These amendments are related to the complaints provisions. They provide that where a court directs that a decision support shall no longer act as such, the director of the DSS shall be required to update the relevant register. Some necessary technical amendments are also introduced.

These amendments provide for regulations to set out additional persons or bodies eligible to make an application directly to the Circuit Court under Part 5. This will allow such parties to make a court application directly under Part 5 without first seeking permission to do so by way of an ex parte application. Where appropriate, this regulation-making power will allow for applications to be brought in a more streamlined and less burdensome way.

These amendments will allow for the undertaking of court reporting and research under Part 5. A regulation-making power is being provided for certain classes of persons to make reports on proceedings taking place under Part 5. The necessary access to proceedings will be provided and the identity of a person will be kept confidential in such reporting. This point was raised as an Opposition amendment by Deputy Sherlock in the Dáil. I recognise the value of its inclusion in terms of the lessons that can be learned an…

I take Senator Seery Kearney's points. In the first instance, this legislation will necessitate significant engagement of the Judiciary, primarily because a significant panel of judges will be involved in moving people from wardship to the new DSS. This will take a significant amount of work. There has already been some engagement with the courts on preparing for this. It is not for the Executive to direct the Judiciary on issues of policy. The training of the Judiciary is a matter for the Judicial Council. There i…

The Senators have spoken to a wider problem that has emerged in the existing wardship system. I recognise the genuine and legitimate concerns they are raising. I understand the intention of the amendment for the reasons I am about to set out. I do not believe is not necessary because we have provision in the legislation that addresses much of what Senator Clonan said. Section 38(5) and 38(6) of the 2015 Act set out criteria for the appointment of decision-making representatives. Section 38 (5) states: When consider…

I will let Senator Clonan come in first.

It was probably not helpful of me to have made a general point on that issue in the context of quite a specific thing, so I accept what Senators Seery Kearney and Mullen say about the general point about a changing approach versus this specific situation. As for this specific situation, and from my read of the amendment and where it is proposed to locate it, it seems to bring the court into giving directions on a very specific element of what the decision-making representative is undertaking. I think Senator Mullen…

Amendments Nos. 20 to 22, inclusive, extend the capping of decision-making representative fees to all decision-making representative arrangements under Part 5 of the principal Act. Previous amendments provided for the capping of panel members' decision-making representative fees. This amendment will ensure limits are imposed in respect of all decision-making representative fees. Regulations may be prescribed to set the limit of fees to be charged, and these will be drafted to ensure a proper balance between fair an…

These amendments provide that enduring powers of attorney executed under the Powers of Attorney Act 1996 may continue to be registered under the 1996 Act or the 2015 Act where what I refer to as a transitional wardship application has been made. This refers to a scenario in which a person has been the subject of a wardship application at the time of commencement of the 2015 Act and that application is unresolved. I moved amendments in the Dáil to account for this transitional cohort and ensure continuity of care. T…

This issue was discussed at some length in the Dáil. There are two different perspectives on it. While I understand, as a result of that discussion, the rationale for the amendment, the provisions the amendment seeks to delete are important, in my view, from the perspective of legal clarity. The 2015 Act was reviewed in detail in the process of preparing the amendment Bill. Legal experts reviewed these provisions on behalf of the HSE and it was found there is a risk to a relevant person if two decision supporters h…

My response is similar to the points I made in response to Senator Warfield. When the 2015 Act was being reviewed there was a real concern, particularly on the part of the HSE, about who would have the power to make the final healthcare decisions in the event of a conflict arising. Notwithstanding the Senator's effort to address that through having a solicitor certify something, the real concern and motivating factor behind the change we made is the risk that two contrary views may arise when life-and-death decisio…

I understand where Senator Mullen is coming from but we are trying not to have an "either-or" scenario. We are trying to ensure there is no question that where medical practitioners face critical situations and have put before them an EPA and an advance healthcare directive, they will know the legislation is moving away from that situation and only one document will guide medical practitioners in terms of having clear knowledge of what medical decisions are to be made. It is important to note that the advance healt…

Senator Mullen is correct that the EPA gives much wider latitude in terms of those decisions. The concern at play here is that, for the healthcare practitioner, that degree of specificity is really important and that is provided for through the mechanism of the advance healthcare directive. The preference is that the advance healthcare directive is used because, rather than, as the Senator colloquially put it, giving the nod to the EPA in terms of the decision to be made, there probably needs to be greater specific…

The reason behind the change being made here was to give the relevant person more autonomy. The new role for registration with the DSS rather than with the court will be less costly and should be easier to process than is the case under the current system. The two-stage nature means that for as long as the relevant person has capacity, he or she is in a position to influence or change the various elements around it. We see that as a positive step, rather than having them locked into a process from early on. That is…

Amendment No. 39, along with some technical amendments, provides for additional provisions in respect of the maintaining of a register of AHDs by the decision support service. My colleague, the Minister for Health, will have a regulation-making power to establish and maintain a register of AHDs which will be subject to new provisions provided by this amendment. The provisions specify what the content, principles and policies of the regulation should be and will better align the register of AHDs under Part 8 of the …

The central issue is that the law is not clear in terms of the ability of 16- and 17-year-olds to overrule their legal guardians. That is an unclear part of our law in regard to a wide range of areas. The issue is wider than what we are considering in this Chamber. Senator Ruane alluded to the many complex situations in which this arises. I have my own view about where the balance should be, but it is not one that is fully established. Therefore, in the context of this legislation we are not in a position to make a…

From my officials' engagement with the Department of Justice, I think there are ad hoc situations in which individual types of healthcare, dental practice and so on allow for the consent to treatment but there is no clear legal right for a 16- or 17-year-old to refuse treatment in a situation where that is contrary to the view of a parent or guardian. That is the central issue here.

Budget 2023 marks another step on the road to the transformation of early learning and childcare in our country. In 2018, the State set a goal of investing €1 billion per year in childcare by 2028. With the €346 million one-year increase in budget 2023, we have achieved that goal, a full five years early. As Minister with responsibility for children, this is something I am very proud of, and it demonstrates the commitment of the Government to investing in our children. That substantial increase in funding will brin…

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this motion before the Seanad. The motion was taken and approved by the Dáil last week. This motion is before the House following approval by the Government on 27 July 2022 of my proposal to establish an independent office to lead an intervention at the site of the former mother and baby institution in Tuam. The proposal was made following the signing into law of the Institutional Burials Act 2022 earlier that month. The Act, which provides the underlying legislative basis…

I thank all the Senators for their contributions. I am also grateful for their support in bringing the Institutional Burials Act 2022 through this House before the summer so we have the legal framework in place to allow us to respond appropriately to the horrific situation in Tuam. What happened in Tuam is an intensely human tragedy. The drafting of this legislation has also been an intensely human process. Senator Seery Kearney spoke about the many survivors who appeared before the Joint Committee on Children, Equ…