Frances Black
Industrial and Commercial Panel · Independent · Ireland
“If we lost, however, under the European Communities Act 1973 we could simply repeal that aspect of the legislation and maintain the goods ban, so there is absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. This is the approach Spain has taken.”
“By exempting these flows from the Bill, the Government is implementing a trade ban that deliberately omits the vast majority of Irish trade. It is consciously letting large companies providing tech, IT and other service-based trade off the hook. To me, that is a tragedy.”
“It was already the legal position of the Government of Ireland that we must ban trade with settlements. Of course, nothing changed in this period in EU law either. The EU treaties are unchanged.”
“It is intended to stay like that up until such point that a full ban is agreed at EU level, which as we know may never arrive. My colleague, Senator Higgins, will speak more on this aspect later. These obligations regarding services existed long before the ICJ advisory opinion in 2024.”
“I could not do any of it without all of those people I mentioned - I hope I have not forgotten somebody. My husband who is here has also been my rock, as has my family. It is the activists but it is also the Palestinian people who we are all here for. We cannot stop this work. We have to keep going. We have to never give up.”
“I will take a minute, if that is okay. I know everybody is anxious to see the match but I feel it is imperative I thank the people I have been working with for the last eight years who have stood by me.”
The complete record
Every one of 496 lines we hold for Frances Black, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 10.
“It is quite daunting, and we do not have the money to do it. It can be quite overwhelming to even consider something like that. It is terrible that you have to go and fight with these big record companies for what you created. It is very worrying. Low-income artists will simply not be able to match the resources for litigation that major corporations have in the event of any dispute regarding the distribution of royalties. The Government says that court orders are enforceable, and that is fine, but that is not a reason to send performers to court by default. If there are issues around enforceability, the answer is really to strengthen enforcement powers through low-cost specialist resolution mechanisms, instead of shifting the whole thing into litigation. It is important that certain questions are answered.”
“That is what is really worrying. This legislation purports to enshrine a 50-50 split in law, but the collection and distribution of public and broadcast performance royalties lies entirely in the hands of PPI, which is controlled by the huge record companies and major recording labels. There is no meaningful independent oversight of collection and distribution. That seems to be just fine with the Government, but it is very worrying. Artists do not know where that money is. They are not showing us the books. They are not showing us why they are only paying €3 million, when it should have been €6 million. The Minister of State knows, and I have said this many times in the House, that the artists who are performers - I include myself in all of this - are not people who are inclined to go to court. It is not something that is in us.”
“In practice, these rights are administered collectively through licensing, collection, matching and distribution. The disputes that have led to the CJEU ruling and, subsequently, to this Bill relate to rules and transparency, not individual performers arguing over small payments. The court is a blunt instrument to address these kinds of systemic issues. Thousands of Irish artists are not receiving the performance royalties they are legally entitled to, and I know many of them. Recorded Artists Actors Performers, RAAP, which is represented here today, believes they are receiving less than half of what they are entitled to, roughly €3 million instead of €6 million in 2024. That is outrageous. It is the big record companies, which are a multimillion euro industry, that are holding onto that money. There is no transparency around this.”
“We are the only country that has introduced it, and none of the other countries in the European Union have done so. We have not been given clear explanations as to why the vast experience of the controller of intellectual property is being ditched and replaced by almost 40 Circuit Court judges, who operate the length and breadth of Ireland, and most of whom will never have heard or tried a matter under copyright law in their entire legal careers. The Government simply tells us that this is on the advice of the Attorney General. This ignores the reality for most performers. They will not take Circuit Court cases because it is too expensive and risky. They will be priced out of their right to equitable remuneration. If there is a dispute, they will have no practical way to use their rights.”
“They would have nailed down equitable remuneration as a shared right, brought clarity around deductions by collecting bodies and put in place a workable collective system for performers. Without those changes, there is a real risk that the Bill gives performers a right on paper, but no rights in practice. It also makes disputes far more likely, which is a major concern. This brings me to the amendments I have tabled today. Another major issue with the Bill is the fallback to the Circuit Court in instances where there is a dispute over equitable remuneration. My amendments seek to address this. The Minister said that such disputes are rare and complex. If this is the case, that is exactly why we need a specialist, low-cost route to resolving disputes, not court proceedings. This is a huge change that is unique in the entire European Union.”
“I welcome the Minister of State. The first amendment I have tabled removes the Circuit Court as the default option for resolving disputes, and the second removes the provision in the Bill which removes the controller's role in dealing with disputes from section 208. I am concerned about what the Bill means in practice. I fully support implementing the CJEU ruling, but it must be done in a way that is workable and practical for performers. That is why I feel it is important. They have been waiting years for this. The Bill might outline a default remuneration of 50-50, but if people cannot enforce that right, then it is not a real right. I am disappointed that the Seanad voted down the amendments I introduced last week to address this because I believe they were practical fixes.”
“The Institutional Burials (Amendment) Bill 2022 seeks to expand and strengthen the powers granted to the State under the Act of 2022. The Bill's central aim is to ensure that the State can intervene appropriately in cases of suspected inappropriate or undocumented burials linked to institutions such as mother and baby homes, industrial schools or other institutional settings. The Government's decision to deny a Second Stage debate on this Bill is really disappointing and regrettable. The 2022 Act needs to be amended in order to be fit for purpose for other inappropriate institutional burial sites. It would be preferable for the Government to meaningfully engage and work with Senator Ruane to achieve outcomes we can all agree on, including equality, fairness and a dignified approach across all sites and for all survivors.”
“The special advocate for survivors, Ms Patricia Carey, recently called for urgent consideration to be given to identifying, preserving and marking in a dignified and agreed manner all remaining burial sites of children and adults who died in institutions to show that we are a modern, moral and kind nation that values and honours its dead. Ms Carey highlighted sites at Sean Ross Abbey, Bessborough and Castlepollard, where the burial grounds of the mothers, babies and children who died there are not known. She outlined how, from 1921 to 1998, over 15% of children born in institutions died, numbering over 9,000 children. These are horrifying numbers and our response to the deep trauma caused by the experience of survivors in these institutions must be highly sensitive to their needs and the needs of their families.”
“In recent weeks we have heard reports that additional infant human remains have been recovered from the site at Tuam. The Institutional Burials Act 2022 provides a legislative basis for interventions at institutional burial sites. It sets a very high legal threshold that, in practice, makes it difficult to authorise State-led interventions at institutional burial sites other than Tuam. The Act was drafted with Tuam in mind and several of the criteria for intervention are specifically referential to the context of Tuam, to the extent that other known or suspected institutional burial sites cannot meet them.”
“On behalf of the Civil Engagement Group, I would like to pass on my condolences on the passing of former Senator, Mary White. I also agree with Senator Stephenson that we should have a debate on eating disorders. That is a really good idea. We are scheduled to debate the Institutional Burials (Amendment) Bill 2022, in the name of my colleague, Senator Ruane, this evening. I understand that the Government is introducing a motion declining to give the Bill a Second Reading, which is really disappointing. I regret that I will not be able to attend the debate this evening due to prior commitments, but I want to highlight the importance of this debate. I commend Senator Ruane and my Civil Engagement Group colleagues on their ongoing work on the Bill.”
“(12) (a) The calculation of the division of the performer share of equitable remuneration between individual performers shall be carried out by a collective management organisation registered as a licensing body for performers’ property rights under section 280 in respect of a scheme that includes management of the right to equitable remuneration, (b) where there is more than one such licensing body and in default of agreement between them as to which of them should undertake the calculation, any such licensing body may apply to the Controller for an order determining which of them is best placed to carry out the calculation. The Controller shall determine the issue taking all relevant factors into consideration.".".”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 4, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: "(d) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (10): "(11) The right of the performer in subsection (1) shall be exercised by a collective management organisation representing performers, registered as a licensing body for performers’ property rights under section 286, subject always to the right of the performer at any time to easily and effectively opt-out of such collective management.”
“Will he give us some time and let us have a proper meeting with the Minister? I tried to get a meeting with the Minister. Unfortunately, he was not available. Will the Minister of State be courageous, accept these amendments and give us that bit more time? Then we can hash it all out on Report State. I just need that bit more time.”
“The Minister of State has the power to accept these amendments today and give us some time to discuss this going forward. It is the right thing to do. He knows it is the right thing to do. He can make a difference for the people I know well and work with, the artists I have worked with all my life. I have seen unbelievable music coming out of this country. We have put Ireland on the map when it comes to music. Anywhere we go - the US, Germany or anywhere in the world - we see how we are received as performers and artists. In fact, we have one of our top musicians in the Gallery - Paul Noonan from Bell X1, a phenomenal band that have travelled all over the world. The Minister of State has the power to change this and give us more time. We do not want to call votes on this.”
“This would remove ambiguity over who performed the allocation and prevent deadlock where multiple bodies could claim the task of collecting and ensuring the performers' share was allocated using an identified scheme-based process rather than being shaped by a bargaining power. If we are serious about creating a meaningful right for performers to their fair share of royalty payments, then we must provide a workable mechanism to achieve that. I hope the Minister of State will accept this amendment. It is very important. I would have liked to have met the Minister to discuss it but, unfortunately, he was not available.”
“At present and in practice, this allocation function has been assumed, unilaterally, by the producer side, PPI, and is carried out through the UK producer-controlled organisation, PPL. The difficulty is that the calculation is being carried out at additional expense without sufficient Irish performer data and matching capability, with the result that many performers are under-identified, underpaid or not paid at all. My amendment would make allocation auditable because the calculation would be carried out by a recognised performing licensing body under an appropriate scheme. This would be efficient because responsibility would be clearly assigned and harder to obstruct, given that any delays through institutional disagreement would be resolved by a neutral controller decision.”
“Performers will still retain autonomy under this amendment. In addition, my amendment places a clear statutory responsibility on an appropriate performer licensing body, namely, a CMO, for calculating how the performer share of equitable remuneration is divided between individual performers. The CMO would operate a scheme that ensured the management of equitable remuneration and provide a statutory mechanism that designated who calculated the allocation. It would prevent stalemate by giving the controller a narrowly defined tie-break role where multiple bodies were eligible to calculate the allocation and could not agree. This is the practical distribution point of royalties. A right to a share is entirely meaningless unless there are workable mechanisms to allocate that share to real people who deserve it.”
“Similarly, regarding litigation in situations where there is no agreement on equitable remuneration in the collection of royalties, individual performers and musicians cannot realistically enforce or administer equitable remuneration in a single payment in every single instance of the use of his or her performance. This is unworkable in practice. Default collective management is a practical mechanism that makes the right effective. It moves performers from an optional and fragmented enforcement model to a model that works at a national scale and reduces the risk that market power or complexity leaves individual performers unable to benefit from the right. Importantly, there is also an opt-out clause which ensures the system remains performer-led and rights-based, rather than locking performers into a structure they do not want.”
“That is worrying. Money should have gone to performers, but it has not. There is no real transparency. That is a real concern. The Bill ignores that issue. Can the Minister of State commit to reviewing existing legislation to address the gaping lacuna? I have worked with many artists who, without doubt, have put Ireland on the map when it comes to music internationally. They are not getting the proper rights they deserve. Amendment No. 5 would ensure the performer's right to equitable remuneration under section 208 is exercised by default through a collective management organisation representing performers, registered as a licensing body for performers with property rights under section 286. It provides an explicit safeguard that a performer may, at any time, opt out of CMO representation easily and effectively.”
“However, a default split will not remove disputes if the system allows for unilateral deductions and provides no reliable method for calculating individual performer allocations. In this regard, I would like to voice my support for amendment No. 2 in the names of Senators McDowell and Conway, to substitute the term "reasonable collection costs" for "justifiable and documented costs". To protect the equitable remuneration rights of the performer, it is critically important that there is transparency in royalty collection. I will give the Minister of State an example. Recorded Artists Actors Performers, RAAP, have told me that performance royalties by PPI, an organisation representing record labels, distributed €3 million to performers in 2024 but RAAP, which represents all of the artists, believes that sum should have been €6 million.”
“In fact, it diminishes performer protections because it requires prohibitively costly individual litigation to make the right to equitable remuneration real. The Minister spoke about a new process for the agreement of division between producers and performers. If an agreement fails, the State must clearly lay out the process to ensure sharing happens. That is what is really important. The Bill tells performers they have a right, but it gives them no realistic means of obtaining that right unless they litigate individually. This avenue will be unavailable to the vast majority of performers due to the associated costs. The Minister also stated that default splits of 50:50 will make disputes unlikely and the court will only be used in exceptional circumstances.”
“I have submitted this amendment because I am concerned about how performers can meaningfully secure their right to equitable remuneration under the Bill. Artists and musicians are some of the most isolated and vulnerable workers. Without effective practices available to them that are supported on a statutory footing, I am worried that artists and musicians will be left without workable protections so that they can fairly receive royalties for their work. On Second Stage, the Minister stated that the Bill restores full compliance with EU and international law. However, compliance is not just about stating a right. EU law requires rights to be effective in practice and, unfortunately, the Bill as drafted does not achieve that.”
“Specifically, the right of performers' CMOs to manage performers' rights under the directive must be preserved, including RAAP, where it holds the necessary mandates. The right to equitable remuneration cannot be vindicated by individual performers dealing one by one with the record labels. An effective and affordable default mechanism is crucial to making the system operable and avoiding the delays and expense of litigation. This can be achieved by simply retaining the existing remit of the Controller of Intellectual Property. I thank the Minister very much. I would love to continue this conversation with him and his officials and to have constructive discussion and debate focused on practical implementation, safeguards against inequities, and measures that will deliver real benefits, particularly to artists and creators.”
“Ireland is already a complete outlier in Europe in the distribution of performance royalties. In every other member state of the European Union, there is a fair and transparent system where CMOs work consensually to collect the single payment due to performers and producers whose recordings are played on radio or TV or in a bar or restaurant. A performer CMO then receives the share of the performers and calculates and distributes the individual payments to the performers. There are small variations between countries but the model is broadly the same. There is transparency and parity of esteem. There is no real controversy. The system works; it just does not work in Ireland. As required by EU law, will the Minister ensure this legislation is revised to properly complete the transposition of the directive?”
“It must also specify that the calculation of the share of the individual performers will be carried out by a licensing body for performers rights with certain necessary credentials and that if there is more than one such body and they cannot agree which one will carry out the calculations, the controller shall designate the body to conduct the role. I will keep engaging with RAAP and other sector representatives in the coming weeks. I seek clarity from the Minister on why this is considered a minor change, how reciprocation will work in practice under the international treaties, and whether the Circuit Court path will be affordable and accessible for individual creators. I also want to see clear transitional arrangements to minimise disruption for current licensees and meaningful consultation before Committee Stage.”
“That is what is really important here. The section also addresses costs and time limits and provides for appeals. This is a well designed system which gives the controller a flexible, supported and effective way to resolve disputes, free of the overwhelming disadvantage of litigation. Second, we need certain basic provisions inserted into the Bill to offset the monopoly that record labels have over the collection process and to ensure remuneration is shared equitably between both sets of rights holders. To achieve this, the legislation must ensure the management of the rights of performers will be carried out by the CMO representing performers, which is registered with the Controller of Intellectual Property, with an opt-out for any performer who chooses to opt out.”
“Strengthened governance, data integrity and equitable distribution will help Ireland remain a competitive and attractive place for cultural production and innovation. The amendments should be proportionate, transparent and inclusive, accommodating smaller creators as well as larger enterprises. I will specify which amendments I believe are absolutely necessary. First, the role of the Controller of Intellectual Property in resolving section 208 disputes must be retained. The controller acts as an independent statutory office operating under the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Sections 363 to 367 of the Act already allow the controller to permit an entity like RAAP to be a party to proceedings in a section 208 dispute and to refer the dispute to an arbitrator, especially where specialist knowledge is involved.”
“Under the new rules, if that artist has a dispute over royalties for a particular live performance or broadcast, they may need to pursue it in a Circuit Court rather than with a specialist regulator. In addition, their collective management organisation, CMO, is not authorised to act on their behalf. It must be done on an individual basis. This will undoubtedly discourage them from pursuing claims that they are rightly owed. That is my biggest concern here. The intention of the Bill should be strengthen rights and ensure fair pay for artists and others. We must ensure pathways remain accessible for individuals with modest earnings and that their rights can be vindicated by the CMO representing them. In building a modern rights system we must balance the rights of creators with the needs of audiences and industry participants.”
“As other speakers have said, there are legitimate concerns about the speed and cost of the courts. It is unusual that this change affects only sound recordings, while all others area of dispute resolution in copyright matters remain under the remit of the controller. We must ensure that this shift does not create a barrier for ordinary musicians and creators who rely on timely decisions and affordable processes. What does this mean in practice? To illustrate what this means for a performer, let us consider a singer-songwriter who releases an album with songs covered by multiple performers and produced by a small label. The royalties from public performances and broadcasts are managed through a collective system, with the opportunity to have any dispute handled by arbitration, which keeps costs down and resolves matters quickly.”
“Second, it builds on our international obligations under the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty and the Rome Convention, allowing people from other countries to vindicate their rights in Ireland and Irish nationals to vindicate their rights abroad. I would love to get a little more clarity on reciprocation in practice because that is going to be really important. Third, it establishes an equal sharing of royalties between producers and performers for sound recordings, addressing the decline in performers' shares that followed major label changes. This aims to make the split fairer and easier to enforce, benefiting both performers and producers. Fourth, the plan to move sound recording disputes to the Circuit Court is based on the idea that the controller lacks the necessary judicial competence for these cases.”
“This is a substantial move and I would love to hear a bit more of a detailed explanation from the Minister to get a really good understanding of it because there are real concerns about the cost to creators if disputes go to the Circuit Court. That could deter individual artists from pursuing their rights. The Bill also moves from group action through representative bodies to individual cases, which is a fundamental change that could affect smaller creators. I will say a little about the four aims of the Bill. It fully transposes the 2006 rental and lending directive, which affirms that authors and performers have an unwaivable right to fair remuneration and aligns with EU law that fair pay must be respected.”
“The Minister is very welcome to the House. As others have said, this Bill is short but it signals a major shift in how copyright is handled in Ireland. My aim today is to outline the key principles at stake, explain the practical implications for artists and rights holders and show how the amendments should align with international best practice and the public interest. As others have said, the RAAP and PPI case raised questions referred to the European Court of Justice about funding and distribution rights. Some describe this as a tidy-up or technical fix, but in truth the Bill changes how disputes over music and sound recordings are decided. A core change is shifting oversight from the Controller of Intellectual Property to the Circuit Court.”
“(3) The review shall be conducted using existing resources within the Department of Health and should include consultation with: (a) individuals with lived experiences, service users and advocacy groups; (b) mental health professionals and service providers; (c) the Mental Health Commission; (d) any other persons or bodies the Minister considers appropriate. (4) A report on the findings of the review shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas within 24 months of the commencement of this Act.”.”
“I move amendment No. 336: In page 149, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “Review of procedures dealing with complaints in registered mental health services 176. (1) The Minister shall, within 12 months of the commencement of this Act, conduct a review of existing procedures dealing with complaints that are available to persons accessing registered mental health services. (2) The review shall— (a) examine the accessibility, independence, transparency and effectiveness of current procedures dealing with complaints, (b) consider the feasibility of establishing an independent mechanism for receiving and addressing complaints relating to mental health services, and (c) identify any legislative or administrative reforms that may enhance the independence and responsiveness of procedures dealing with complaints.”
“I thank the Minister of State very much. I totally agree with her. I remember there was an older woman whose teeth went missing and then she was given somebody else's false teeth. It is awful. Is there any idea about the timeline for the secondary legislation? Does the Minister of State have an idea about when or how it will progress?”
“We have to consider that it could be any one of our loved ones accessing mental health services tomorrow. Would we not want to have those safeguards in place for our complaints to be independently and appropriately investigated and dealt with? I am glad to hear this is something the Minister of State is looking at for secondary legislation. I would love to know a little bit more about what she is thinking around the timeline because she obviously feels that is very important. There are certain issues she feels cannot be put into this legislation, which she thinks are likely to go into others. Could she say a little bit about the secondary legislation and if there is a timeline and what her thoughts are around that?”
“I also want to say that as in all walks of life, there will always be a few bad apples or people who are not as great. There is probably a majority who are brilliant but there are one or two who are not so good, and we have to highlight that. When we are dealing with people who have a huge amount of power and other people in very vulnerable circumstances, it is absolutely essential that there is a mechanism to weed out bad practices. That is really what we are trying to do here. That mechanism also protects all the wonderful staff who are doing their best because it means they do not get tarred with the same brush. It is also important that we consider that any one of our loved ones could be accessing mental health services tomorrow. There are so many people we all know. We all have somebody in our family; there is no doubt about it.”
“She said: I felt I didn’t stand a chance against an institution hell bent on protecting itself. I often wonder how different it might have been had I an advocate to support me or if an independent complaints procedure existed. I wonder how many more of me there are. Would an independent service start seeing patterns? Would it allow for open dialogue and possible changes? I don’t know, but it is certainly worth considering. These are comments from those who have had distressing lived experiences. Again, it is really important that I note them. I really want to highlight the many incredible mental health professionals and services we have in this country who do incredibly difficult and important work. I have to pay tribute to them all because it is very difficult.”
“Breda O'Toole spoke powerfully about the difference an independent complaints mechanism could have made for her. If the Minister of State does not mind, I will quote what she said: If an independent Complaints Mechanism had existed during the 23 years I spent under psychiatric care, I would not have lost the pivotal, most productive period of my life. Such a mechanism would have provided me with a way to voice my concerns—not only about the treatment I received, but also about the distressing mistreatment and abuse I witnessed among other patients Similarly, Nicola Clare, another of our experts by experience at the audiovisual room briefing, spoke about her experience of actually attempting to make a complaint about her care using the existing mechanisms. She described it as "exhausting, isolating, traumatising and impossibly hard".”
“I thank the Minister of State very much. It is great. I really do appreciate her engagement. It does mean a lot. I want to speak to the amendment if that is okay because it is important to put on the record. While I covered a lot of the points already during my discussion on the other amendment on the need for an independent complaints mechanism, I want to re-emphasise how important I believe an independent complaints mechanism to be. As I often do, I want to return to the lived experience voice because those are the voices that should be heard. In actual fact, that is probably why I became a legislator. To hear and be able to represent those voices is very important, and they should be heard today in this Chamber as we look at the Bill. I will come back to the audiovisual room presentation on the Bill.”
“If only she could have been heard that time, it could have changed everything for her. She went in voluntarily. She volunteered herself in but under the circumstances it was just horrific for her. I thank the Minister of State and appreciate her being here.”
“While those who are involuntarily detained have a review board tribunal hearing, this hearing only reviews the appropriateness of the involuntary admission order. It does not properly examine other aspects of care, including involuntary treatment decisions. The recent deeply troubling revelations from Bloomfield Hospital underscore the urgent need for an independent complaints mechanism in mental health services. That is a perfect example. Despite receiving a 94% compliance rating from the Mental Health Commission for three consecutive years, serious and systemic abuse of residents was uncovered at that facility. The stark disconnect between regulatory compliance scores and the lived realities of patients highlights the limitations of current oversight mechanisms. I feel for Juanita.”
“An independent complaints process can identify systemic issues early, leading to service improvements and better outcomes for individuals and communities. People with lived experience and their supporters often report fear of retaliation or a sense of futility when raising concerns within the same service that provides their care. An independent complaints mechanism would provide a safe, impartial route for redress, ensuing all voices are heard and protected. I know the Mental Health Commission provides overall oversight of approved centres but does not really investigate individual complaints. The HSE's Your Service, Your Say functions as a service-level feedback system offering an accessible first point of contact for comments and resolutions.”
“She was never given a complaint form, email address or clear guidance. Instead, she was told to write her concerns on a piece of paper. She did so but no one read it or followed up with her and she felt completely ignored, silenced and powerless. The powerlessness is really difficult. It must be awful when you are feeling like you are in a powerless place. That is not acceptable. I may also speak to this later when discussing my own amendment but I heard in the audiovisual room of mothers with lived experience trying to make a complaint. Again, what we heard was really unacceptable. I will provide a few reasons an independent complaints mechanism is so necessary. When people feel safe to raise concerns and know they will be heard, it fosters trust in services and supports recovery. I know that through my own work with the RISE Foundation.”
“Charles O'Mahony strongly called for in their human rights analysis of the draft heads of Bill in collaboration with Mental Health Reform. Dr. O'Mahony said in a recent audiovisual room briefing that independent advocacy and an independent complaints mechanism are two of the most basic safeguards for people involuntarily detained in mental health services and that an independent complaints mechanism would allow for systemic learning and prevent reoccurrence of problems. Without these safeguards, we risk continuing a culture where people feel powerless and unheard in the system that is meant to support them. I also want to turn briefly to the case of Juanita, whose story I read out in a recent debate. The House will recall Juanita asked several times for information on how to make a formal complaint.”
“The Mental Health Commission, as quoted in the pre-legislative scrutiny report, stated: There should be a culture of complaining being a good thing, [which I think is really important] because that is how you improve the system. The advocates would help people to complain when they need to. An independent mechanism is all the more important in mental health settings, given that persons using mental health services are at increased risk of coercion and restriction of their human rights. Ultimately, the subcommittee recommended the establishment of an independent, fully funded and resourced complaints mechanism for mental services because there is no other cohort of people accessing health treatment who may be denied their liberty. This was something our good friends Dr. Fiona Morrissey and Dr.”
“These are very important amendments. A report examining the existing complaints process and setting out recommendations for strengthening it as requested under amendment No. 312 would be really welcome. I have a later amendment around the need for an independent complaints process. At present, the HSE's Your Service, Your Say mechanism functions only as a basic service-level feedback tool. It was repeatedly raised to us during the pre-legislative scrutiny that there is a need for a direct complaints mechanism in relation to mental health treatment that is entirely independent from the current internal HSE complaints mechanism.”
“That is all positive. I am happy to hear that. When a child is 16 or over and in the care of the State, Tusla are informed but when a child is 16 or over and in the care of the parents or guardians, it appears that Tusla does not seem to be informed. I would like some clarity on the reason for the difference in approach.”
“Such a measure would strengthen the provision and ensure compliance with best practice and children's rights standards. Is the Minister of State open to considering my proposal?”
“Amendment No. 309 is very positive, in that the centre is required to explicitly inform the child and any other relevant parties about the application of restricted practices, gather views and record those views. However, I have a concern. When a child is 16 years of age or older and in the care of the State, Tusla must also be informed, but when a child is 16 years or older and in the care of parents or guardians, it appears that they do not need to be informed. I want to get an understanding of the reason for that difference in approach. Would it be helpful to make it explicit that any information provided to the child about applications of restricted practices, as required under amendment No. 309, should be delivered in an accessible and age-appropriate manner?”