deputy tabled. The 2015 Act provides for much more than the discharge of wards of court, encompassing provision for enduring power of attorney and for tiered decision support arrangements to be put in place for people who are experiencing diminished decision-making capacity but who are not in wardship. I am concerned that including specifics regarding wardship only could create a perceived hierarchy in the review process.

I will also address the provision that seems to imply the review would consider the specifics of particular court decisions. I am sure that is not the intention, but the wording proposed could be legally problematic. The Deputy mentioned earlier that none of us want to see anyone in legal limbo, and that is the reason I have concerns about this. On that basis, while I note the provisions, which already exist in the Act, regarding the ongoing review of any capacity declarations by the courts and the monitoring of decision-making arrangements by the Decision Support Service, the guiding principles of the Act dictate that any intervention made is proportionate and made in a manner that minimises restrictions of the person's rights and freedom of action. It must have due regard to a person's right to dignity, bodily integrity, privacy, autonomy and, as the Deputy said, control of financial affairs and property. It must respect the individual's right to privacy and family life. That is all contained in the Bill. On that basis, I recommend to the committee that this amendment not be accepted.

I appreciate the Minister of State's reply. My intention at this point is not to press the amendment but to retain the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage. My whole point in putting forward this amendment was to make sure we have on the record the necessity of addressing the worries brought to me regarding the decisions being made in court and of having some sort of protection against that. There is also a wider idea that we need to review the entire Act. We need to ensure it is a fully comprehensive review that takes into account all the necessary stakeholders that are engaged. I am particularly talking about health, mental health and disability service providers, family and, the main stakeholders, the citizens themselves. This is about providing them with a protective framework.

Again, we do not want to hold up the debate, but we do not want to leave people in legal limbo. Sin, sin.

Deputy Ó Murchú is not going to press the amendment. I am happy enough that the Bill contains sufficient mechanisms for ongoing review of any capacity declarations, including court-made ones, and ongoing monitoring of any arrangements that are in place by the Decision Support Service. The wording that is there covers reviews and I am happy with it as it is.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chathaoirleach, an Aire Stáit agus a foireann. I thank her for the briefing and update. I concur at this point and commend her on bringing forward the review period to commence this year rather than at a later stage. I had some concerns, but the phrase "good reason" is broad and to be more prescriptive could create legal obstacles. The bringing forward of the review will be most beneficial to those impacted, particularly as Deputy Ó Murchú said, by financial fears and anxieties.

I also reference the opinions provided by Professor Flynn and the centre for disability law and policy in University of Galway. Going forward, it will be most important to hear the voices of agencies and advocates such as that in the review process.

I thank the committee. It is important that we get this in ahead of the deadline of 26 April, which is looming, in order that the Courts Service has time to prepare. I appreciate the committee's co-operation in doing that and thank members for that.

On Deputy's Toole's point about the wording, these amendments are carefully worded. This is a particularly sensitive Bill and we need to make sure any amendments to it come from the right place and are in the right language. That is what we have achieved and I thank my officials and those in the Office of the Attorney General who worked with us on it.

The next step, once this legislation comes in, will be up to the courts and I fully expect them to deal with it quickly and professionally. After that, from our perspective, the next step is making sure our review happens and that it has a real focus on lived experience of the provisions of the Act. We are determined to do that. I have already met social workers, for example, who are using this Act day in and day out. We have had a number of key sessions and the division of University of Galway that Deputy Toole mentioned is more than welcome to engage with us directly on this. We have had a number of open consultations and we will continue to do so. Ultimately, that is our style. We want to make sure we consult the people who are experts on this outside of the officials in the Department, the HSE and Government bodies. We also want to make sure we consult the people at the centre of this and the people around them. That is our commitment to the committee today.

Amendment No. 9 was tabled by Deputy Quaide, but he is not here to move it.

I thank the Minister of State and her officials for attending today's meeting and assisting the committee in consideration of the matter. I thank them and the members of the committee for the considerable work they have done.