Kathleen Funchion Praises Decision Support Service Reforms

I just very briefly want to speak not even necessarily to the amendments but just in general as the Minister has said this is our last stage of this and in fairness it has it's a welcome development in terms of the old system of worship that I think maybe a lot of younger people can't even believe is that's the way that the things were actually done in this country and I know there had been concerns at various stages you know through committee stage and everything else some of those obviously have been taken on board and I'm sure there might be some issues to be teased out as the legislation passes but I actually think a huge amount will be with the decision support service I think they'll have a key role in just I suppose first of all you know consultation and education around the whole new system and letting people know and advising people of it and then I suppose if there is any kind of teething problems or difficulties they'll probably have a very key role as well but I think it is it's definitely a step in the right direction that's an understatement the wardship system was really just you know you couldn't justify it in any way shape or form so it's good that it's progressing to this thanks Laskin-Carla Thanks Laskin-Carla and Deputy Function we did have an extensive debate and your colleague Deputy Ward raised a number of issues particularly in terms of the applicability of AHD's advanced healthcare directives and we have since following on from the amendments made in the Shannon we have been able to broaden out the applicability of advanced healthcare directives they don't cover everybody and I know I'm sure if he was here Deputy Ward would make that point what I will say is in the Shannon I read out a communication from Minister Butler in terms of the revision of the mental health legislation which we know is in train heads of bill have been have been discussed and have gone to a PLS process and Minister Butler made it clear that the actual draft legislation has priority drafting for next term so she's indicated very clearly and she's also indicated very clearly that a common approach to everybody in terms of the applicability of advanced healthcare directives is the objective of the Department of Health in terms of the approach they're going to take in the mental health reform legislation so I think that's really important and I was really glad that Minister Butler was able to give us that confirmation in the part of the Department of Health because the point I was making is our Department were able to take this a certain amount of the way but the rest of the way would be taken by the Department of Health and they've confirmed both that they want to extend AHD's to everybody but secondly they want to do this rapidly and it has priority drafting The question is that the motion has be moved by myself so the question is that the Shannon amendment be agreed to is that agreed? Agreed Moving on to Shannon amendment number two I move to number two it's already been discussed with one so the question is that Shannon amendment number two be agreed to I move to Shannad Amendment No. 3, already discussed with one, and again the question is that the Shannad Amendment No. 3 be agreed to. Is that agreed? Agreed. Similarly, with Shannad Amendment No. 4, I formally move that, it has already been discussed, and the question is that the Shannad Amendment be agreed to. Agreed. I give Shannad Amendment No. 5, 6, 9 to 12 inclusive, 20 to 24 inclusive, 31 to 35 inclusive, and 40 to 44 inclusive are related and to be discussed together. Thank you. I will speak to all of this group together. These amendments all relate to complaints provisions within the Act and allow for the director to undertake either a review or an investigation of a complaint prior to forming a view as to whether the complaint is well-founded or not. This will reduce the requirement for the DSS to automatically undertake an investigation on each and every occasion a complaint is made, thereby limiting the burden on the service user and on the DSS. Amendments to complaints under Part 8 will ensure that the director of the decision support service will be able to conduct an investigation on his or her own initiative. This is the case in other parts of the Act, and the amendments ensure equal treatment of users across the Act, and some necessary technical amendments are also introduced. I welcome the inclusion of a review or an appeal. I think that is always really important. It is something we often look for in various pieces of legislation, and it is always good practice. Coming from a trade union background, we regularly relied on the appeals process, and it is always good practice to see that being implemented. Shannet Amendment No. 5, is that agreed? That is agreed. I formally move. It has already been discussed with 5, and the question is that the amendment be agreed to. Is that agreed? Yes. Government. AMENDMENT NUMBER 7, I formally move the phrase Act of 2015 from the bill. This is not a phrase that is used elsewhere in the Act and as such it is being replaced by principal Act. MS. The question is that the Shannon amendment be agreed to. Is that agreed? Moving on to Shannon amendment number 8, I formally move that. AMENDMENT 8 provides for single capacity assessment under section 29 of the Act of 2015 in line with other capacity assessments required under part 4. This will ensure that not only one statement of capacity is required by either a registered medical professional or a class of healthcare professionals to be prescribed by regulation. This will reduce the number of capacity assessments required under part 4, making it more straightforward for the relevant person to put in place a code decision-making agreement. MS. The amendment has been formally moved and the question is that the Shannon amendment number 8 be agreed to. Is that agreed? MS. Agreed. MS. Moving on to Shannon amendment number 9, I formally move that and it has already been discussed with 5. The question is that amendment number 9 be agreed to. Amendment 11, already discussed with 5. I formally move that amendment and again the question is that the amendment be agreed to. Is that agreed? MS. Similarly with Shannon amendment number 12, I formally move it. It has already been discussed with 5. The question is that it be agreed to. Is that agreed? MR. Mr. Susan": I speak to the amendment 13-15. The amendments allowed for the making of regulations added to the list of persons or bodies eligible to make an application directly to the circuit court under part 5. This will be done by removing the requirement for parties to first make an ex-party application where appropriate. This will permit the bringing of part five applications in a more streamlined and less burdensome way. DR. I would like to welcome that because, again, it is expanding the servers. That is what we want to see as the whole idea of this as we move out of the very much outdated Wardship system, the more people that can access it, definitely the better. Thanks. DR. Gov. The question could help the Shannon amendment number 13 meet the Madamamarvig. Should the Shannon amendment number 13 be agreed? Agreed. I will move it to the Shannon amendment number 14. Prior to my Members angle, I will move it to theities appropriately and will have discussed number 13 to the?, by agreed. Gov. Gov. Gov. Gov. Gov. amendment be agreed to. Now on to amendment number 16. I formally move that amendment to Tara. Amendment 16 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 persons will be kept confidential in such reporting. This point was first raised by Deputy Sherlock at committee stage in the House. I am happy to have been able to introduce this amendment at committee stage in the Shanage, particularly given the significant value that research can add, both in terms of improvement in legislation and creating consistency across the court system. I think the reference was to the Family Law Court reporting system, which has proved to be an invaluable but also confidential mechanism for understanding, I suppose, the approaches adopted in Family Law cases whilst still respecting the in-camera rule, and this allows for something similar to take place in the context of cases decided under the new part 5 system for decision support. I think this is actually a really good example of how, when we do the process correctly, and there is engagement, and there is the back and forth, and the concerns that are raised or listened to, it can really work very well, and we are often critical in this House of when it doesn't work well, but I think in fairness there is a lot of really good positive changes in these amendments, definitely the court reporting and the research is invaluable, and we do see that so many incidents in the Family Law situation where you can still respect the in-camera rule but you can actually get the research done, and I think there are lots of elements, like just the previous amendment in terms of expanding out people who can apply, that is exactly what we want to see happening with this type of legislation, so at the risk of welcoming every single amendment, but it is good to see when the process works positively, and I think that should be acknowledged as well. Thanks. The question is that the Shannon amendment number 16 be agreed to? Is that agreed? Yes. Moving on to Shannon amendment 17, which I formally move, and 17 to 19 inclusive are related and will be discussed together. I will speak to 17 through 19, which extend the capping of decision-making representative fees. Previous amendments provided for the capping of panel member decision-making representative fees, and this amendment will ensure that limits are imposed in relation to all decision-making representative fees. Regulations will be prescribed to set limits on fees to be charged, which will ensure a proper balance between fair and reasonable rates of remuneration and, of course, the interest of the relevant person's estate.