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 5 of 10.
“(2) The Mental Health Commission shall conduct a comprehensive review of the use of sedatives across all psychiatric institutions, with particular attention to the risks of over-medication and the potential use of such medications as chemical restraints. Following this review, the Commission shall develop and issue clear guidelines governing their appropriate use.”.”
“I move amendment No. 300: In page 94, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “Chemical restraint 88. (1) A chemical restraint shall not be applied in respect of a child receiving treatment in a registered acute mental health centre or designated centre unless— (a) the restraint is ordered and initiated by a relevant health professional, (b) the restraint is applied to the child by a relevant health professional or a specified person under the direct supervision of a relevant health professional, (c) the application of such restraint is determined by the relevant health professional, in accordance with regulations made under section 58 , to be necessary where there is an immediate threat of serious harm to the child concerned or to another person, and, (d) the chemical restraint concerned complies with regulations under section 58 .”
“I am in agreement with my colleagues. I want to know what alternative locations or other place is envisaged under this amendment for a child who has been involuntarily admitted. There is a bit of a concern. If it is, for example, a hospital for their physical health, they may not be in a position to return immediately to the approved centre because their order has expired. In cases where a child has been transferred to another place, the child will be in an approved centre despite being involuntarily detained, meaning that the Mental Health Commission would not be regulating the actual physical environment they are being held in. I want to know what oversight or monitoring of these places will be in place, given the safeguards that apply in approved centres. What input will be sought from parents or guardians in such cases?”
“I move amendment No 247a: In page 84, line 37, after “ Chapter 3 ,” to insert the following: “consent in this case means consent of the person obtained freely without threats or inducements where adequate information in a form and language that the person can understand on the nature, purpose and likely effects and potential side-effects of the treatment concerned has been given to the person,”.”
“I move amendment No 246a: In page 84, line 29, after “admission,” to insert the following: “including adequate information in a form and language that the person can understand on the nature, purpose, likely effects and potential side-effects of the treatment concerned,”.”
“It is wonderful that there are authorised officers now. It is really powerful but unfortunately it allows for gardaí to still bring people to centres. I imagine that it can be very traumatic. If I have an adult child who is having an episode and I ring the Garda and a garda comes, he may not understand what is going on and could react in a retraumatising way. There has to be some form of safety for that individual. I question whether this issue should be reviewed and I think there should be some kind of training for gardaí. It is important for the individual having an episode and for the family as well. It is important that this is considered. I am worried that this amendment still allows for gardaí to come and take that person away.”
“Can assurance be given that these points are covered elsewhere in the Bill? While the amendment states the executive must furnish psychiatric reports, there is no real mention of an independent review, access by the child or his or her representatives or an opportunity to challenge the findings of the reports. All of these are essential for procedural fairness. Could we be given some clarity on that?”
“I need clarification on this as well. On the occasion that the individual was treated badly, the garda was not trained to deal with somebody having a mental health episode and was therefore very aggressive. The young man was retraumatised. He was involved with an organisation whose name I cannot remember. It was a really bad scenario for him and he went into a very dark place. Is there any oversight or review that could be conducted in such cases to ensure everything was done properly and to ensure continuous learning from the Garda’s point of view? That is really important. Amendment No. 238 does not explicitly reference the child’s right to be heard or to have legal representation during proceedings. Can the Minister of State provide more information on how these rights are protected?”
“I want clarity on amendment No. 243, just for my own understanding. Amendment No. 243 covers the bringing of a child subject to an involuntary admission order to an acute mental health centre by gardaí. Will any safeguards, training or guidance be made available to ensure Garda involvement is used only as a last resort? It should be trauma-informed to minimise distress. The reason I say this is that a few years ago, when I was on the mental health committee, I had a meeting with a young man who was having a really bad episode. He was in a bad way in the sense that he was lashing out. The gardaí were not really informed as to what was going on. They just thought he was having a mental health episode. He was treated absolutely horrifically on one occasion. On another, he was treated with wonderful empathy and understanding by the gardaí.”
“I want to ask about amendment No. 217, which concerns District Court renewal orders and the requirement that a child be examined by a consultant psychiatrist within 48 hours prior to the renewal. In the original text, a consultant psychiatrist was expressly disqualified from conducting this examination if he or she had been involved in the child's care or treatment, ensuring that the assessment was carried out by an independent clinician. Why is that provision being removed? The consultant psychiatrist in question should be independent, as an additional safeguard for the rights of the child. I would like a bit more information on amendment No. 217.”
“I move amendment No. 187: In page 75, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(4) Where a child is admitted to an adult acute mental health centre pursuant to an involuntary admission order made under section 66 , the Executive shall ensure, in so far as is practicable, that this period shall be no longer than 72 hours before the child is transferred to an age-appropriate centre.”.”
“It would be so powerful if we could put something like this in the legislation to protect future generations of children. I will leave it on that point because I recognise that, in fairness, the Minister of State has spoken a lot about this. I just wanted to put how I feel on the record.”
“Ideally, this practice should be completely prohibited. That said, my amendment is trying to allow for the very rare and exceptional emergency situations the Minister of State referenced when placing a child in an adult unit is the only immediate option, for example where there is an urgent risk to the child's life or safety and no child-appropriate bed is available. In such cases, it is essential that the law, at a minimum, include strict limits and clear procedures to ensure that these placements are truly a last resort. In these cases I believe there is no justification for a child to ever remain in an adult unit for more than 72 hours, which is three full days. During that time there must be a clear and active obligation on the relevant services to find a suitable age-appropriate placement.”
“As I said before, I have concerns about the fact that these figures could possibly rise again if someone else who comes into the Minister of State's role does not have the same compassion and understanding that she has and might possibly not monitor the figures as closely as she does. I know she said no clinician wants a child to be placed in an adult unit. I am sure she is right about that, but the reality is that the numbers were high when the Minister of State first came into the role. I am concerned that they may become significantly higher again in future if there is no real legislation protecting against this practice. The Minister of State noted her concerns about a 72-hour window, in the sense that it could make the practice more commonplace. Again, I totally understand where she is coming from.”
“I have tabled amendment No. 187. I totally understand that this has already been discussed quite a bit so I do not want to spend a huge amount of time on it. I know this is something the Minister of State feels extremely strongly about. That said, while I can see where she is coming from and I acknowledge the personal story she told recently, I also want to put this on the record. I hope she can see where I am coming from and my concerns at this point. As I have said before, I fully acknowledge and applaud the Trojan work the Minister of State and the Department have done to significantly decrease the number of children admitted to adult units in recent years. I know it is not an easy thing to do. It is something that I am sure has made a real difference to many young people.”
“(2) The Mental Health Commission shall conduct a comprehensive review of the use of sedatives across all psychiatric institutions, with particular attention to the risks of over-medication and the potential use of such medications as chemical restraints. Following this review, the Commission shall develop and issue clear guidelines governing their appropriate use.”.”
“I move amendment No. 154: In page 69, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “Chemical Restraint 57. (1) A chemical restraint shall not be applied in respect of a person receiving treatment in a registered acute mental health centre or designated centre unless— (a) the restraint is ordered and initiated by a relevant health professional, (b) the restraint is applied to the person by a relevant health professional or a specified person under the direct supervision of a relevant health professional, (c) the application of such restraint is determined by the relevant health professional, in accordance with regulations made under section 58 , to be necessary for the administering of treatment to the person concerned, and (d) the chemical restraint concerned complies with regulations under section 58.”
“I move amendment No. 150: In page 67, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “(3) Electro-convulsive therapy shall not be administered to a person who has been involuntarily admitted unless the person has: (a) a relevant decision-making representative; (b) a valid and relevant advance healthcare directive; (c) a relevant designated healthcare representative appointed under an advance healthcare directive relevant to the treatment concerned, and that representative consents, or the advance healthcare directive specifies that there is consent, to electro-convulsive therapy.”.”
“I totally hear that the Minister of State is committed to making this provision, particularly after listening to people describe their lived experience, because I know how she works. Would she be willing to have a chat about amendment No. 150 in future?”
“Therefore, enshrining a legal requirement for informed consent to ECT would bring mental health law into closer alignment with the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act and Ireland's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. My amendment is not a call for the complete elimination of ECT, but a call for ensuring that the use of ECT is governed by the highest standards of rights, dignity and consent, which I keep repeating. Respecting a person's autonomy must be the foundation of any therapeutic intervention, especially one as invasive and controversial as ECT.”
“After undergoing ECT, she lost the ability to remember music or play the piano, which was a devastating outcome for someone who had earned a university degree in music and worked professionally as a piano teacher. Sadly, her story is not unique. While I was a member of the sub-committee, I heard from individuals who lived in fear that ECT could be administered against their explicit wishes if they were later deemed to lack capacity. This fear is not unfounded, given the current legal ambiguity around consent and capacity in mental health treatment. Without a clear statutory requirement for informed consent, there is a real risk that people's expressed preferences could be overridden.”
“I welcome the proposed ban on the use of electroconvulsive therapy on children. I commend the Minister of State for taking this important step to protect young people. To fully uphold the principle of autonomy, this legislation should go further and clearly state that ECT may only be administered to adults with their informed and voluntary consent. This is an important safeguard. Many individuals with lived experience have described ECT as extremely traumatic, often accompanied by serious and lasting side effects such as memory loss, cognitive impairment and chronic pain. One of the speakers who participated in a recent briefing held in the audiovisual room, Breda O'Toole, shared a particularly poignant account.”
“This practice would have placed us at odds with the principles of autonomy, due process and respect for legal capacity, as enshrined in the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act and international human rights standards, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I thank the Minister of State and commend her sincerely on taking my amendment.”
“I warmly thank the Minister of State for accepting my amendment. It is fantastic that she has proposed the removal of this provision in line with my amendment. It is so important to remove the provision allowing a psychiatrist to administer involuntary treatment for up to 72 hours to individuals who either have decision-making capacity or an advance healthcare directive refusing treatment, pending a High Court review. This provision poses a serious risk to individual rights. Administering mind-altering treatment before a judicial review could undermine a person's ability to participate meaningfully in legal proceedings, potentially impairing his or her capacity to communicate his or her will and preferences or challenge the intervention.”
“Ideally, this function would be supported by a statutory independent advocacy service, as we mentioned, or a dedicated complaints mechanism, both of which are urgently needed and would probably be more appropriate than a High Court case. However, in the absence of these critical protections, a High Court review has to be available as a backstop to ensure that individuals are not left without recourse or representation in such vulnerable circumstances. At the end of the day, it is just a matter of basic human rights, dignity and justice.”
“In practice, individuals may remain under involuntary treatment for extended periods without access to decision supports, legal representation or independent advocacy. This creates a legal and ethical vacuum where some of the most vulnerable individuals in the mental health system are left without adequate protection or recourse. This situation is not only out of step with Ireland's obligations under the CRPD; it also undermines the principles of autonomy, dignity and least restrictive care that should underpin all mental health legislation. Given the gravity of involuntary treatment involving coercive interventions that can significantly impact on a person's rights and well-being, it is imperative there is a timely external review of such decisions, particularly when decision supports have not yet been appointed.”
“The absence of timely independent oversight means that individuals may be subject to prolonged coercive treatment without any meaningful mechanism to challenge or review the necessity, proportionality or appropriateness of that treatment. The reliance on a second consultant psychiatrist without any requirement for independent legal or rights-based scrutiny does not constitute a sufficient safeguard. While clinical reviews are important, they are not a substitute for external rights-based oversight. They do not guarantee that the individual's will and preferences are being identified, respected or upheld, nor do they provide a forum for the person to be heard or represented. Moreover, the delays commonly experienced in the Circuit Court system exacerbate this problem.”
“Individuals who lack capacity may be subjected to prolonged involuntary treatment without any independent oversight of whether their will and preferences are being identified, respected or upheld during this period. This could be concerning from a human rights perspective. It should be noted that section 50 currently allows for those lacking capacity, without access to decision supports, to be treated well beyond the treatment window pending a Circuit Court decision relating to decision supports. During this period, the only safeguard in place is a three-monthly review by a second consultant psychiatrist. This arrangement is wholly inadequate and falls far short of what is required under international human rights standards.”
“I will speak to the section, just for the record. It is essential that there is an independent review mechanism for cases in which a person deemed to lack capacity and without access to decision supports is subjected to involuntary treatment beyond the treatment window, be that 21 days or 42 days. This safeguard is particularly critical in light of the absence of the statutory right to independent advocacy and the lack of an independent complaints mechanism within mental health services. Crucially, the mental health tribunal or review board is limited in this remit. It is empowered to assess the legality of the initial involuntary admission but not the treatment decisions that follow. This creates a significant accountability gap in practice due to lengthy delays in the Circuit Court system.”
“I move amendment No. 126: In page 64, lines 22 and 23, to delete “, other than treatment provided under section 48, 50 or 51 ,” and substitute the following: “, unless such treatment is immediately necessary for the protection of life of that person or that of another person,”.”
“A clearly defined and enforceable timeframe is crucial to ensure that the system functions with transparency, accountability and full respect for human rights, and that individuals get the supports that they are entitled to as quickly as possible. As mentioned previously, the 2024 Bill originally required that these applications be made before any involuntary treatment could begin. As such, a 72-hour window for submitting a decision support application strikes a pragmatic balance between clinical realities and the imperative to uphold individuals' autonomy and rights.”
“Amendment No. 126 seeks to ensure that applications for decision supports be made as quickly as possible while noting that an allowance can be made in circumstances where it is necessary for the protection of life. Amendment No. 127 is similar to Labour Party amendments Nos. 121 and 125. This amendment requires a 72-hour deadline for applications for decision supports for people being involuntarily treated to be made. I note and welcome the Government amendment that states that these applications should be happening as soon as practicable. That is important but, without a clear deadline for these applications, there is too much subjectivity.”
“I move amendment No. 113: In page 62, line 38, after “completed” to insert the following: “if such treatment is immediately necessary for the protection of life of that person or that of another person”.”
“I move amendment No. 106: In page 61, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(5) Where a person has been assessed as lacking capacity, further regular reviews of the person’s capacity shall be conducted throughout their subsequent treatment, at least once every 7 days, by the consultant psychiatrists or by another mental healthcare professional involved in the care of that person.”.”
“The work that has been done on this so far is great. We have come a long way. I just want to put as many protections in place as possible for voluntary patients. That is why this particular piece is so important.”
“This transparency not only supports informed decision-making but also reinforces the message that their experiences are valid and worth addressing. Time and again research has shown that strong, trusting relationships between clinicians and patients lead to significantly better clinical outcomes. Finally, I just want to note that these same changes should also be made to the relevant section for children. The reason I feel it is really important to put all of that on the record is because the briefing in the audiovisual room was very powerful. When we hear people giving their lived experiences it is really important that we get that on the record and we have to hear those voices. It is just really vital that we hear those voices.”
“Similarly, another of the speakers at the audiovisual room briefing, namely Breda O'Toole, author of the incredible memoir Unseen , developed a tremor and was incorrectly diagnosed with Parkinson's when it was a side effect of her medication. Breda spoke strikingly of the difference she found in the transparency and attention given to side effects of her cancer care, compared with her psychiatric care. Providing clear information upfront about potential side effects is important for many reasons. At its core, it helps build a clinical relationship grounded in trust. When patients understand what to expect and feel confident that any concerns they raise will be taken seriously, they are more likely to engage openly with their care.”
“I see the legislation currently states they should be made aware of likely effects but it needs to be more explicit in making people aware of potential side effects in the same way people have the right to this information in relation to their physical healthcare. I want to be clear this is not about being anti-medication. It is about ensuring people are empowered with the information they need to make informed decisions about their care. That is the fundamental principle of good healthcare and respecting individual autonomy. Returning to the example of Mary Ann Kenny, she suffered terrible physical side effects from her medications while she was in hospital. However, because the potential side effects were not made clear to her, she did not feel comfortable speaking about them to staff members.”
“That is why it is important to make the issue of consent in relation to voluntary patients explicit. At the same time, I remain open to other ways of embedding this principle and strengthening protections for voluntary patients. I have heard people describe feeling like they were involuntary in all but name because if they ever declined medication, they would be threatened with being regraded as involuntary. I do not think that is right or acceptable. I will touch on another item of information which it is vital that both voluntary and involuntary persons receive in relation to their care. That is information about potential side effects. This change should also be made in the relevant section for involuntary persons.”
“Mary Ann Kenny, author of the powerful memoir The Episode , spoke powerfully at a briefing in the audiovisual room and has written about the profound sense of coercion she experienced during her time in hospital, despite being a voluntary patient throughout. She described feeling punished by the experience and said it left her more traumatised than even the devastating loss of her husband. This is not something any of us want to be saying about our mental health services. I acknowledge unequivocally the dedication and compassion of many staff working in those services. I am very aware of the amazing people who work in the area of mental health but we must also confront the reality that coercive practices still occur. There is no doubt about that. Anything we can do to reduce and prevent them is not only worthwhile but necessary.”
“Many individuals receiving voluntary inpatient mental health care frequently report feeling they have little or no genuine choice about their care. Many voluntary patients report feeling pressure to accept treatment under threat of it being made involuntary, which undermines the validity of their consent. The pervasive threat of coercion and the possibility of forced treatment leads many to experience their stay as involuntary in practice, even when formally classified as voluntary. When we were looking at the draft heads of Bill, there was a separate category, namely the intermediate category. Unfortunately, that has been removed. It is important we are as explicit as possible so patients in this setting understand nobody has the right to use coercion to force them to do something they do not want to do.”
“However, one amendment I wished to make was to include a definition of "consent" to that provided for in the section on involuntary treatment, to ensure voluntary patient were made aware their consent in such cases mean consent "obtained freely without threats or inducements where adequate information in a form and language that the person can understand" is provided. I take on board the Minister of State's previous statement to the effect that she does: ... not believe we need to state that consent to treatment for voluntary admitted people must be given free without threats or inducements because this is already the basis of the understanding of consent in common law. I accept that but will outline the importance of explaining this clearly to people in voluntary care.”
“Amendments Nos. 104b and 104c were part of the grouping taken on Tuesday evening but, like today, I lost track of the numbers, so I did not get to speak properly to the matters to which they relate. I get very confused sometimes with all the amendments, so please bear with me. I will speak to section 42 and outline why these changes are so important. For the section to require that voluntary patients be provided with clear information about their rights is an important provision to help safeguard those rights. Ensuring that individuals are informed of their entitlement to leave and to consent or refuse treatment during voluntary admission is particularly significant and welcome.”
“I move amendment No. 104c: In page 59, line 38, after “procedure,” to insert the following: “including adequate information in a form and language that the person can understand on the nature, purpose, likely effects and potential side-effects of the treatment concerned,”.”
“I move amendment No. 104b: In page 59, line 36, after “admission,” to insert the following: “and that consent in this case means consent of the person obtained freely without threats or inducements where adequate information in a form and language that the person can understand on the nature, purpose and likely effects and potential side-effects of the treatment concerned has been given to the person,””
“They are also helpful to identify patterns of overuse or misuse and contribute to broader service improvement. They also align with rights-based principles. A default review mechanism respects the principle that coercive powers must also be subject to independent scrutiny even if the person is no longer detained. It supports vulnerable groups. Automatic reviews particularly benefit those with limited literacy or language barriers and those without access to advocacy groups, who are most likely to fall through the cracks under an opt-in model. Will the Minister of State accept amendment No. 104a?”
“This approach removes the procedural burden from individuals who may still be recovering or who may lack the support or awareness to be able to act within a strict 14-day window. I have real concerns that it is overly burdensome to expect a person who has just been through the trauma of the involuntary detention process to make contact in writing to organise their hearing. This may be why the numbers are so low. It is also important to bear in mind that many people who have had their involuntary status revoked remain in hospital on a voluntary basis. We can all understand how difficult it would be for people to contact the commission in writing to organise a tribunal while they are still in hospital. Reviews following revocation can reveal whether the original detention was appropriate.”
“According to the Mental Health Commission's annual report for 2024, there were 1,880 involuntary admission orders, of which 52% were revoked before a tribunal hearing took place. Of these 1,880 cases, only 26 hearings went ahead at the written request of the person. In its audit of approved centres, the Mental Health Commission noted that a significant number of issues were raised about involuntary admission orders being revoked on the day a hearing was due to take place, including several at the time the hearing was due to commence. This is very concerning. Without an automatic review mechanism, more than half of all detentions escape independent scrutiny. This raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability and the protection of individual rights. This is about protecting rights without burdening the individual.”
“I thank the Minister of State for her constructive engagement on the Bill. I appreciate it and I hope it continues during this session. I hope we can find further places of alignment. The amendment seeks, if an involuntary admission order is revoked prior to a review board tribunal hearing date, to have that hearing automatically go ahead unless the person explicitly opts out. The fact that a person was detained under mental health legislation remains a serious matter and proceeding with the hearing would ensure that the lawfulness, necessity and proportionality of the detention were still subject to independent review. This is essential for upholding the principle that deprivation of liberty must always be justified and scrutinised, regardless of whether it is ongoing at the time of review.”
“I move amendment No. 84: In page 47, lines 25 and 26, to delete “21 days, or such shorter period as may be prescribed which period shall be not less than 14 days” and substitute “14 days, or such shorter period as may be prescribed”.”