Lynn Ruane
University of Dublin · Independent · Ireland
“The chairperson of the board of the Courts Service, Ms Justice Aileen Donnelly, said that the rise in drugs cases of a less serious kind had increased the workload of the lower courts.”
“I remember I could barely write when I started studying addiction. I was 16 when I applied for an addiction studies course. They would not let me on it because they said I was too young and it was for adults. I fought and fought. I did not know how to write an essay. I had not engaged in school since I was about 12.”
“The world is watching how Ireland has done the most extensive interrogation of drugs policy ever seen, and is waiting in hope to see what we do next to make sure that we move with the evidence. It is not just opinion.”
“I join Senator McDowell in thanking all the people we should thank for the efficient and smooth running of these Houses. He ran through them all. Even if we have had a few ding-dongs over rulings on amendments and stuff, other than that, things have moved well, as they always do. I thank the staff across both Houses.”
“There are not many things I will claim some level of expertise in, but this is one where I will claim it. I have been obsessed with it since I was about 16. I look forward to coming back in the new year, and not just for 90 minutes. We need a substantial time to discuss this report, whether three hours, four hours or six hours.”
“It will contain all incidents of prohibited AI practices under Article 5 of the AI Act; all serious incidents of high-risk AI systems in the State, reported under Article 73; high-risk AI systems that are employed in critical infrastructure; and any other AI-related incidents or notifications in the State required to be reported under the…”
The complete record
Every one of 599 lines we hold for Lynn Ruane, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 12.
“I want to draw attention very briefly to the protest outside today which is a very grassroots gathering of people who are in asylum. Often we see very NGO-organised advocacy and what strikes me about the people outside today is that they are all asylum seekers who are in various situations. A lot of them are very fearful about what their future holds. If they are facing deportation many of them are worried that they will be conscripted. Many of them do not want to fight in other people's wars because they may be on bordering countries. They are also drawing a huge amount of attention to the continued use of direct provision in Ireland. We had the White Paper on direct provision in 2021.”
“I will repeat the question: am I presuming correctly that the Government will ultimately designate the international co-operation office to take on this role? That will, in fact, replace a function that the Judiciary has under the previous protocol and as it stands now. What happens if the State has contracts with private companies for the provision of technical recording devices? Are there safeguards in place to ensure any data gathered is held exclusively by the states and will not be held by the contracted private operators? Ireland is obviously in a different position from many other EU states as we are primarily responsible for a huge amount of the high-tech industries here. That means we will have other bodies outside of EU states holding data within our country.”
“On the one hand, it is very easy for us to say we need to investigate crime and make sure trafficking or murder are not happening but we cannot allow it to also be a backslide and a back door to an infringement of data privacy, when we look at how this protocol interacts with the regulatory roll-back that is being mooted now in respect of the digital omnibus regulation proposal. Another one of my questions relates to how we are going to impose any restrictions on how a recording device is used by another state party on our authority. Will we ban that being used in homes? Is there going to be a bar we set in which that type of surveillance can happen within our own borders if someone was to cross from another state into ours?”
“Is a competent authority going to eventually be named as this other body, the international co-operation office? If somebody crosses a border into a country and there is a surveillance aspect to that, if no notification has been given and a large body of data is collected in another country and a period of time has passed before that notification happens, is that data permissible and who owns that data? If that continues to be tracked, are we allowing data to be obtained across another border and then passed over somewhere else without us having full oversight as to why that data is being used?”
“Where do these intersect with those types of laws? If we have a third body, competent authority or this other general scheme that is setting up an authority that will transfer data, how do we ensure we are not contributing to laws that Ireland would not generally have any sort of allegiance to? I do not think Ireland wants to contribute to somebody being prosecuted in another country where there are human rights abuses. This switches from being a Department of justice request and it will be possible to make requests directly to the Judiciary. There is a third step in other legislation that is about data, whereby we will see another body set up to facilitate that data. I do have questions on the constitutionality piece, if we remove the Judiciary from that conversation. I need to understand what constitutes a competent authority.”
“If Ireland owns and controls the data and a third party that is not the Judiciary or the Minister for justice is making a decision on what data is shared, how do we ensure full oversight and compliance with regulations and certain protocols but also regarding our own structures or what we determine to be criminality? I understand in this article it lays out assassination, murder, rape and stuff like that but I have concerns about this transfer of data and whether it is for investigation or actually mapping surveillance. If we look at Hungary, for example, we have countries that are rolling back on their human rights. They are introducing laws relating to the banning of abortion. We have other countries that are really clamping down on liberation with regard to free protest and free speech.”
“I have a few questions. Some parts of my contribution hang on not fully having an understanding of how this EU opt-in will intersect with the international co-operation office Bill, which is at the heads of Bill stage at the justice committee. Under that Bill, we will see a situation where a body is set up to facilitate the transfer to other jurisdictions when an investigation is happening of data that is owned and controlled within Ireland. I am not sure how this motion intersects with that proposed legislation and proposed body. Will that body become the competent authority for the transfer of data? We see that more flexibility is given in this motion concerning the transfer of data. I have raised my concerns at the justice committee.”
“before the Leader comes back in, it would still be helpful if he could respond so Brion could see the process play out in terms of his contribution to the Chamber.”
“We often have discussions in this Chamber about different types of family and the fact some families are living in hotel accommodation, some families are one-parent households, or families where the mother has to go out to work in the evening. There are so many different types of situation, yet the class as a whole will be given a broad sweep of homework and everybody will be expected to finish it even though not everybody can contribute in the same way. It should not just be a gesture or a luxury for someone to get no homework. It is a really serious conversation about why it is necessary for our education system. I congratulate Brion for engaging not only with this Chamber, but also with his classmates in having discussions. If I have to leave the Chamber for the justice committee meeting at 3 p.m.”
“Being good at things outside school can help kids feel happy and proud. Kids, like adults, can end up being too busy and tired. Then everything in school, including homework, gets harder and harder. Adults get to rest when they finish their work and kids need that, too. Adults need to really think about homework, why they think it is important and what else might be important for kids. Kids need to be able to do all the important things in our lives and not just homework. I thought this illustrated a number of things. It was also an acknowledgement of the clarity of thinking of a young boy who can see how important play is in one's life and how important sports and recreation are.”
“Teachers do not know what goes on at home but give homework and then give punishments for not doing it as if everybody has the same home. Brion did a survey of his class and people spent very different times doing their homework, from 20 minutes to over an hour for some. That does not seem fair. We need to think about all the other things that are important for kids, not just education. We know fresh air, exercise, doing things that make your brain and body feel good and playing are important. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says kids have a right to play. It is likely more important than school for our well-being, health and happiness. Brion asked his class what they did on days they did not get homework and it was evenly split between sport, hobbies, playing with friends and screen time.”
“If kids find homework hard, they can feel embarrassed or ashamed and they may feel there is no point in doing it even if they know they will get into trouble. This can make a lot of kids feel worse, especially people who are already finding it hard in school. If there are lots of people to help them at home, they might get the support they need, like they do from teachers in school, but if their parents are busy or do not understand the subject, everybody can get upset. That makes it even harder for the kid to learn properly. Homework is supposed to help with learning but Finland does not give homework and kids there do as well as those in other countries. Brion does not think it is about homework; it is about the school you are in and the home you live in.”
“Often, when we have school tours in this House the Cathaoirleach will make a gesture by saying they should be given the day off homework. Last week, I received some communication from a student whose name is Brion Kellett. I invited him in today to listen to the Order of Business because I thought his email to me really captured why that should not just be a gesture and we should rethink homework. The contribution is via me but it is Brion's. Homework is given as if everybody is the same but kids all work at different speeds and have different skills. Some kids find it easy to sit down and do their homework, others find it hard to concentrate and remember what they learned in school.”
“I move amendment No. 34: In page 21, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(5) An applicable person shall not be precluded from accessing mental health 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. 33: In page 21, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(5) An applicable person shall not 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.”.”
“In relation to the other two amendments, again, I spoke yesterday about the need and importance of ensuring that the wider psychosocial care team is involved with people at certain stages of their mental health interventions or assessments, etc. I will not labour the point today, but I just wanted to recap on where we finished yesterday.”
“I spoke to these amendments already, but I will give a quick recap. The first amendment in that grouping relates to CORU. I completely accept the Minister of State's explanation and response on why psychologists are not named at the moment. I will withdraw the amendment, but between now and Report Stage, the Minister of State might consider putting it in the Bill. If a later commencement date was put on it, the Minister of State would not have to the return to the Bill to amend it. We have had later commencement dates on particular segments in the past. That might be an alternative rather than returning to the Bill at a later stage to amend it. It might also be an easier option in terms of the Department.”
“People in that situation are really concerned about it. I am not saying CORU should not introduce regulations to ensure the situation the Minister of State mentioned is dealt with where it arises. It is about making sure those regulations do not have a knock-on effect such that people lose their jobs who should not lose them. Regarding CORU registration of psychologists, what will happen with people who are calling themselves psychologists but have not been practising psychologists? They might be academics who give speeches, say, but they do not practise psychology. Will there be a definition that recognises that type of variance in the context of CORU registration and the future implementation of this Bill?”
“I do not at all dispute that regulation, governance and oversight are required. I am saying that people should not be impacted unnecessarily by regulation. If a vetting procedure is introduced, there are people with a history that would place them under the category of being unable to work with vulnerable adults, but that is not the case for everyone. My concern is that there may be a lot of sectors that are working with people who will be impacted by this Bill because they have a conviction and that those sectors do not understand how they can apply discretion to certain matters. They may not understand that a past conviction can have absolutely nothing to do with the job at hand and that the person in question is not an unsafe person. That is potentially a risk to a very experienced, passionate and committed workforce.”
“If it has not arisen with psychologists, it probably will arise in respect of the careers slightly below them in terms of educational attainment such that we may begin to see people with certain degrees being pushed out of jobs. It will affect mental health teams in the future that are considered to be under psychosocial care.”
“There seems to be a little fear across some services that CORU registration will see people who have dedicated themselves to doing differently with their lives, but who have convictions on their record from the past, facing a real barrier and obstacle in keeping their position or progressing. In the case of the psychosocial care teams I talk about, a lot of people are working in various sectors who have had a very particular experience in their life and it is because of that experience they have dedicated themselves to training as healthcare or social care workers in order to change the conditions that affected them so much in their lives. Has that come up as a difficulty in regard to this Bill and the registration of psychologists by CORU?”
“There is a concern, when CORU registration happens, that some people who have returned to education, say, to become a key worker in a homeless service, due to a new standard or something in relation to vetting, may lose their jobs or positions because they might have a difficulty in the past whereby they have a conviction on their record. There is a fear around that vetting for CORU registration for people working in the homeless sector, just as an example. They also will not be able to progress because certain positions within certain sectors require vetting at the point of progressing to a different role.”
“I welcome the Minister of State's comments and thank her for them. She triggered something in my mind regarding the CORU registration of members of the wider psychosocial care team. It probably will not always apply to psychologists, depending on their background. I am only remembering now, which I did not recall when I was writing my amendment, that in homeless services, for instance, there are people who are key workers, including community development workers and people working in various different ways across the country.”
“These amendments seek to widen out the teams to have a greater number of different perspectives, persons and professionals. It would also include those who will, most likely, have the most access to people on any given day when they are in the community, pre- or post-hospitalisation. That may be the person who has the fullest and most rounded picture of the individual's life and who is hugely trusted by the individual, as part of that wider team.”
“As drafted, the Bill includes only those professions already included in the definition of "mental healthcare professional". I remember doing a session many years ago in Tallaght Cross. There is a Trinity College facility out there which I think is connected to training. The social prescribing team there was very heavily involved with older people or people who were isolated and who had an extreme experience of a mental health episode that could have been related to age or isolation. The social prescribing team was extremely impactful and important for people. It helped them to look at all of the other things that may have contributed to their mental health issues, including environmental factors, which may impact on a person's mental health at any given time.”
“In addiction services, much like mental health services, we have to acknowledge that there is a continuum of care and people will need different types of care at different times in their lives. People will not always be in a position where they need or want care. There may be times when they are on medication and then they do not need it. That may change and ebb and flow throughout a person's lifetime, and within that community care piece, there are different types of professions that will be involved in that person's life and in his or her care as a whole. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 seek to consider what that psychosocial care team looks like. Amendment No. 22 specifically provides for psychosocial care in the definition of a person's multidisciplinary team.”
“Consistently, I have been involved in the care of an individual who has either ended up in a mental health care setting, or in and out of accident and emergency departments, homelessness or the addiction services that I have been involved in providing. I may have had the most access to that person, pre-hospitalisation. Prior to being elected to this House and when I was part of a community care team, I may have been the person who had to create a care plan with that individual when he or she was being cared for in the community. It is really about connecting the residential or hospital setting with the community care piece. The aim is to widen it out so that the people, services and professions that are part of that continuum of care are all included.”
“Psychology looks at the specific area of mental health but it is not as medicalised in terms of the mental health aspect of someone's care. Amendment No. 21 seeks to add in a person's wider psychosocial care team in the list of professionals included in the definition of "mental healthcare professional". This would provide scope for professionals who support an individual, either in acute or community care settings, to be considered as part of his or her mental health care team under the Bill. This amendment is extremely important to me in the context of the profession that I have worked in for over 20 years.”
“This amendment is a kind of compromise to make the inclusion easier and more manageable. As drafted, the list currently includes consultant psychiatrists, registered nurses, social workers, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists. I acknowledge that there is flexibility within the Bill for the Minister to add designated professionals in future by regulation and it is important that this list includes a greater variety of perspectives, especially those that are psychosocial in nature, to ensure there is not an overconcentration of acute medical input. While there is flexibility there and registered nurses, social care workers and occupational therapists are included, they look at care in the round.”
“I move amendment No. 19: In page 17, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(iv) psychologist; Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 22 have slight variations but are all in the same vein. We know how medicalised the whole area of mental health has become and obviously we need medical input at various levels. However, it is not only medical input that is important. Amendment No. 19 seeks to explicitly include psychologists as well as psychiatrists in the list of professionals contained in the definition of "mental healthcare professional" in the Bill. I looked at the Bill as a whole and at where I could and could not add psychologist. However, because psychiatrist is mentioned so many times, I would have had to submit almost 200 amendments to include psychology alongside psychiatry at each turn.”
“I may come back on Report Stage in order that it is abundantly clear at what stage parents can have involvement in the mental health care of their children while they are in a facility such as Oberstown.”
“I will respond very briefly because I have spoken extensively on it now. I may bring in some amendments on Report Stage to potentially tease it out a little bit more. That is a fair point around the fact that there would be in-reach mental health within Oberstown but what it affects is the regime under which the young person is held. We would have some young people who are kept away from other young people or given restricted regimes, and that might be part of the involuntary piece. It is not that they are moving from one facility to a different facility and they are held in the different facility for the involuntary care, but as part of the mental health order there may be a difference of regime. I may be wrong on that. I have spoken enough on it.”
“That is concerning from the children's rights perspective as well in terms of who has a say in their care when it has not been a court proceeding that has removed the care from a parent. It is now a bit confusing for me in general who is responsible.”
“I am not sure, in all the years I have worked in the area of justice, prisons and Oberstown, and this is raising something else in me now where parents are unaware that they do not have parental rights, potentially, when their kids are in Oberstown. This is not just in relation to this Bill; I am looking at it in much broader terms now. Are we saying that when kids go into Oberstown, there is a temporary care order? Tusla does not necessarily follow up with families when a child is released from Oberstown. There is no actual follow up of care by Tusla but then it is given this role with a family which it has never had any interaction or any extended period of time with.”
“For me, that raises even more questions about the fact that when a young person is released from Oberstown, there is no care order that extends outside the walls of Oberstown. You are not under a care order, so Tusla does not have to have intervened in the relationship between a parent and a young person who ends up in Oberstown. Are we saying that there is a temporary care order in place while the young person is in Oberstown, and that then overrides the parental involvement in regard to involuntary care, when that parent was never subject to an actual investigation by or involvement with Tusla but it is by the mere fact they end up in Oberstown that their parental rights have been removed?”
“I now wonder if there is a gap in this Bill in some way where we capture not only the children who are in care of the agency, that is, Tusla, or children who are in the care of the parent. Who exactly are kids in Oberstown in the care of when it comes to this Bill? I am still not sure on that. I am worried that they are potentially not accounted for but I am probably just not seeing it.”
“I thank the Minister of State. That still does not actually answer my question. I am quite concerned that there is a small gap here in relation to the children I am talking about in Oberstown. What is their legal status in terms of care? If they are in the prison system from the age of 18 years, they are in the care of the State, that is, the justice Department and the Irish Prison Service. Before they turn 18 and they are in Oberstown, they are not actively in the care of their parent physically; they are in Oberstown. Are they under the care of the Department of children? It is not the justice Department that actually looks after Oberstown. I think it was the amended Childcare Act 2001 that allowed for the establishment of Oberstown.”
“This ties in a little with a question I asked last week. I am not sure whether the Minister of State has had an opportunity between then and now to clarify the position, because it was in a slightly different context from this. What is the course of action for a child who is in Oberstown in the context of section 62 and amendment No. 173? The child is not under the care of Tusla or the agency. Effectively, Oberstown falls under the remit of the Department of children. The parents of these children may be still involved in their lives and Tusla may have never been involved. I am still unsure as to whether the guardian ad litem service is offered in this situation to kids in Oberstown? I am unsure as to the situation in which this category of young children might find themselves.”
“I know if it was my child or my loved one, I would want the person who has had the most access to them to be making certain decisions. Does this change that in any shape or form?”
“There was not a moment to acknowledge the gravity of the situations people were bringing. I stand over that comment in the context of what was being received on this side of the House in terms of the debate and the defensiveness. As the Minister of State knows, these are real people and real lives. People are grieving constantly for people who have died due to the issue we are talking about. That is why it requires a level of compassion in the room that can be felt and can be responsive. We have had plenty of Ministers and people who have engaged with us. They may not agree with our amendments and may vote down our amendments or not take them, but you can feel the recognition and acknowledgement of the topic and what is being discussed. I want to know about the replacement of the language.”
“What is the difference in responsibility and access that person has? I will explain the reason I am asking. Again, I want to mention the girl who was released by a consultant who came in. He was not the consultant who had been there in the first few days and who had signed off on the involuntary order. A different consultant came in and over-rode that. That person then left the building and took their own life. The Minister of State brought up compassion. People receive and feel when there is compassion. Last week lots of us spoke about very serious situations of people very dear and close to us. There was not really a compassionate response from the Minister of State in terms of acknowledging the people who were mentioned in the room. She spoke back on the Bill and the Bill alone. We were trying to put the people at the centre of that.”
“I am looking at the Minister of State's group of amendments. I am wondering about the reasoning just to understand them. For example, amendment No. 69 is in this group. In a few places we delete the phrase "consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of an involuntarily admitted person" and we substitute that with the phrasing "responsible consultant psychiatrist". I want to understand why the language is to be changed there. I ask from the point of view of a family member or someone else who is concerned about such a case. If you are involuntary, and a person has been responsible for your care and has been involved for one week, two weeks or three weeks, and then another consultant comes in and makes an over-riding decision, they will not have had the experience with you for the first part of your care.”
“In some cases, people need to be held responsible for really bad decisions about people's care when reasons are factored in that should not be. In this girl's case, it was factored in that she was homeless and it was assumed that she would be back in again and again because she would not be able to continue her care, for whatever reason. Have there been any conversations on reducing the three-month timeframe, rather than looking at 14 to 21 days? If it was at 14 days and there was a review within four weeks from that period would that not be better? Has there been any discussion of situations where people's voluntary care orders were revoked and in some cases they went on to take their own lives because of decisions made by consultants?”
“One such young girl had experience of homelessness. Her father was in here last year and met me and a number of other people. I may have tabled a Commencement matter on the issue at the time. This young woman was held involuntarily and then a different consultant came in two or three days later and supposedly made a comment about the fact that she was homeless and that actually anything they did there would be undone because she would be returning to the streets. The consultant removed her involuntary care order before a review board met. She left the hospital and killed herself off a building in the inner city. There are also the other reasons a mental health review board should still meet even if someone's involuntary care order is revoked. Have there been any discussions about this?”
“I have sympathy on the 14-day review versus 21 days depending on the person's circumstances. We are debating 14 days versus 21 days, but what is standing out more than anything in the debate is potentially the three-month period being the problem. Was there any discussion on reducing the three-month wait? If somebody goes in front of a board and is not deemed to be able to fully engage, or his or her mental health order is extended, should the three-month wait be reduced? Senator Black made the point about when somebody is released and his or her care order is revoked before the mental health review board has to meet. That is extremely important for the reason she outlined but also for the inverse of that. I am referring to people who were released before the mental health review board met.”
“This is the complete inverse of what I usually talk about but I have found that for people with a third level education, for example, or who have a certain vocabulary around different health needs and are able to present them in a certain way, something might click and their voluntary care order is removed because of their ability to represent themselves in the moment, even though their material situation or the risk to their own life or to others has not actually changed in reality.”
“From the small sample of experience I have, which is not right across the mental health sector - this is just something to think about - I have found that at the 14-plus-days point, for those who are more articulate and strong in their sense of understanding of things, the involuntary care order often is removed because of their ability to present themselves but, in fact, they still need care.”
“I want to clarify two points. First, did the Minister of State say that if somebody sees the review board at 14 days, he or she would not be able to see it again until the three-month point? I am not sure whether I heard that correctly, so I want to double-check it. Second, and I do not know whether it can be legislated for as such, I refer to what is kind of the inverse of the need for those in a more vulnerable position or who perhaps come from marginalised groups needing an advocate if they are held for 21 days or whatever.”
“Those people can often be held involuntarily for much longer in some cases, especially in homeless services, which I went back to work in during Covid when this Chamber was shut, where the situation was still the same. I remember one service having to do so much work when there was a weather warning to try to get people on the streets safe. Some of them had severe psychiatric needs and they had to go to great efforts to actually be able to bring them into safety during weather warnings and so forth. In my mind, the three weeks is needed for some of those cases. Did the Minister of State say the consultant can make a determination at 14-plus days as to whether somebody can be brought before the review board earlier? Can the consultant make the decision to bring someone before the review board at an earlier point?”
“I wish to clarify because this is an amendment of which I am unsure. Like the Minister of State said, people present differently and every situation is different. What concerns come up for me in relation to this is that sometimes those who are more vulnerable are maybe not as articulate as others. Often in psychiatric services, somebody who is extremely well educated is able to advocate on behalf of himself or herself even if he or she is being involuntarily admitted. Often, people can advocate for themselves in a way that those who are maybe less used to that space or have less of a vocabulary around rights, education, advocacy or health cannot.”