Mary Butler
Waterford · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“Major improvements are happening across services: enhanced access to proactive and preventive healthcare to support a better quality of life; the embedding and upscaling of women's health initiatives put in place through the implementation of the previous women's health action plans, including, as the Senator knows, free contraception, sp…”
“In relation to any proposal, a proposal for a new location requires a detailed business case, a premises, support from the regional HSE management, and the necessary funding to resource the staffing of the service. That is where I come into it and what I will be trying to do.”
“We are currently working closely with it to support the expansion of Jigsaw services to Waterford and the south east, as well as to County Clare. The location of Waterford was picked because we have no services in the south east at all. It is great that we will have the hub and spoke model the Senator spoke about.”
“That is where I do not agree with the Senator. I believe €180 million of funding ring-fenced for women's health, when we have come from a low base, is absolutely unbelievable.”
“The plan will build on our knowledge of women's health through research and innovation and will spotlight important areas such as endometriosis and cardiovascular health. Recently, the Minister announced €2 million in funding for women's health research.”
“This plan will continue to focus on how we can improve access to specialist endometriosis care and treatment. As the Senator knows, we have established two super-regional specialist centres, one in Tallaght University Hospital and another in Cork, alongside the development of five regional endometriosis hubs.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,499 lines we hold for Mary Butler, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 20 of 50.
“I acknowledge the Deputy’s continued advocacy on the provision of the myriad therapies that children, young people and adults need. It is important to recognise that overall activity within the eight core primary care therapies was significant in 2025, with approximately 1.24 million appointments provided across occupational therapy, physiotherapy, dietetics, psychology, speech and language therapy, audiology, ophthalmology and podiatry services to the end of November 2025. However, that is cold comfort to any family or child waiting for these services. I thank the Deputy for sharing that story. It is very difficult for a young girl of seven who is awaiting these services. She must be feeling the challenges when in school and noticing the differences among her classmates. I acknowledge all of that. It is extremely difficult.”
“As part of that work programme, the Minister has asked the HSE to reduce the waiting times for three therapies to less than ten months by the end of this year. The three therapies targeted are speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and physiotherapy. This initiative will remove over 60,000 people, including children, from the waiting lists and will be a huge improvement on the current position, which is that approximately one third of people on primary care waiting lists are waiting over a year for a service.”
“Furthermore, the HSE is delivering a project for those aged under three years in the north Dublin IHA, which specifically targets younger children and facilitates early intervention, with shorter waiting times. Notwithstanding that good work, the Minister acknowledges that a lot more needs to be done to improve timely access to services. To address the long waiting times at a national level, the Department of Health is currently working with the HSE on a focused programmatic approach to primary care therapy waiting list management. I have spoken at length with the CEO of the HSE, Bernard Gloster, and the Minister in relation to this issue. I welcome this dedicated focus on a programmatic approach to primary care therapy waiting list management, given that the waiting lists are extremely long.”
“In this area, the HSE has undertaken a number of measures to address the long waiting times for SLT services, working to improve access, ensure appropriate prioritisation and provide ongoing support to families awaiting direct intervention. Such measures include monthly advice clinics that are available to all children and families in the community. These clinics provide an opportunity for families to receive guidance, resources and early support while awaiting an SLT assessment. Additionally, the HSE is running overtime clinics across the area to target children with the longest waiting times. The HSE has also advised that a prioritisation tool is being utilised to identify children with the highest levels of need, that is, to triage the children to enable the most appropriate response.”
“The waiting lists are too long, with too many people, especially children, waiting a very long time to access services. We know we need to address this. The HSE has advised that the increased pressure and demand on primary care therapy services are related to an increase in referrals, the increasing complexity of presentations, leading to longer interventions, and challenges related to recruitment and retention of healthcare professionals in the community. These factors have all contributed to an increase in waiting lists for services across the country. I will now respond to the Deputy’s specific questions. In the integrated healthcare area, IHA, for north county Dublin, the HSE has advised that there is an ongoing focus on recruitment to fill the vacancies in this speech and language therapy service.”
“The Minister for Health has asked me to thank the Deputy for raising this matter and for the opportunity to update the Dáil on this important issue. She is acutely aware of the role that primary care services, such as speech and language therapy, have in offering the opportunity for early and cost-effective interventions for children and young people. Nobody will disagree with the Deputy’s point that early intervention is key. There is nothing more worrying or frustrating for parents when their child needs an intervention than that the child is on a waiting list. I accept and acknowledge that. We all have issues about that in our own constituencies. The Minister fully acknowledges that waiting lists for primary care therapies have increased significantly over recent years.”
“My understanding is that there might be some other organisations that are in the same circumstances. I will speak to my colleague later in the day.”
“I certainly will raise this issue with the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, this morning. I am not sure whether he is in the building right now. I understand he is not, which is why I am here taking this Topical Issue. I appreciate that some groups, and these workers are not the only such group, are not covered by the WRC agreement and may be disappointed. However, the agreement reached covers only grant-funded organisations, which means it does not apply to those organisations that tender as against receiving a grant. Funding for services commissioned through tendering arrangements are not covered in this agreement as they are separately contracted with relevant providers. I will speak to the Minister of State to see whether any intervention can be made or, at least, whether it can be looked at to see what is the situation.”
“I think he said it was previously classified by the HSE as a section 39 organisation but is now falling outside that scope and, even though an agreement was made with ICTU for an uplift for staff of section 39 organisations, its staff are not able to avail of it.”
“While the agreement is substantial and provides increases for a broad range of employees across sections 10, 39, 40, and 56 funded organisations, it encompasses only those organisations that are grant funded and does not encompass tendered services. Funding for services commissioned through tendering arrangements is not covered in the agreement as those services are separately contracted with relevant providers. Related considerations can be dealt with through existing procurement processes. When the Deputy responds, he might be able to explain a little more about the situation of Northside Home Care Services.”
“This agreement applies to organisations grant-funded under section 39 of the Health Act 2004, section 56 of the Child and Family Agency Act 2013, section 10 of the Housing Act 1988 and section 40 of the Domestic, Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Agency Act 2023. These workers are employed in community and voluntary organisations that are not public bodies. It is only organisations in these categories that are within the scope of the agreement, and therein lies the problem. I am not sure of the details in regard to Northside Home Care Services and why its staff fall outside the scope of the agreement. Many healthcare assistants work in home care, which is now a tendered service and is not grant funded through the section 39 provisions and, as such, there are organisations and workers who are not encompassed by the agreement.”
“In relation to terms and conditions for those working in section 39 grant-funded organisations, an agreement was reached at the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, on 10 March 2025, between Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, unions and relevant Departments to fund a 9.25% pay increase for health and social care and homeless sector employers, equivalent to increases given under the Public Service Agreement 2024-2026. That was a breakthrough and it was welcomed by all sectors. The pay terms are backdated to start from October 2024, with implementation over a two-year period to the end of 2026, comprising 2.25% on 1 October 2024, 1% on 1 April 2025, 2% on 1 November 2025, 2% on 1 April 2026 and 2% on 1 October 2026.”
“As I stand here today, approximately 56,000 to 57,000 people all over the country will receive home care. It is hugely important to support people to live for as long as possible in their own homes with those vital supports of home care, daycare and meals-on-wheels services. I certainly will raise the Deputy's specific issue with the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, under whose remit it falls. Under section 39 of the Health Act 2004, the Health Service Executive provides assistance to organisations that provide services similar to a service the HSE may provide. However, section 39 grant-funded organisations are privately owned and run, and the terms and conditions of employment of staff in those organisations, once in line with employment legislation, are strictly between the employer and the employee.”
“I thank the Deputy for raising this really important issue in regard to arrangements by section 39 organisations for healthcare assistants. First, I acknowledge the important role section 39 grant-funded organisations and staff play in our health sector, particularly the healthcare assistants working within those organisations. They have a key role in providing services to people with disabilities and older people in our communities. In the previous Dáil, as Minister of State with responsibility for older people, I worked very closely with various organisations and met with people from Northside Home Care Services, who do phenomenal work. I recall they were classed as walkers because a lot of their work is done in streets immediately close to where they live, which means they do not have to be jumping in and out of cars.”
“If research by the commission is required, that is a matter than can be agreed upon as part of the programme of work carried out by the commission on a yearly basis. Finally, to speak about autonomy generally in the Bill, the Bill as presented here today represents a significant lead forward in promoting and respecting the autonomy of people accessing services under the Bill, particularly when compared to the Mental Health Act 2001. This Bill aligns much more closely with the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, and gives a greater voice for people to express will and preferences regarding treatment. I always feel it is really important that the voice and choice of people is heard.”
“Unfortunately, I cannot support this amendment as I do not believe it is appropriate to primary legislation. We may be able to work something out. The review of the operation of this enactment will be led on by the Department of Health. The Department is the appropriate entity to carry out the review because it is responsible for the drafting of the legislation. If, ahead of that review, or as part of it, the Government of the day is of the belief that a report on maximising autonomy is required, then it would be a decision for the Government and Department to lead on such a review. Furthermore, there was a strong working relationship between my office, the Department, and the Mental Health Commission. My Department and the commission will be working closely following the enactment of the Bill to bring the legislation into operation.”
“I have given the Senators my commitment in relation to secondary legislation and also regarding the meeting I have with the PAS in the next two or three weeks. As I have said, my officials will work with Senator Black on amendment No. 74 to get a new wording for Report Stage.”
“In respect to amendment No. 74, as I see the value in providing for information and advocacy supports that are available in a service, I have asked my officials to consider the Senator's amendment and to see how best to apply it to people voluntarily and involuntarily admitted to mental health settings. My officials are currently considering whether it is best that the information and advocacy supports be delivered by the responsible consultant psychiatrist or by the registered proprietor, which in most cases would be the HSE. I have asked my officials to consider the amendment and to work with the Senator to get wording that could be agreed on Report Stage. Regarding amendment No. 75, I cannot support this amendment but we have already discussed it and have voted on something similar.”
“With regard to consent for children being obtained freely without threats or inducements, this is included already in section 80(1) and (2) in relation to a child's consent to treatments. As stated, I am accepting amendment No. 73a. What is being sought in the other five amendments is already catered for in the Bill. It is such a large Bill, containing 220 sections, that it is really easy that something would be duplicated. It has been gone through with a fine toothcomb to make sure that what Senator Black is proposing is already there.”
“Common law requires valid consent for treatment meaning that a person must have the capacity to give his or her consent. He or she must also be given enough information to ensure that consent to treatment is informed. Treatment must also be given voluntarily, which means that it is given without coercion. I do not believe that 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. On amendments 246a and 247a, the provision of information for voluntarily admitted children or children 16 years or older without capacity who are admitted with parental consent, section 74(4) states that the information provided must be in a form and language the person in receipt can understand.”
“I reiterate that any information provided to an involuntarily admitted person should be accessible to that person so I will be accepting the amendment. With respect to amendments No. 73b, 104b, 104c, 246a and 247a, I believe that the matters to which they relate are adequately provided for elsewhere in the Bill. What is contained in amendment No. 73b is covered by the exact same wording in section 451(1)(a). I do not believe we need to provide it again. In the context of amendments Nos. 104b and 104c, the provision of information for voluntarily admitted persons in a form and language that the person in receipt can understand is provided for in section 42(1)(c). In relation to voluntarily admitted persons, consent to treatment is provided on the same common law basis as consent to, or refusal of, treatment in any other area of healthcare.”
“I thank Senator Black for proposing these amendments and for her positive contribution to this process. Amendment No. 73a provides for the notice given to an involuntary admitted person to be given in writing and in a form and language that may reasonably be understood by the person. While I do believe it is similar to the existing section 25(5) I can support this amendment. Is the Senator surprised that I support this amendment?”
“The person can have that nominated decision-maker to support him or her at any time in relation to the type of support he or she may require.”
“These provisions only apply in cases where a person is suspected of lacking capacity. If the clinician does not believe the person lacks capacity, the person must decide whether to accept the proposed treatment. Furthermore, if a person lacks capacity and has a relevant substitute decision-maker in place, that decision-maker can consent to or refuse treatment in his or her place. This is the direct application of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act. We have tried to look at every single element in relation to that. To reiterate, if a person has capacity, the issue does not arise. If the clinician does not believe the person lacks capacity, the person can decide. If a person lacks capacity and has a relevant substitute decision-maker in place, the person also has the support.”
“The grounds for treatment means a person requires treatment immediately and where the required treatment can only be given in an inpatient mental health setting and when the treatment is likely to materially benefit. We included the phrase "materially benefit" the person's condition. It is a high bar to reach. The treatment must be required immediately, which means there is a level of urgency to the need. That is the thinking behind it. A lot of advice was taken from clinicians in relation to this. As I say every day, I am not a clinician, but we have to take the best advice available to us for that tiny cohort of people that this may affect.”
“The administration of treatment may be required prior to the completion of the two capacity assessments in the case where a person is at risk of serious and immediate harm to themselves or others. On this point we are agreed. That is a clinical decision that might have to be made in real time. A clinician could be dealing with someone who is very distressed and may be suicidal. We do not know how they will present. It is a small cohort of people who will be involuntarily detained without capacity. We have to keep remembering that. That is an area we spent a lot of time discussing in the Dáil. The Bill provides for treatment to be administered prior to the capacity assessment process finishing when the person is admitted on the grounds of treatment, namely, when the person requires treatment immediately.”
“We are getting into the complicated sections, where there is an involuntary detention of a person who does not have capacity. For example, if that person has already been sedated and is not in a position to have a capacity examination, that is the unintended consequence there. There are consent to treatment provisions in the Bill and I believe they strike the appropriate balance and ensure the necessary safeguards and protections are in place for people deprived of their liberty. That is what we all want, but we also have to acknowledge the reality of treating people in acute mental distress without capacity. We do not know what potential situation people present in.”
“The result is amendment No. 107, which will ensure that there is a maximum period within which a person's capacity will be reassessed. This will prevent the danger that somebody might be left there for too many weeks and that it would still be thought they do not have capacity when they potentially could have it. Common sense would dictate that capacity will be regularly reassessed and the timeline for these assessments will be tailored to each person. Capacity can continue to be assessed at any point, including when a person's condition has changed. This amendment ensures that an assessment will have to take place no less than once every 14 days, even when a person's condition has not changed. This amendment introduces an additional important safeguard for involuntarily admitted people under this legislation.”
“I brought forward this amendment to allay concerns from some stakeholders that the Bill does not contain a mandatory timeframe for the carrying out of capacity assessments. A person should be asked every day whether they feel that their capacity has changed. However, many people felt that a timeframe should be included in the Bill. As a result, such a timeframe will be written into the legislation such that people will be asked about their capacity no less than once every fortnight. Capacity assessments should be carried out according to the specific needs of each individual. At a service level, assessments of capacity happen regularly in approved centres as part of ongoing treatment. Officials in my Department carefully considered feedback received from stakeholders after the Bill passed all Stages in the Dáil last year.”
“These include a right to an independent review of their admission, a statutory right to receive information, a statutory right to free legal representation and many other protections. To deprive a person of their liberty is a serious infringement of their rights and must be for as short a period as possible. Extending the period for which a person can be held, with an admission order being made to 72 hours, would seriously diminish the rights of that person. I urge Senators to reflect and think carefully about this particular amendment. Government amendment No. 107 states that an assessment of a person's capacity should take place based on the individual needs of each person but should be reviewed no less than once every fortnight.”
“I have stood here over a number of weeks and have heard time and again about the need for a person-centred approach to mental health legislation from Opposition, including Sinn Féin. However, this amendment flies in the face of such an approach. It is absolutely vital that people are held for as short a period as possible before an involuntary admission order is made. Twenty-four hours should be the absolute upper limit. When we deprive someone of their liberty, we must ensure that strong legal safeguards are in place. While being admitted involuntarily can be a difficult experience for people, the admission ensures there are strong legal safeguards for that person.”
“The amendment would give rise to a serious regression in the rights of people in the involuntary admission process. The Mental Health Act 2001 only permits a person to be held for 24 hours in an approved centre before either an admission order must be made or the person released. This timeframe has been retained in this Bill. Since being in this role, I have never had any complaints in relation to that timeframe in the 2001 Act. It would be a retrograde step to extend the period to 72 hours. We must remember that until an admission order has been made in respect of a person, that person is not involuntarily admitted. What is the logic of the Senators who proposed this amendment? I cannot see the rationale behind it.”
“They also set an outer limit for when capacity assessments must be carried out. In addition to the amendments already discussed, this is to narrow the criteria for admission and treatment with the introduction of the word "materially". It is necessary to find the appropriate balance between ensuring the necessary safeguards and protections are in place for people deprived of their liberty while also acknowledging the reality of treating people in acute mental distress in an often highly pressurised environment. The Bill I have brought to the Seanad represents that balance. Regarding amendment No. 68, tabled by Senator Ryan, I spoke to this exact Sinn Féin amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil and raised grave concerns about the consequences of it being accepted.”
“Amendment No. 56, tabled by Senator Boyhan, relates to safeguards for consent to treatment. I introduced a significant number of amendments on Committee Stage in the Dáil to improve the operation of the consent to treatment provisions in the Bill and to strike an appropriate balance between respecting the autonomy of individuals while at the same time ensuring that people have access to treatment when they need it. I considered the interventions on the Bill on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil and representations from stakeholders. This has informed a number of amendments I am introducing here on Committee Stage to better protect and safeguard the rights of involuntarily admitted people. These amendments set time limits within which capacity assessments must be completed.”
“I will keep the Senator updated. I appreciate what he said about potentially withdrawing that. I am on the record of the Seanad for ever more as having said that. My word is my bond. As I said, I will update the Senator because I will be before the House in the next couple of weeks regarding the meeting with the patient advocacy services. I completely agree with Senator Boyhan. I have made my feelings very clear to the HSE and regional executive officer that I, as Minister of State with responsibility for mental health, am fully behind the HSE, that is, the State, Government and taxpayer, buying the Bloomfield facility that supports the most vulnerable people in society. After that, the information is commercially sensitive. That is where I am at.”
“The next phase of the strategy, from quarter 1 2026, will include the formation of a mental health project group and further research on a statutory right to independent advocacy, complaints mechanisms and stakeholder mapping and consultation. This will inform future project work to expand access to advocacy in mental health services within the duration of the patient advocacy service contract. The work is under way. It is already happening. I have funded it. I will fund it even more so in next year's budget. More than ever, I want to see patient advocacy services across mental health facilities. We are all in agreement here. It is easier to work it through secondary legislation. That is the best advice I have been given by the Attorney General and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. That is the way we do it. It is under way.”
“Today's patient advocacy services have completed stage 1 of their internal mental health scoping strategy and have conducted preliminary research into the current legal and policy framework, mapping current mental health services, complaints processes and advocacy services currently in place for mental health. They have to see the whole future before they decide how they will go in and deliver the service. Patient advocacy services have identified the next steps required to inform its extension - hence I am meeting them - to support those who are accessing mental health services who have been reviewed and approved by their board.”
“Briefly, I will try to answer those questions. There is a statutory right for advocacy in older persons and disability services. There is a statutory right to it. This has been set out in secondary legislation. By putting it into secondary legislation, we will have greater flexibility in setting out the roles and responsibilities of an advocate. For example, advocacy will work differently in mental health because there are tribunals and legal representatives. Secondary legislation allows greater flexibility to tease out these issues. Let me tell the Senators where we are at the minute.”
“As regards the proposed sale of the hospital, the HSE and the Mental Health Commission are seeking assurances in relation to safeguards for an appropriate transfer of operations of the service, subject to any sale of the property. I am privy to more detail that I cannot share here in the House because I do not want to prejudice enforcement action the commission may take. I am continuing to monitor the situation closely. As the Senator raised it, I thought it was important to put the detail on the record of the House. I have put it on the record of the Dáil already but I felt it was important to do so here tonight. I thank Members for the opportunity to do so.”
“I have met and spoken with the regional executive officer, the IHA, the chief social worker and the national lead for mental health services repeatedly in recent weeks to make sure patients in Bloomfield are receiving the appropriate and expected quality care. The HSE has been providing support and guidance to Bloomfield Hospital staff since 18 December. This has included the support of a HSE safeguarding team. I have met the chief social worker several times in the past five weeks. The 17 service users outlined in the report have been reviewed by their respective clinician teams and no immediate issues of concern were identified.”
“I have dealt with having to have HIQA in various nursing homes at different times but never in my five and a half years as Minister of State, have I had to deal with the Mental Health Commission going into a facility. It was there within two hours. I understand the inspection process has been rigorous and thorough and the commission is now preparing its report, which it will provide to me in due course. I have been monitoring the situation at Bloomfield closely, working with my officials in the Department and with senior regional and national HSE management since the concerns were brought to my attention, including over the Christmas period.”
“I would say the most vulnerable people in Ireland possibly live in Bloomfield. It is entirely unacceptable to me that vulnerable people who deserve the highest standards of care would be subjected to mistreatment in any form. I am very disappointed management in Bloomfield did not see fit to inform the HSE, the Mental Health Commission, the Department of Health or me as Minister of State, of these incidents. I had to hear of the existence of an independent report commissioned by the hospital from a journalist. I thank the whistleblower who came forward with this information. I am reassured by the swift action taken by the Mental Health Commission, which began an inspection of Bloomfield Hospital on the evening it became aware of these concerns within two hours. For the first time ever, it had to go into a facility in Ireland.”
“All I can say is I give my word, if that is enough, that we will more than look at this because I want to see it. I will write it into secondary legislation. If the Cathaoirleach does not mind, I want to make one comment. I want to address the issue Senator Boyhan raised, which he also has raised with my office, regarding Bloomfield Hospital and I understand his concern. My main concern and priority is for the welfare and well-being of the patients in Bloomfield, people whom I would regard as some of the most vulnerable people in our entire health and social care services. For anyone who does not know, for people who live in Bloomfield, it is their forever home. Many of them have Huntington's disease, which is a very difficult disease. Some of them have enduring mental health conditions and some have acquired brain injuries.”
“I will certainly look for funding to do it quicker than what we hoped because it will take a little while for the Bill to be enacted, as the Senators know. We have two things. When the Bill goes through, we will have the nominated person in place and that is very clear in primary legislation. The person has to give consent to that. They may not give consent and may not want anyone. As for the patient advocacy services, as I said, I have form. I have done it across the board in all older person services. It is there in all 480 to 500 nursing homes we have. It is in disability services. It is now being rolled out into mental health services. The patient advocacy services themselves had to ramp up significantly since 2020 and that is what they are doing.”
“It is not appropriate to put it into primary legislation but I will certainly look at it in secondary legislation. I will do more than look at it, I have already asked my officials - two of them sitting behind me who have put phenomenal work into this Bill and I thank James and Lorraine for the hours and years of work they have done - to look at how best to give effect to access to advocacy supports for people in approved centres by way of secondary legislation. It is not appropriate to put it in primary legislation. There is no entitlement to advocacy supports in primary legislation in similar areas, be it disability or older person services. It does not exist but I am giving the Senators my commitment. All I have is my word. I am currently working with patient advocacy services on this.”
“I want to see patient advocacy services in all mental health facilities. I am saying two things to the House tonight. First, we heard about this already but for those who may not have been there on the night, we have included in the Bill a nominated person. This is the advocate Senator Black spoke about. The wording of the Bill has been carefully put together to ensure a nominated person can be any person of the admitted person's choosing. It can be a family member over 16 years of age or a loved one, friend or carer. Otherwise, a person can appoint a peer advocate or a professional advocate to act as his or her nominated person. That is in the Bill and is one part of it. The next part relates to the patient advocacy services we want to deliver. We are currently working on them.”
“It is in the programme for Government to have them rolled out across mental health services and it is only right and fitting. As we know, patient advocacy services are an independent, free and confidential service which can provide support to people who wish to make a complaint about the care they or a family member have received in a public acute hospital or in a public or private nursing home. It also provides support in the aftermath of a patient safety incident. As per the current contract of the patient advocacy service, PAS, with the Department of Health, which runs to October 2027, the service has commenced work in relation to looking at the area of advocacy and mental health, and how patient advocacy services might progress within this area. I have scheduled a meeting with the service in the next two to three weeks.”
“Everyone is very welcome here tonight to the beautiful Seanad Éireann Chamber. I have listened intently and believe it or not, we are on the same page. First, I have a track record when it comes to advocacy because I was the Minister of State for older people who started in June 2020 and introduced patient advocacy services across all nursing homes in the country, about 480 of them. When I went into the role, there were many advocacy services in the HSE-run facilities but there were not in the private, which the Senators will know comprise 80% of the nursing homes, or the voluntary services. They are all now in place. The National Advocacy Service for People with Disabilities also currently delivers the patient advocacy service under contract with the Department of Health. At present, I am engaging with the patient advocacy services.”
“I fully support the intent of both Senators' amendments and believe the Government amendments address the same matter. I have no issue with the Senators' amendments but there is a duplication regarding "to materially benefit".”
“Amendments Nos. 50, 52, 118 and 137 seek to include the phrase "to a material extent" in the criteria for involuntary admission and for treatment in the absence of consent. I will similarly move amendments Nos. 51, 117, 186 and 284 to ensure any admission or administration of treatment on the grounds of treatment is expected to materially benefit the person's condition, rather than simply being of benefit to the condition. I introduce this amendment following consultation with the Mental Health Commission and acknowledging that the admission and treatment criteria must be at an appropriately high bar. I do not support the Opposition's amendments, solely because these amendments, coupled with the Government's amendments, would be a duplication.”