I welcome the chance to talk on this important Bill. I also welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber. The Assisted Decision Making (Capacity) Act 2015 brought the outdated wardship laws into line with modern Ireland. It was a stepping stone towards beginning to view disability from a social rather than a medical model. However, I have serious concerns regarding the current implications of the Act and the proposed legislative changes we are discussing. There continues to be a lot of confusion regarding the Act for people impacted as well as for their families and for services. The Act itself has also brought a lot of conflict between the parents of adults with disabilities and service providers and others such as financial institutions. In relation to wardship, one of the reasons cited by the committees for not initiating the process to transition out of wardship is that they feel there is not adequate information and that they have not been communicated with well. However, there is also evidence that some committees and wards choose not to engage with the information being made available by various public bodies. There does seem to be a large amount of information out there. A project was completed by Family Carers Ireland on the implementation of the Act. In the organisation's care aid project, free monthly legal advice clinics for family carers were provided in 2024. Of the 37 clinics carried out, 20 were related to people with dementia and 17 concerned people with an intellectual disability. In the cases for people with dementia, 40% of people were seeking advice on how to make an application for a decision-making representative order for the purposes of applying for the fair deal scheme. A further 39% of people were seeking information on how to support a family member who may require the assistance of a co-decision-making representative or may require an application to appoint a decision-making representative to make certain decisions about their financial affairs. The project found that there are a number of issues being faced by people navigating the 2015 Act. Difficulties have arisen in finding legal practitioners willing to take on cases related to the Act. There is a real lack of clarity and consistency from service providers, in particular from financial services, on how the Act is integrated into their policies and practices. There is an opportunity here for the Decision Support Service to address this with clear guidelines. Difficulty in navigating and using the service's online portal was another issue raised, along with delays in processing support arrangements with the DSS and difficulty obtaining a legal statement of capacity, which must be provided by a legal practitioner. I welcome the fact that a specific, enduring power of attorney, EPA, website has been created. This will no doubt take a lot of pressure off people in navigating the process of creating an EPA. However, I must highlight that there continues to exist a digital-first approach for a cohort of people who may prefer to use paper-based forms. I hope we can see a campaign that is similar to the promotion of the decision-making process for EPAs. For many people, when they get to the stage of needing an EPA, their capacity can diminish rapidly. A campaign on the importance of making an EPA when people have the capacity to do so must be prioritised by the Minister and the DSS. In respect of the changes being debated, it is reflective of the entire assisted decision-making system that the Government must look at extending the deadline for all wardship cases to be discharged. Wardship is an outdated system with warding based in an Ireland that is thankfully long forgotten. However, the Government did not realise the true complexities involved in discharging people from wardships, along with the confusion it brought for so many households. The amendment only provides further confusion. The amendment of section 54 of the Act allows for judges to extend a deadline to discharge from wardship under exceptional circumstances. However, there is absolutely no clarification on what constitutes an exceptional circumstance. I have examined recommendations provided by the centre for disability law and policy in the University of Galway and I agree that a more just approach in these circumstances would be to only activate the extension in circumstances where it has not been possible to inform a ward of his or her rights in an appropriate and accessible manner and for judges to ensure the extension of the deadline is used only to support the ward and his or her committee to engage meaningfully and participate fully in the discharge process. I am also concerned about the lack of consultation with current wardships. I have only found sections in the Bill that refer to notifying the ward. One in seven of the 250 people who have been discharged from wardships so far have been deemed to have full capacity and are not in any decision-making arrangement under the current system. This would imply that many of those who were locked in the wardship system are entirely capable of making their own decisions or, as one judge described it, being the captain of their own ship. This underscores the importance of not just exiting the wardship system but ensuring there is engagement with wards throughout the process. This Bill does not provide for any engagement or consultation with the ward. A number of bodies such as the National Disability Authority and the National Advocacy Service have highlighted the lack of supports for wards in trying to navigate the discharge process. This is an opportunity to address this advocacy deficit. I would welcome that, in cases where an extension is granted under exceptional circumstances, this period be used to fully support all wards and their committees to understand the charge process and to prepare them for life after wardship. I also want to highlight a grave concern brought to my attention by the centre for disability law and policy. The current Bill, if enacted, discriminates against minors who are wards of court. A minor ward of court, who is due to be discharged from a wardship by their eighteenth birthday will, if this Bill is enacted, remain without any decision-making rights until long after their nineteenth birthday, due to the 18-month extension that exists for these wardships. While the principal Act closed off new applications for wardship, this is only for adults. It is still the case that children can be made wards of court. This is not only discriminatory but is a serious breach of the rights of the child and the rights of the disabled person under both UN charters. The Government continues to speak about an inclusive Ireland but its actions does not meet its words. For a disabled person, particularly those with intellectual disabilities, the focus must be on learning independent living skills to ensure they can live an independent life or have some sense of independence with the right support. This Bill does not provide for this. It closes off the key transition period for children with disabilities into adulthood and further institutionalises them when we, as a State, should be doing everything we can to support their right to independent living. The main purpose of the Bill is to allow for extending the deadline of exit from wardship due to the current backlog of cases. However, this Bill does not actually address the root cause of the backlog, like the lack of support and information available to people to understand the discharge process, the lack of legal professionals available to navigate the process and, most notably, the lack of resources made available to the key bodies in addressing these issues in the Decision Support Service, Legal Aid Board and National Advocacy Service. An information campaign must be provided to help people understand what is happening with wardship, like I have highlighted with the initial rollout of the Act. This must be done between three bodies: the DSS, Legal Aid Board and National Advocacy Service. I also recommend running legal advice clinics for people who are impacted by the current wardship process so they can get general information and advice on the process. This should be made available to wards and the families impacted. We must also increase resources to the National Advocacy Service to ensure all wards have access to independent advocacy. If we are to move forward with this Bill, automatic rights to independent advocacy to allow wards to engage in the discharge process must be granted. I ask the Minister to outline how she intends to address the key causes of the current backlog, rather than just granting an extension. This is again largely a cold and entirely legalistic medical model of viewing disability and negates addressing issues impacting people with disabilities from a human rights-based perspective. The slow process of discharge is something that the Minister and her Department have been aware of since 2024 and they would have been well aware that the 2026 deadline would not be met. I am unsure as to why the Government has been so slow to act on this and with such a blunt instrument of only an extension. I am critical of this because there was has been no pre-legislative scrutiny, as has been mentioned. As a House, we have not had the opportunity to fully engage with a real debate on the issues impacting wards and their families. This is the Government again scrambling and trying to rush through half-baked legislation and reflective of a Government continuing to fail people with disabilities. In the briefing document provided by the Department, it was noted that information sessions were provided to stakeholders. However, the feedback I have received from these has been very negative. The centre for disability law and policy noted that the information sessions did not allow for any meaningful engagement with wards and committees. This again points to a lack of resources for the key bodies involved with the implementation of the Act and those who are supporting people with disabilities who are wards. A review must be carried out under the Act before April. However, the current delays of discharge from wardship raises serious concerns about whether any review will even be possible as the Act has not been fully implemented. I ask that the Minister addresses this as a matter of priority and answer if she thinks it is appropriate to carry out such a review, given the failures associated with implementing the Act and the lack of resources she has provided in implementing it. I fully welcome the central aim of the Act in removing the outdated wardship system. However, this Bill only further reinforces a failing system and does not address any of the central problems that exist with wardship and fails to acknowledge the rights of people with disabilities. If the Government truly wants to support people with disabilities, it must address the issues we all have outlined this evening.

Sentiment score: 0.14