The 2015 legislation has not been commenced. That is one of the central reasons for bringing forward this legislation because we do not-----

The Senator asked me to reflect-----

The Senator asked me to reflect on the position and I agreed to do so. He then stated that even though I had agreed to do so, he thinks I have come to a conclusion anyway. If he wishes to take that position, that is fine.

Throughout this legislation, I have engaged extensively on issues that have been raised. This legislation did not get to this House until now because we were reflecting on other issues and brought forward improvements. With the greatest of respect, I think I have a track record of listening and engaging where that is possible.

The amendment relates to further improvements with regard to complaints throughout the Act. The particular amendment relates to complaints in respect of AHDs under Part 8 and will ensure the director of the decision support service will be able to conduct an investigation on his or her own initiative regarding a designated healthcare representative. This was always the policy intention and this provision makes clear that position, thus improving the harmony of investigative powers throughout the Act.

As the Senator suggests, the amendment proposes to amend the Act of 2015 by removing section 89(3)(b)(ii). While I understand the intent of the amendment is to give further effect to the changed constitutional provision and the deletion of section 85(6), which we discussed previously, the amendment is not necessarily following the said proposed deletion. That is an important difference between section 89 and section 85 of the 2015 Act. As distinct from section 85, which concerns the scope of AHDs in the context of …

The Senator is opposing section 74 of the Bill, which relates to the validity of an AHD and the role of the court in this regard. Section 89(2) concerns an application to the High Court for a determination regarding the applicability or validity of an AHD, which itself concerns life-sustaining treatment or the actions of a designated healthcare representative in respect of that directive. Section 89(3) of the 2015 Act is connected to section 89(2) and provides a basis for a healthcare professional to provide treatm…

Like the Senator, I am not a medical person so I am afraid I am not in a position to give a detailed answer on that particular point. On Senator Doherty's point, and bearing in mind the agreement on the removal of the term "unborn", when the provision is read in its entirety, it includes a situation where the directive-maker is a pregnant woman and there is a deleterious effect on her pregnancy. We are trying to achieve a situation, where a court case is ongoing regarding ambiguity around the advance healthcare dir…

The relevant provisions of section 89(2) set out the situations in which the High Court may make a declaration. The High Court may make a declaration as to whether an advance healthcare directive is valid, an advance healthcare directive is applicable or a designated healthcare representative is acting in according with the relevant powers. Those are the provisions set out by the legislation in respect of the range of declarations the High Court can make.

I will do my best to address those points for the Senator.

Amendment No. 47 proposes to amend section 96 of the 2015 Act, making a minor amendment to the director's investigative powers to facilitate broader improvements to complaint mechanisms throughout the Act. Both this amendment and other amendments in this group seek to allow the director greater control over how to resolve investigations undertaken on his or her own initiative. These include extending powers to reviews of complaints. It will still be necessary for the director's procedures to be published to allow f…

These amendments provide for minor technical amendments to ensure that the relevant person is a notice party where a temporary prohibition order has been issued by the court.

This amendment will allow for disabled persons and their representative organisations to be consulted by the director when codes of practice are being developed. Consultation was a strong theme during pre-legislative scrutiny and was also raised during the Dáil debates on this Bill. I am, therefore, pleased to propose an amendment which recognises the importance of the inclusion of disabled persons in the development of the relevant code of practice.

I take the Senator's point.

Amendment No. 56 amends section 107 of the 2015 Act. Amendment No. 57 amends section 108 of the 2015 Act. These amendments seek to ensure that appropriate detention review periods are in place for persons whose continued detention may be necessary for treatment and where it is ordered by the wardship of the High Court. This increased frequency of review proceedings will further protect the rights of relevant persons and bring provisions in line with those of the Mental Health Act 2001. It is essential that persons …

I understand that the intention of this proposed amendment is to broaden the review procedures. A review is already provided for in the legislation. The text being proposed by Senator Warfield would have the unintended consequences of restricting a review to only the matters stated. It is important to ensure that review provisions are broad enough to address whatever issues may arise in the context and operation of the Act. I think this proposed amendment would have a limiting role in respect of how the review woul…

This amendment proposes further amendments to the Juries Act 1976. The policy and legislative responsibility for that Act rests with the Minister for Justice and the relevant sections of the amendment Bill have been brought forward jointly by myself and the Minister for Justice. Section 91 of the Bill was introduced to remove the prohibition on persons serving on a jury who, in the problematic wording of the original section, and again I am using the original wording, has or had "a mental illness or mental disabili…

We have already brought forward amendments in the Dáil that will significantly address the problematic language that was used and problematic exclusions that were provided for under the 1976 Act. Through use of the functional capacity test and by supporting individuals to be able to meet the functional capacity test and be able to undertake jury duty, this legislation is a significant improvement. Notwithstanding that, however, we can continue to examine this aspect and we have the opportunity to do that now in the…

Amendment No. 62 makes consequential amendments to the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995. These amendments are required as the result of other amendments I am moving to the Nursing Homes Support Scheme Act 2009.

The language used in amendment No. 76 is very definitive. It requires a "meaningful engagement with all persons with disabilities in the State". That is an incredibly broad and onerous obligation to put on IHREC in legislation. It is not generalised; it refers to all persons with disability in the State. IHREC could do a detailed consultation and miss out on engaging with one person. I am not being hyperbolic; this is a possibility based on the language used here. We are not in a position to accept language of such…