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.

Sentiment score: 0.16