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 6 of 10.
“I move amendment No. 75: In page 39, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(7) Upon request from the involuntarily admitted person, the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the person’s treatment shall refer the involuntarily admitted person to the National Advocacy Service.”. I will withdraw amendment No. 75 for now.”
“Charles O'Mahony, a human rights legal expert with particular expertise in mental health law, called advocacy one of the most basic safeguards for people involuntarily detailed in mental health services. I will not go on because I have already spoken about this. We all know from lived-experience testimonials, which he had at the recent audiovisual room briefing where individuals repeatedly spoke about how traumatic being in the mental health services can be, the difference an advocate can make. I have already spoken on this earlier.”
“I move amendment No. 74: In page 39, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(7) The consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of an involuntarily admitted person shall, as soon as is practicable but not later than 24 hours after the making of an involuntary admission order and any renewal order in respect of an involuntarily admitted person, inform the person of the availability of independent advocacy services and how to access them.”. There have been continuous calls from Mental Health Reform for this provision based on repeated consultations with individuals with lived experience who speak about the different this could make to them. I am very conscious of that. A recent op-ed by Dr.”
“I move amendment No. 73b: In page 38, line 28, 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,”. I move and withdraw my amendment for now.”
“Every effort must be made to make them aware of their rights in line with other sections of the Bill that require statements to be included in a form and language that may be reasonably understood by the person involved. It is essential that this information is conveyed in that way. Some people may have a physical disability preventing them from reading and some may not speak English. Others may not read the statement in light of the trauma of being involuntarily detained. It is essential that their rights are clearly explained to them. It is also essential that people are made aware of potential side effects of medications they may be given in order that they can make truly informed decisions about their care in the same way that they would be made aware in relation to matters relating to their physical health.”
“I move amendment No. 73a: In page 38, to delete lines 24 and 25 and substitute the following: “(3) A notice under subsection (2) shall include a statement in writing and in a form and language that may reasonably be understood by him or her, to the effect that the involuntarily admitted person—”. These amendments relate to the information made available to persons involuntarily admitted to registered acute mental health services. It states that a notice outlining their rights must be made available to people who are involuntarily detained and that this should be in writing. This is really welcome, but some people may not be able to either understand or to read the written statement.”
“I want to make one comment. I know that the Bill allows for regular capacity assessment, but it does not require that this capacity assessment happen before involuntary treatment. Is giving medication before a capacity assessment not likely to diminish a person's capacity? That is the question I have for the Minister of State.”
“For this reason, formal capacity assessments related to specific treatment decisions should occur more frequently than every two weeks, which I know the Minister of State is inclined to agree with. A requirement for formal capacity assessment at least once every seven days would better reflect the dynamic nature of capacity and would ensure that individuals are not subjected to treatment decisions based on outdated assessments.”
“Amendment No. 106 states: 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.”. I will keep it short. While the Government amendments requiring regular capacity assessments at least once every 14 days constitute an improvement, decision-making capacity is fluid and can change rapidly, especially in the context of mental health treatment.”
“Informal supporters may lack the confidence or expertise to challenge decisions, whereas independent advocates are trained to do so. A rights-based system requires guaranteed access to independent advocacy for all, including children, as recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. I know the Minister of State agrees with all of that, in a way. She agrees with all of that. It would be great if she would even be open to having a conversation around having it in the legislation. I just want to get my head around it. Will that delay the legislation? Is that something the Minister of State is concerned about? What is it that would stop her from really looking at this? I think it would be powerful to have advocacy in the legislation. It is being done in Scotland and other countries.”
“The concern I have around a nominated person is that a nominated person is someone who is personally chosen - it is often a family member or a friend - to receive information, while an independent advocate is a trained professional whose role is to support a person to understand their rights and make sure their views are heard. They should complement rather than replace each other. A nominated person's access can be limited as well and we have to take that on board. The Bill would restrict nominated persons to people admitted to acute units, for example, would exclude voluntary patients and assumes everyone is a suitable person to nominate. That is the biggest challenge as it is often not the case. Independent advocacy is essential for rights protection also.”
“I wish to start by commending the Minister of State and her team on the phenomenal work they have done on this legislation. I am very aware she is passionate about this particular issue and that needs to be said. I am also very aware of the work the Minister of State did on older persons around advocacy. My own colleague, Colette Kelleher, if the Minister of State remembers, was here at the time and worked very closely with her on that and she did phenomenal work on it. I acknowledge the Minister of State has stated we have her word and I really appreciate that also. For me, I would love to see it in the legislation for a number of reasons. It is in primary legislation in England, Wales, Scotland and the Netherlands. They have all introduced a statutory right to independent mental health advocacy.”
“What if she had an advocate there? I am always mentioning that lovely gentle voice saying, "How can I help? What is it you need?". There was wonderful man who set up the charity, Mad Pride. His first name was John but I cannot remember his surname. He was a well-known man from Cork and a wonderful human being. He said to me one time that he had gone through the mental health system and that it was a disaster until he met one person who just listened to what he said. I do not know whether it was a counsellor or therapist. This person just listened to him. It was someone who worked in the system. This would be helpful to those who are struggling. It would provide a voice and someone who understands what is going on. It would make a big difference. I hope the Minister of State will consider it.”
“I broke down in tears multiple times. I was eventually released only after my solicitor attended the hospital the following day. I had also requested my medical records and was not provided to this. My solicitor witnessed me asking. This has left me questioning whether my detention would have continued had legal intervention not occurred. This experience has caused me lasting distress and has significantly damaged my trust in the mental health system. She has tried to submit a complaint and has asked that the failures in advocacy access, communication, basic care and procedural fairness be investigated and that she be informed of the outcome. I want to put that on the record. That is a horrific experience. Juanita voluntarily went in to hospital. She was worried about her mental health and we see what happened.”
“I asked for essential hygiene items such as shampoo and soap and did not receive them until a day later. Access to drinking water was difficult, as cups were not readily available and nurses were clearly overstretched. On two separate nights, I missed dinner because the medication I was given made me extremely drowsy and I slept through mealtime. When I later asked for food, I was not provided with a proper meal. One night I received nothing, and another night I was given only biscuits. I found it humiliating that other patients were the ones who helped me by sharing food, while staff were eating meals nearby. Being in Cedar Ward significantly worsened my mental state. I have existing medical trauma, and the environment caused intense fear, nightmares, and panic. I was scared to sleep because the hospital sounds triggered fears of dying.”
“I also asked several times for information on how to make a formal complaint. I was never given a complaint form, email address, or clear guidance. Instead, I was told to write my concerns on a piece of paper. I did so, but no one read it or followed up with me. I felt ignored and silenced. I repeatedly asked what my diagnosis was and what my care plan was. I was told that there was no clear plan in place and that staff were unsure how to diagnose me. Despite this lack of clarity, I remained involuntarily detained. I was initially told I would be released, but this did not happen because my doctor was unavailable due to illness, resulting in me being detained for additional days without reassessment. Basic care needs were also not adequately met.”
“She was very unhappy with what happened to her in Cedar ward in Tallaght University Hospital. It was deeply distressing and left her with significant trauma. She said: I presented to hospital voluntarily because I care about my life [she volunteered herself to the ward to get help during a period of emotional distress]. I was not a danger to myself or others. Despite this, I was involuntarily detained without my consent and without the consent of my next of kin. I still do not understand the clinical or legal justification for this decision. While detained in Cedar Ward, I repeatedly asked to speak with an independent advocate. Staff were unable to provide me with one. At one point, a nurse told me they did not even have the phone number for an advocacy service. This left me completely unsupported while being held against my will.”
“I do not know whether this is something the Minister of State might consider but it is important. Advocacy is a fundamental safeguard for people in vulnerable circumstances. It strengthens patient autonomy and empowerment by helping people play an active role in their care. It gives individuals a clear way to express their will and preferences and have them heard and respected. The need for this statutory right is repeatedly and consistently raised by legal experts, those who have lived experience and IHREC, as Senator Boyhan said. If the Minister of State does not mind, I will read out a letter on this issue that I received today. It is important this person is heard. It is from a young woman who has given me permission to read it. Her name is Juanita.”
“The distortion fuels calls for greater coercive powers in mental health legislation despite clear evidence that coercion does not prevent these tragedies. It is not okay to say that it is on the basis of mental health that people are at risk. I am concerned about that and note it is triggering for people with mental health difficulties who are watching the proceedings of Seanad this evening and who are tarnished by these stories. Early intervention and the compassionate treatment that is needed for those who are struggling are vital. We will be talking about advocacy in a little while and it is very important in this area. However, relying on risk, particularly the risk of harm to others, as a primary justification for involuntary detention is deeply problematic in principle and practice.”
“The most important thing for the people the Minister of State mentioned is compassionate treatment. The Minister of State and I know that. It is the best way to deal with those who are in that scenario. That is still the criterion, and it is about removing the stigma that obtains. International research consistently shows that people with mental health difficulties are no more likely to be violent than members of the general population and that the overwhelming majority of them pose no threat to others. I need to make sure that is on the record. Serious crimes committed by those with mental health difficulties are exceptionally rare. In almost all cases, they involve a person who has actively sought help. Intense media coverage of such cases creates a distorted perception that they are more common than they are. That is worrying.”
“Relying on them as a legal basis for detention places an unfair burden on clinicians and may lead to over-cautious or defensive decision-making.”
“I also want to note that other groups who may statistically pose a risk to others, for example, those who have alcohol problems, are not subject to involuntary detention on the basis of the perceived risk they pose. Detaining individuals with mental health difficulties solely on perceived risk represents a double standard. That is my concern. This practice constitutes a serious infringement of personal liberty. It is important to flag all of this and to put it all on the record today. Psychiatrists have also raised significant concerns about this criterion and have noted that they are not trained to reliably assess future risk to others. Risk assessments are often speculative, inconsistent and prone to error.”
“I will illustrate this point by sharing lived experience testimony that was presented to the Sub-Committee on Mental Health by a person who was detained under this system in 2008 after an adverse reaction to the drug citalopram. The person found that they did not have many rights or protections under the Mental Health Act 2001 and still felt traumatised by the whole experience over 12 and a half years later. The experience caused complex post-traumatic stress. The person felt that we could do much better at helping people in distress to get back on their feet and pointed out that despite portrayals in the media, most people have not harmed anyone. The focus should always be on the individual's own health, safety and rights and not on unproven concerns about others. That is the concern I have with the legislation.”
“This needs to be viewed through the lens of a person-centred approach, ensuring that human rights are upheld and that any elements of subjectivity in relation to the justification for the use of coercion are removed. I also want to note the submission of Professor Dainius Pūras to the subcommittee. Professor Pūras, a former special rapporteur for health in the UN and a practising psychiatrist, stated that the use of dangerousness as a justification is not based on sound research and that the discipline of psychiatry must not act as a tool for social control. The trauma caused by the experience of coercive practices can be significant and long lasting.”
“Such interventions should never be based on unproven concerns about perceived dangerousness but on clear evidence of actual behaviour. Again, I go back to the Sub-Committee on Mental Health which noted the importance of reducing the use of stigmatising language and narratives when discussing people's mental health difficulties, experiences and treatments. In its submission to that subcommittee, IHREC noted that justifications of risk to others are subjective and that there is a lack of research to support their application, which can often result in grave violations of human rights such as the denial of legal capacity or the deprivation of liberty.”
“Numerous studies have shown that the vast majority of individuals with mental health conditions are not violent and are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. This is an important point to make. Overstating the risk people pose contributes to harmful stereotypes and public fear, which often in turn fuel stigmatisation and discrimination. That is a concern. There is little empirical evidence that involuntary detention based on a perceived risk to others improves outcomes or reduces harm. In contrast, voluntary community-based supports and early intervention have been shown to be more effective and rights respecting. As previously highlighted, the impact of involuntary detention and treatment on individuals is profoundly serious and must always be considered a measure of last resort.”
“In testimony about her experience given to the subcommittee, a witness said the following, as detailed on page 51 of the subcommittee's report of its pre-legislative scrutiny: They don't listen. They don't understand a person's situation. They think medication is the solution. But they don't understand the effects on a person. Weight gain, loss of drive for life and thoughts of suicide. I have been dragged from my home, put in a padded cell and not allowed use the toilet. I have been forcibly pinned down and injected against my will. They terrified me. That was just one of the statements by a witness to the subcommittee. This is a very good amendment. It would better reflect our commitment to upholding the rights, dignity and autonomy of individuals experiencing mental health difficulties.”
“We have discussed this previously with the Minister of State and she has heard me talk about Dr. Fiona Morrissey, who has since passed away. Dr. Morrissey told the Sub-Committee on Mental Health during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the legislation dealing with the CRPD: [The CRPD] requires us to move away from coercion in our legislation, which deprives people of their liberty and the right to make decisions for themselves. We are required under the legislation to support people to make their own decisions and to respect their wishes in the mental health system. The impact involuntary detention and treatment can have on people is incredibly serious and it must be the last resort.”
“I agree with colleagues that this is a very welcome and important amendment as it would significantly strengthen the legal safeguards surrounding involuntary admission to mental health services. In introducing a higher threshold for involuntary detention by requiring that all criteria be met, the amendment reinforces the principle that such measures should be used strictly as a last resort, only when absolutely necessary and beneficial for the person and when no less restrictive alternatives are available. As other speakers have said, this would better reflect our commitment to upholding the rights, dignity and autonomy of individuals experiencing mental health difficulties in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
“Along with investing in child-centred mental health infrastructure, we need staff and crisis response systems that ensure timely access to appropriate care. We have to put safeguards for children in the legislation because even though the Minister of State is doing a really great job, her successor might not be as passionate as she is about this matter.”
“I want to put on record what I said last week. While it is welcome that the Bill recognises age-appropriate care for children, the qualifier "in so far as is practicable" is far too vague and weak. Huge progress has been made in this area, and I commend the Minister of State on that, but I still believe legal safeguards are needed. While the number of children placed in adult units has declined significantly in recent years - the Minister of State is to be commended in that regard - there is a risk of regression in the absence of a legal prohibition, particularly, as I said last week, if someone is not watching the numbers as closely as the Minister of State has been watching them. I am worried about what will happen in the next term if she is not here.”
“I move amendment No. 43: In page 23, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “(2) No child shall be precluded from accessing care or treatment by virtue of the fact that they present with a concurrent mental health disorder and a substance use disorder.””
“I move amendment No. 42: In page 23, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “(2) No child shall be precluded from accessing mental health care or treatment by virtue of the fact that they are acutely drug or intoxicant affected, or are addicted to drugs or intoxicants.””
“I meant to say that the amendment gets rid of due weight for over-16s. Again, I am looking for a little clarity. It says due weight must be given to the decisions of under-16s. I ask for more clarity on under-16s with regard to due weight.”
“I know how hard the Minister of State works in respect of area. This is a welcome provision that provides greater clarity on the rights of children aged 16 or older and ensures greater parity with their physical health and treatment rights. Will the Minister of State provide a little more detail on what the term "due weight" means? I am concerned that it could place an unreasonable burden on clinicians, who would be left to determine whose wishes should ultimately prevail. I just want to get an understanding of what is involved. If the Minister of State could provide a bit more detail, I would really appreciate it.”
“I move amendment No. 21: In page 30, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(3C) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, information shared by the SEAI under this section shall not be used to reduce, offset, or otherwise limit any grant payable to a relevant owner under this Act.”.”.”
“I move amendment No. 20: In page 30, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(3C) SEAI funding cannot be used to reduce, replace, offset, or otherwise diminish a person’s entitlement under the Defective Concrete Block Grant Scheme.”.”.”
“It makes clear that SEAI data shared with local authorities can be used only to verify applications and not to limit or offset grants for remediation. It also strictly limits the type of information that can be shared, addressing both privacy concerns and GDPR compliance, while ensuring homeowners retain full entitlement to the support promised under the principal Act. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 both reinforce this financial protection for homeowners by making it explicit that any funding from the SEAI cannot reduce, replace, offset or otherwise limit their entitlement under the defective concrete block grant scheme. For affected homeowners to have full confidence in this scheme, it is important that they not be punished unnecessarily for grants awarded that are entirely unrelated to the regulatory failings of the State.”
“(3B) The information referred to in subsection (3A) may include only: (a) a relevant owner’s name and address; (b) the address and Eircode of a relevant dwelling; (c) the meter point reference number assigned to an electricity account in the relevant dwelling; (d) confirmation that an application for funding has been made by a relevant owner to the SEAI; (e) the purpose of funding provided, or to be provided, by a relevant owner; but shall not include any detail which may be used to reduce, offset, or otherwise limit any grant under this Act.".". Amendment No. 19 is essential because it protects homeowners from the use of information they may have previously given to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, to covertly reduce their remediation grants from the State.”
“I move amendment No. 19: In page 30, to delete lines 4 to 18 and substitute the following: " "(3A) The SEAI may share information with a designated local authority solely for the purposes of administrative verification of applications under this Act and not for the purpose of reducing or offsetting any grant payable under this Act, where it is necessary and proportionate to establish the funding which has been provided, or is to be provided by, the SEAI to a person who has made an application under section 13, 17A, or 23A, as the case may be.”
“There is a need to be proactive in identifying these risks, and that is where this amendment comes in. Publishing regional patterns and international comparisons could help to prevent repeated mistakes, allow for early intervention and build trust that the scheme is operating fairly and scientifically. It would really help to illustrate clearly that decisions are based on evidence, not just guesswork, and provide much-needed transparency for homeowners who are directly affected.”
“I move amendment No. 18: In page 29, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: "Amendment of section 41 of Principal Act 29. 29. Section 41 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2): "(3) The Minister shall, annually, publish a report summarising data received from local authorities and the Housing Agency relating to: (a) deleterious materials detected in dwellings (including, but not limited to, pyrrhotite, pyrite, total sulphur, and mica), 4 (b) regional patterns in material failure, (c) emerging risks requiring attention, and (d) international comparisons.".". Amendment No. 18 is necessary because the Minister must make public how deleterious materials are detected where problems are occurring and what risks are emerging.”
“This amendment would set clear deadlines for the publication of decisions made by the appeals board. It implements transparency where there is currently none. It will address the uncertainty that is plaguing families because the system seems unaccountable and utterly opaque. Homeowners deserve to see how decisions on appeals are made. I do not understand what is achieved by hiding these decisions. After all, what people affected by this crisis have been through is off the Richter scale, to be fair. They do not deserve this secrecy and these delays without any real explanation.”
“I move amendment No. 16: In page 29, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: “(c) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (13): “(14) The Appeals Board shall publish, in anonymised form, every decision made under this Part within 90 days of the decision. Such publication shall include the facts, issues, reasoning, statutory interpretation and final outcome.”.”. Amendment No. 16 would ensure that every decision made by the appeals board must be published in an anonymised form within 90 days, showing the facts, reasoning and outcomes. Homeowners are trapped in appeals that can last for years while the Housing Agency hides behind claims of independence. The appeals board is also shirking its responsibilities by passing the buck between it and the Housing Agency while operating in secrecy.”
“The focus must be on restoring their homes, not creating mechanisms to recoup costs from those who have already borne the brunt of the consequences of the State's failure to regulate. We cannot forget how we got to this point. Homeowners should be assisted without fear of retroactive charges, delays and unnecessary administrative hurdles. We have to make it clear that the State's obligation is to fix what is broken, not to profit from its own failings. The consequences should be clearly laid where the responsibility is held. The section shifts the burden away from the State and onto ordinary families. That is why I strongly oppose it.”
“This section is trying to convert the State's failure into a financial burden on homeowners. The families affected are not simply seeking compensation. They are seeking safe, habitable homes that the State should have ensured were compliant from the start. They have done absolutely everything right. They have worked hard and saved for their homes and now they are just falling down around them. After decades of regulatory neglect it is disgraceful to suggest that homeowners should carry any additional charge. The law should correct the failure, not penalise the victims. Any scheme that allows local authorities to impose charges on families who have already suffered the impact of their homes crumbling before their eyes is just wrong, unjust, unnecessary and morally questionable.”
“The current interpretation of the side-by-side housing amendment may be constitutionally vulnerably as applied, having regard to Articles 40, 41 and 43 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, particularly when read in conjunction with the Disability Act 2005. The exclusion of persons with non-visible disabilities, such as advanced dementia, raises issues of equality, proportionality and the State's obligation to vindicate personal and family rights.”
“By restricting side-by-side developments to certain categories of disability, the current policy discriminates against people with non-visible and cognitive disabilities, contrary to the Disability Act 2005, ignores well-established medical evidence regarding dementia care, undermines the principles of reasonable accommodation and proportionality and places vulnerable individuals at risk of unnecessary institutionalisation or severe harm. Dementia is a recognised disability under Irish law and the international human rights framework. Any planning or housing policy that excludes it explicitly, or in practice, is fundamentally flawed.”
“The situation is compounded by the fact that the existing house is so structurally damaged that it will not survive another winter. The family has no viable option to remain there. As a last resort, they explored the possibility of placing a mobile home on the land. However, following an assessment by the woman's medical team, her brother was informed that the mobile home is not suitable for her medical and care needs. This leaves a deeply troubling question. What exactly is this family supposed to do?”
“It is clinically recognised that she must remain in familiar surroundings to avoid significant cognitive and psychological deterioration. Disruption, relocation or institutionalisation would be deeply distressing and harmful. Her sibling, who is her primary carer, owns adjoining land where a side-by-side dwelling could be constructed that would allow him to take care of her while preserving her safety, dignity and well-being. However, permission for a side-by-side development may be refused on the apparent basis that dementia is not considered an eligible disability under the current interpretation. The condition is not visible, and the proposal does not fit the narrow definition of an adapted house. This is very worrying and this position is wholly untenable.”