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 It abolished the adult wardship system, repealed the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871 and replaced a plenary substitute decision-making model with a graduated rights-based framework designed to support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.

Sentiment score: 0.23