Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Feb 1996

Vol. 461 No. 2

Powers of Attorney Bill, 1995 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The main object of this Bill is to enable powers of attorney to operate when the donor of the power is, or is becoming, mentally incapable. It will enable people to provide in advance for the possibility that they may become incapable of managing their affairs by authorising a person or persons of their choice to act for them in that eventuality.

The need for legislation arises from the fact that under present law a power of attorney is automatically revoked when the donor becomes mentally incapable. This position, which developed under the common law, was obviously designed to protect a donor who had given a power of attorney to another on the basis that the donor would be able to supervise the conduct of that person in the operation of the power and to revoke the order if the person's conduct proved to be unsatisfactory. It offers no assistance, however, to a person who wishes to provide specifically for his or her affairs to be managed on the onset of mental incapacity by someone in whom he or she has full confidence. Indeed, under present law the only possibility available is for such a person to be made a ward of court and that can be a lengthy and expensive process.

The solution proposed in the Bill is to provide for a power of attorney that will operate only when the donor is, or is becoming, mentally incapable. The advantage of this approach is that both parties to the new power of attorney — which is being called an enduring power of attorney — and also their advisers, are put on notice straightaway that the power is one that will be operated by the donee if and when the donor becomes mentally incapable and that it should therefore be granted only when the persons concerned have a full understanding of what it could involve for the management of the donor's property and affairs at that stage.

Accordingly, the Bill makes it a key requirement of an enduring power that the donor must intend the power to be effective notwithstanding any supervening mental incapacity of the donor. Section 5 (1) provides that the instrument creating the power must contain a statement by the donor to that effect. In addition, the power must comply with the other provisions of section 5 and with the regulations to be made under it.

These other provisions of the section contain further safeguards aimed at preventing as far as possible any abuses at the time an enduring power is created. For example, the donee of an enduring power, referred to in this Part of the Bill as the attorney, must be at least 18 and not be a bankrupt. In particular, the attorney must not be the owner of a nursing home in which the donor resides or an agent or employee of the owner, unless the attorney is a spouse, parent, child or sibling of the donor.

The main safeguards, however, will be contained in the regulations to be made under section 5. Subsection (2) of that section lists the various matters that can be prescribed and the list gives a good indication of the kind of additional safeguards the regulations will provide. The first matter relates to the form of the enduring power. It is essential that such an important document should be in a prescribed form. Only in that way can it be reasonably ensured that enduring powers will be properly executed and contain fully adequate explanatory material as well as the various prescribed statements.

Another matter to be prescribed relates to the execution of the enduring power. An ordinary power of attorney does not require to be signed by the donee but it would be my intention to require that an enduring power should be so signed. The document creating the enduring power will also have to include adequate information about the effect of creating or accepting the power. This provision is complemented by a requirement that the document must also include a statement by the donor that the donor has read that information or has had it read to him or her.

Moreover, statements by a solicitor and doctor must be incorporated. The solicitor's statement must be to the effect that, having interviewed the donor and obtained any necessary reports, the solicitor is satisfied that the donor understands the effect of creating the power and is satisfied also that the solicitor has no reason to believe that the document is being executed as a result of fraud or undue pressure. A family solicitor would be particularly well placed to perform this function. The possibility is left open for a member of some other class of persons to make such a statement and I will certainly consider any suggestions that may be made in that regard. The doctor's statement will certify that the donor has the mental capacity, with the help of such explanations as may have been given, to understand the effect of creating the power.

The last safeguard to which I would like to refer is the requirement that the donor must give notice of the power to specified persons. It is important that some relative of the donor should be made aware that an enduring power has been created and who has been appointed attorney under it. If relatives are told, as they have to be, of the execution of the power just before the attorney applies to the court, which may be a long time after the actual execution itself, to have the enduring power registered and brought into force, they are likely to become suspicious and may needlessly object to the registration. That has been the experience in other jurisdictions.

These are the safeguards proposed at the time an enduring power of attorney is being granted. It may be asked whether they are not too stringent and whether they could perhaps inhibit the creation of enduring powers. The answer, to my mind, is that, as in so many other cases, it is a question of striking a proper balance between, on the one hand, an over-complicated procedure and, on the other, the need to minimise possible abuse. Many enduring powers will be executed while persons, although lucid at the time, may be in the very early stages of declining mental capacity. They could be subjected to undue pressure and not fully appreciate that if they become mentally incapable the attorney could have more or less full authority in relation to the management and disposal of their assets.

The safeguards have a further advantage in that when the attorney applies to the court to have the power registered there should be little or no difficulty in having this done because the existence of the safeguards will minimise the possibility of relatives raising valid objections to the registration.

The registration procedure is an important element in the structure of the Bill. The enduring power will have no force or effect until it has been registered in the High Court by the Registrar of Wards of Court. However, once an application has been made for registration the attorney may take action under it to maintain the donor and the attorney or other persons, so far as permitted. The attorney may also act to prevent loss to the donor's estate and may not apply for registration until the donor is, or is becoming, mentally incapable. Before doing so, the attorney must give notice of the application to various people who will have a period of five weeks within which to object to the proposed registration. These people will normally be the persons to whom notice of the execution of the enduring power was given in the first instance. If any of them have died in the meantime or are not otherwise contactable notice is to be given to relatives within the categories of relationships specified in the First Schedule.

Once registration has been effected the enduring power is of full force and effect and the donor can no longer revoke it unless the revocation is confirmed by the court. The donor cannot extend or restrict the scope of the authority conferred by the power but the court will have extensive powers over the exercise by an attorney of his or her functions. For example it may require an attorney to render accounts and produce records; it may give directions about the remuneration or expenses of an attorney, including directions for the repayment of excessive remuneration or the payment of additional remuneration, and it may also cancel the registration of an enduring power in various specified circumstances such as where the attorney proves to be unsuitable or where it is shown that fraud or undue pressure was used to induce the donor to grant the power. I should emphasise that these powers of the court can be invoked in a summary manner not only by the donor or attorney but also by any other interested party.

I have mentioned the importance of the powers that may be conferred on an attorney by an enduring power. Of course, a donor may wish to limit the extent of the powers. The Bill, in section 6, recognises this by providing that an enduring power may confer either a general or limited authority on the attorney and that in either case that authority may be made subject to conditions and restrictions. However, the section goes on to provide for two over-riding limitations on the extent to which an attorney may benefit himself or herself or other persons. The first relates to the needs of the attorney and those other persons. In that case the attorney may meet those needs only if, and to the extent that, the donor might be expected to do so. The second limitation is concerned with gifts out of the donor's property to the attorney or other persons. These will be permissible only if the power specifically authorises the attorney to make such gifts and then only if they are seasonal gifts, or gifts on an anniversary, to persons related to or connected with the donor, or gifts to any charity to which the donor contributed or might be expected to contribute. The value of each gift must not be unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances and, in particular, the size of the estate. In both cases the enduring power itself may impose tighter restrictions and, if it does, they will prevail.

The power of an attorney to benefit himself or herself and others is obviously a very important one and, if abused, could reduce the value of the estate passing to the next-of-kin on the donor's death. The limitations in the Bill in this regard strike a reasonable balance, bearing in mind that the conduct of the attorney in this and other matters is subject to review by the court on the application of any interested party.

I have dealt thus far with Part II which relates to enduring powers and which breaks completely new ground. Part III, on the other hand, is concerned with the law governing powers of attorney generally, including enduring powers, and updates it in a number of respects. For example, section 15 abolishes the requirement that a power of attorney should be under seal and provides for a situation where a donor is physically unable to sign the power. In such a case the power will be valid if it is signed at the direction of the donor and in the donor's presence and that of another person who must attest it as a witness.

Another feature of Part III is the provision of a simple statutory form of general power of attorney which, so long as it is expressed to be made under the Bill, will operate to confer on the donee or donees authority to do anything a donor may lawfully do by attorney. The form itself is set out in the Third Schedule and Deputies will see that it is very simple. It should be of practical value where the donor wishes to give general authority to the donee to act on the donor's behalf. Where the authority is to be confined to doing specified things, the form would be inappropriate but in those cases the limits of the power are usually easy to specify.

In preparing the legislation we have had the benefit of a Law Reform Commission report which has been of considerable assistance and which I gratefully acknowledge. We have also had the benefit of recent experience in other jurisdictions in relation to enduring powers. The Law Society has made a detailed submission on the Bill which contains a number of helpful suggestions for its amendment. Some of the suggestions were implemented during the passing of the Bill through the Seanad, but following a detailed discussion of the submission between representatives of the society and my Department I expect to table some further amendments when the Bill goes to the Select Committee.

I think the House will agree that this is a useful measure of reform which, if properly utilised, will relieve a great deal of anxiety among those elderly people who fear that their mental powers may be failing or who may have no such immediate fears but who wish to make sensible provision for such an eventuality. The Bill can be of benefit to young people too, for who can be sure nowadays that he or she will not be brain damaged in a traffic accident, as so many people have unfortunately been? The experience of other countries is that an increasing number of young people are drawing up an enduring power of attorney at the same time as making a will. The main focus of the Bill will be on elderly people, many of whom are anxiously awaiting the enactment of the Bill so that they can proceed to execute an enduring power. I shall endeavour to have the detailed regulations prepared in time to enable the Bill to be brought into operation without delay.

I assure the House that I shall give most careful consideration to any suggestion Deputies may make in this debate for the improvement of the Bill and I will be prepared to move any such amendments when the Bill is being dealt with by the Select Committee.

I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.

Dr. Woods

In welcoming the Bill I ask the Minister to make the procedures simple and inexpensive. This much needed social legislation will ease the difficulties which can occur in old age and, in particular, the problems of elderly people in the management and administration of their property and assets when they become mentally ill. It broadly reflects the proposals of the Law Reform Commission in its Second Report on Land Law and Conveyancing Law, with particular emphasis on enduring powers of attorneys. It is a reasonable response to the recommendations of the commissioners, although it contains the inadequate provisions. I will refer to these later.

At present there is no way in which a person can privately arrange in advance to give a relative or friend authority to handle his or her affairs if he or she becomes incapable at a later date. The only mechanism is for the person to be made a ward of court. This can cause stress for the family, it is expensive and results in that person's financial affairs being managed by the court or court officials. The Bill provides for an enduring power of attorney which can be acted upon later if the person becomes mentally incapable.

The legislation governing wards of courts is ancient and totally unsuited to the needs of modern families and the society in which we live. Framed in the last century as the Lunacy Regulations (Ireland) Act, 1871, it has been supplemented by rules developed by the superior courts. Approximately one third of the wards of court suffer from senile dementia or other illnesses which affect their mental capacity to look after their affairs. We want to provide in the Bill for a more humane, compassionate and efficient system of caring for the elderly and other people who are no longer able to manage their affairs. We also want as far as possible to leave this to the family or specific friends through the creation of an enduring power of attorney. We want to privatise the arrangements and reduce the need for resort to the court. The system which results from the Bill must be simpler, less expensive and readily available. It is not enough to change the law, we must also change the package. We want to ensure that not only the law but also the administrative processes serve the elderly, the infirm and those who want to make sensible arrangements for their advancing years and their families who want to support them.

The Bill provides that applications for registration must be made to the High Court. This will make enduring powers of attorney prohibitively expensive. If there is to be a court application, it should be on appeal from the Registrar of Wards of Court to the President of the High Court. A court application is not necessary in the first instance. An application to the Registrar of Wards of Court should be sufficient.

It can be expected that numbers participating in enduring powers of attorney will greatly increase over those who avail of wards of court proceedings at present. Many who fear or suspect the onset of mental infirmity, Alzheimer's disease or senile dementia will want to protect their property and assets. This facility should be inexpensively and locally available. The Minister should consider a simple and inexpensive registration process with an appeal to the Circuit Court. Every county has a registrar, and the Circuit Court sits in every area. An appeal to the High Court would still be available for the rare cases in which it will be needed. Seven new Circuit Court judges are being appointed at present, together with new facilities. The enduring powers of attorney could fit well into this new system. This is something we can discuss further on Committee Stage.

Every one of us has experienced in our constituencies, and some in a ministerial capacity, the severe difficulties faced by families, communities and financial institutions in dealing with the onset of mental infirmity such as Alzheimer's disease or senile dementia. How often have we come across distraught family members who are having difficulties catering for aged parents, whose money or assets are tied up and who, because of their growing mental infirmity, are unable to deal with their property. Because of the antiquated laws governing property, their children have no power to intervene.

Many people believed it was sufficient for a parent to exercise a power of attorney in favour of a family member, and that once the person became incapacitated the appointed attorney could act in their name. I understand that even some lawyers and bank managers thought they could operate on that basis. This is not the case. The reality of a power of attorney is that it was commonly created to cover a situation where a person was going abroad, or for a specific purpose, and it was revoked automatically on the insanity or mental infirmity of the person making it.

Let us look at the law in this area. The rules governing powers of attorney originated in the common law. While there was some statutory recognition of them in the Conveyancing Act, 1881, these have not been adapted to contemporary circumstances. People who wished to make provision for the administration and management of their affairs in old age or in mental infirmity were unable to cater for that possibility. No matter how much or how little property was involved, the person had to hope that they would be made a ward of court if that became necessary. The rules which govern wardship are set out in the Lunacy Regulations (Ireland) Act, 1871 reflecting the creation of another age, another era and another jurisdiction.

In Ireland there are up to 25,000 people suffering from Alzheimer's disease. This number is bound to increase with the ageing population. In 1991, 27,900 people were referred to the psychiatric services arising out of some form of mental illness.

The Wards of Court Office has on hands approximately 2,000 cases of which about 30 per cent involve people suffering from senile dementia or other illness which has been found under the present rules to affect their capacity to look after their affairs.

Not all of those suffering from one form of mental infirmity or another have property. Yet the problems associated with wardship, including the stigma of a formal finding of incapacity, i.e. lunacy as defined in the Act, and the procedures and expense involved, have led to a situation where the affairs of a great number of people have not been and are not being attended to properly. Consequently this legislation is very important.

Fianna Fáil welcome the fact that the Bill will enable any person to make provision while of sound mind for the administration and management of their affairs if they should lapse into dementia in the future. One has to be careful to ensure that any proposal that allows another person to deal with the property of somebody whose mind disimproves contains sufficient safeguards to protect that property and the rights of the owner.

The Law Reform Commission, having examined the position in Ireland and reviewed the law and the findings of similar bodies in other jurisdictions, made 19 main recommendations which are summarised in their report. I am not certain that the Bill makes provision for all of these recommendations and I would be interested to know why the Minister, given the non-confrontational nature of the legislation, has not gone along with all of the proposals.

I am also concerned that in drafting the legislation the Minister, while defining an enduring power of attorney, has given in to the temptation of not specifying in the legislation important matters regarding their form and execution. Neither has he specified the information to be contained in any document creating an enduring power, dealt with the necessity to produce professional evidence in support of the granting of the power, dealt with the manner of the attestation of signatures, the number of attorneys that may be appointed or, finally, the giving of notice of the execution of the power.

He appears to do all these things in section 5 of the Bill but, in fact, subsection (2) merely allows the Minister to make provision — it is not mandatory — in respect of these matters. I see no reason that the legislation should not now set out the requirements so that the Oireachtas can debate them in the overall context of the legislation and not attempt to deal with them when regulations might be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in due course. The Minister has spelt out some of the safeguards here. Obviously he intends to put the safeguards into regulations in due course. However, we believe it is important that the Minister should put the principle safeguards into the legislation, giving himself power to add further safeguards if that is subsequently found to be necessary.

The enduring power of attorney entitles the donor to appoint one or more people to regulate their affairs at some time in the future when the donor has suffered a mental incapacity. I would like to draw a broad analogy between it and a will. An enduring power of attorney speaks during the lifetime of the donor in dealing with the donor's property in certain circumstances. A will speaks from the testator's date of death. Equally, and definitively, it deals with the deceased donor's property. All the formalities governing the form, execution, content and effect of a will are set out in the Succession Act, 1965, which the late Brian Lenihan steered through these Houses. If the Succession Act which deals conclusively with the ultimate and final disposal of property is able to contain all relevant provisions regarding its subject matter why cannot the Powers of Attorney Bill do likewise?

Will the Minister require that the relevant document contains the following safeguards:

(i) a statement that the donor is aware of the effect of creating the power;

The Minister in his speech has indicated that it will.

(ii) a statement by a solicitor that he or she is satisfied the donor understands the effect of creating the power and it is not being executed under undue influence;

(iii) a statement by a medical practitioner that the donor had the mental capacity at the relevant time to execute the document or,

(iv) a statement by the attorney that he understands the obligation to register the power?

The Minister in his speech, as distinct from the Bill, has indicated that he intends to cover these areas. We would welcome that. We can look at this more closely on Committee Stage. Will the Minister require the document to be in a particular form or executed in the presence of one, two or three witnesses?

Why are these matters being left to possible future regulations? The relevant provision in section 5 (2) states: "the Minister may make provision", not "the Minister shall make provision". Why not include the requirements of these basic, central and fundamental matters in the Bill? I believe these are essential requirements to protect the donor and indeed his or her dependants, but why leave it to the future? The Minister should amend section 5 by setting out the requirements to give effect to a valid, enduring power of Attorney.

The Law Reform Commission stated that the introduction of too many formalities could "(i) discourage people from creating enduring powers of attorney and (ii) result in many enduring powers of attorney being invalid on technicalities". I agree, but given that there have to be formalities they should be specified in the legislation and not left to future additional regulations. There is a practical compromise in this regard in that the principal safeguards and formalities can be set out in the Bill leaving the Minister the power to add to them where this is found necessary in practice.

My final point on section 5 is whether the Minister is satisfied that he adequately identified in subsection (3) the classes of people who should not act, for example, a minor, a bankrupt or the owner of a nursing home in which the donor resides? Should not persons convicted of certain criminal offences be excluded or indeed a person who have been disqualified from acting as a director of a company? Again these are matters which can be taken up on Committee Stage and the Minister might look further at them between now and then.

Section 6, in dealing with the general authority an enduring power may give to the attorney, sets out certain parameters, but is silent as to a standard or obligation to be imposed on the attorney. I stated previously that there should not be too many formalities imposed on the creation of an enduring power, and in the context of obligations I believe we have to be careful not to be too onerous. However, is there any reason not to make a positive statement in the legislation by providing that the attorney must act in good faith? I accept the Law Reform Commission's views that such a duty is sufficiently reasonable and a practicable one to impose on an attorney.

Sections 7 and 8 of the Bill set out the circumstances governing the coming into force and survival of the enduring powers of attorney and are not contentious. I might look at them more closely on Committee Stage. I accept in principle the necessity to allow the court, as provided in section 8, to exercise the actual powers set out in the document before it is registered where the court is of the opinion it is necessary to do so.

Sections 9, 10 and 11 deal with the registration of the enduring power, which arises when it appears the donor is becoming mentally incapable, and with the effect of registration. They encompass more detailed provisions as set out in the First Schedule, regarding the parties to be notified of the intended registration and the contents of any prescribed notices. The general thrust of these requirements is acceptable, but why can the form of any such notice not be prescribed in the legislation and not left to regulations to be prescribed at some time in the future?

This Bill has been awaited a long time. However, it appears to me even when it is passed by the Oireachtas it will not become operative as section 1 (1) states it will only come into force, and even then maybe only certain sections of it, when the Minister shall so appoint by order. In light of the regulations referred to in section 5 and the First Schedule, the Minister may well make an order purporting to bring it into force, but that may not realistically happen until yet a further Statutory Instrument issues.

The powers granted to the court to supervise the operation and functioning of the power are broadly welcome. Where disputes arise, the High Court is the relevant jurisdiction. Is there not a case for empowering the Circuit Court to deal with many if not all the matters governed by the Bill? We are dealing with the control, management and supervision of the property of a person during his or her lifetime. Under recent family law legislation the disposal and application of property is largely now vested in the Circuit Court which has been granted extensive powers to consider an abuse of a dominant position in competition law. If the Circuit Court can be required to deal with such matters why not with the enduring powers of attorney, especially in cases where the value of the assets of the donor can be shown to be relatively modest? I do not wish to impose further on the Circuit Court, given its existing limited resources, but, equally, given the Government's continual promises to reform and radically alter and improve the courts and court structures, I suggest the Circuit Court could easily exercise some of the supervisory functions contained in the Bill if given sufficient resources to do so. This would also reduce considerably the costs incurred by all relevant parties, and in cases which come before the court it is likely that the costs will be awarded out of the estate of the donor and these would be considerably reduced if it were a Circuit Court matter.

The final sections 13 and 14 which also encompass the Schedule governing the relationship between the attorney and third parties and the application of the Bill to joint and several attorneys are broadly in order and in line with the Law Reform Commission recommendations. However, in the event of the actual instrument appointing two or more persons as attorney, remaining silent as to whether they act jointly or severally then there should be a positive statement that the Bill will presume they act and are appointed jointly. The Bill should clarify this point and not leave a possible vacuum.

Part III of the Bill which purports to amend and codify some of the general law governing powers of attorney appear to me, subject to what the Minister may say, not to do so as comprehensively as he intended. The explanatory memorandum issued with the Bill states that a power of Attorney is defined in section 15. It is not. There is a definition in section 2 (1), is that what the Minister intended and refers to in the memorandum?

The memorandum also states that this section requires the power to be signed by a donee. I cannot see why that is the case. None of the three subsections contains any such requirement. The memorandum refers to subsection (4) when in fact there are only three. Was one left out in the printing block, or earlier on the drafting table?

Section 16 assists the point I made earlier about the nature of the enactment. It provides that if the form of a general power is in the form as set out in the Third Schedule, or one like it, it shall operate to confirm certain authority on the donor. The Minister has provided a specimen form, simple though it may be. Why could he not similarly set out a specimen form of enduring power of attorney in the First Schedule?

The following sections in Part III which generally tidy up, amend or extend the Conveyancing Act procedures and requirements, appear to be necessary and are acceptable subject to a closer scrutiny on Committee Stage.

As mentioned at the outset, we welcome the Bill, but there are some outstanding questions the Minister might deal with and clarify. The Bill deals with property. Under the wards of court procedures, which it is largely intended to replace in respect of the aged and mentally incapable — although it will of course be retained for other purposes — the President of the High Court exercises ultimate power and responsibility over the care being given to a ward. Does the Minister intend that the donee or Attorney can make decisions as to the welfare and care of the donor? Will the donee, whether he or she is a family member, decide whether the incapacitated person goes into one nursing home or another? Does he intend to leave it, as at present, that in some instances a family may decide what steps need to be taken and in other cases a more dominant member of the family makes the decision? These questions also touch on the form of guardianship. Does the Minister intend to deal with any of these points?

This is important and overdue legislation. It will benefit a great many citizens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, because it will apply far more widely than the wards of court legislation. It will provide great peace of mind to many elderly people and people who fear the onset of mental incapacity. We welcome the Bill and will assist in giving it a speedy passage through the Oireachtas. We congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill forward and assure him of our full support on its further stages.

Mr. M. McDowell

The Bill is worth-while and the need for it has long been recognised. I hope the recognition of enduring powers of attorney in the law does not detract from the protection now afforded by the courts to persons of unsound mind. I hope, therefore, that it does not in any sense excuse people completely from the protective power of the courts in wardship cases.

What I have in mind, in particular, is that it is possible to appoint a person as an attorney under the enduring power of attorney, who thereafter makes dubious decisions about one's estate. If the only persons concerned about your affairs are you and your attorney, as there are no relatives or other close connections to keep an eye on the attorney's activities, there might be an inadequacy of supervision. Will the Minister bear this in mind in progressing this legislation?

The wardship jurisdiction is not entirely without merit. It is cumbersome and perhaps old fashioned, but the idea that somebody who is incapable of managing his own affairs should have an absolutely impartial and uninterested supervisory body administering his affairs in future seems preferable to one in which an arrangement is made when somebody is in his 50s — say, in respect of a brother, sister, son or nephew — and 20 years later on, improvident decisions are made when nobody is there to intervene, there are no warning signals of any kind and nobody would know what is going on.

What worries me about the enduring power of attorney is that I am not quite clear whether there is a red warning light mechanism that will indicate if something untoward is done. If people create enduring powers of attorney perhaps that is the risk they take on. However, the wardship jurisdiction has a value and people exercising enduring powers of attorney should have a positive duty to account at all times. I hope the Bill is strong enough to achieve that.

I also note that section 5 (6) might be amended to take account of the fact that following the High Court decision today, we now have a divorce jurisdiction. The provisions of that section should reflect dissolutions of marriage as well as domestic judicial separation orders and foreign divorces.

When the Minister replies to this debate will he deal with the issue that an enduring power of attorney is not effective until such time as it has been registered. It occurs to me that it might be possible in some circumstances for somebody to want to make an ordinary power of attorney capable of being turned into an enduring power of attorney. In other words, the instrument might operate during a period when a person is fully in command of his faculties and be designed to be extended after he lost his mental faculties. I wonder whether the provision to the effect that an enduring power of attorney shall not be effective until it is registered, is apt to deal with situations where one instrument is designed to deal both with ordinary powers of attorney and enduring powers of attorney? Is there a way to deal with that?

Deputy Woods asked whether there was a way to make this simpler. At present, whereas everyone wants to put all decisions, especially judicial ones, into the court of lowest competent jurisdiction in order to avoid costs — and no lawyer should be heard to say anything else — it is equally desirable to have a single central register of enduring powers of attorney. By consulting one register somebody could work out whether such a power of attorney exists. It would be a mistake to have regional or local registers which would complicate life a good deal. I do not know whether what Deputy Woods said about the powers of the Circuit Court could be married to the proposition that there should be a single register as well.

I do not intend to speak at great length on this stage. I want to consider in detail the need for any amendments to the Bill but that can more properly be done on Committee Stage. The principle of the Bill is admirable and subject to providing adequate safeguards and making whatever amendments we can to improve the Bill, my party gives it its wholehearted support.

Debate adjourned.