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 25 of 50.
“I thank the Senator for that. I know it was a concern she raised last week as well. My understanding, in relation to what we are discussing in these amendments, is that they only speak to circumstances where those children, in Oberstown or other places, are accessing mental health services. That is the first point. Any more general issues with children in care, guardians ad litem , or what happens to children outside of mental health services, is beyond the scope of this Bill. It is how this Bill aligns itself with the Child Care Act 1991. Amendments to the Mental Health Bill only relate to how the children access mental health treatment. The discussion on Oberstown is beyond the scope of this Bill in itself but I get the point the Senator is making regarding children who would have mental health challenges, difficulties and disorders.”
“I would not have a huge knowledge of the Childcare Act but we spent a lot of time on it this week just so I would be able to answer those questions. It is certainly Tusla in that particular case.”
“I will respond to that, if that is okay. The Senator is right. Oberstown is the responsibility of the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality. The Senator is quite right on that. Any child who is detained in Oberstown comes under the care of Tusla. It is very clear and that is the piece. In regard to voluntary admissions of children under 16 years of age, it is where the child is under 16 years of age and Tusla consents to the admission. Involuntary detentions involve the court but Tusla makes decisions on behalf of the child that would otherwise be made by the parent or guardian of the child. That is very clear. I had to check it out this week. I did a lot of homework on that particular part of it.”
“The only difference is that Tusla makes decisions on behalf of the child that would otherwise be made by the parent or guardian of the child. Even though these provisions affect a very small minority of children, a huge amount of care and work has gone into ensuring the appropriate alignment between the Bill and the Childcare Act 1991. At present, any child who is subject to District Court proceedings under section 25 of the Mental Health Act 2001 is appointed a guardian ad litem for those court proceedings. The amendments to this Bill do not change that policy but instead reinforce it and make the entitlement more explicit in the Bill itself. The primary role of the guardian ad litem is to ascertain and communicate the child's views to the court and to make recommendations in the child's best interests.”
“Where the child is over 16 years of age but lacks the necessary capacity to consent to admission, Tusla can consent to his or her admission. Similar to point 1 above, in such cases, an application is made to the District Court to ensure there is court oversight in place for the child. Then we have involuntary admission of children. A child who is the subject of a care order can be admitted involuntarily on the same basis as any other child, where the HSE believes the child has a mental disorder that meets the criteria for involuntary admission. Regarding consent to treatment for children who are the subject of a care order, it works exactly the same as for children who are not subject to a care order.”
“This means that Tusla is the legal parent of the child. When a child is subject to a care order, he or she can be admitted where there is voluntary admission of children under 16 years of age, the child is under 16 years of age and Tusla consents to the admission. In these cases, an application is made to the District Court to admit the child. This is to ensure there is court oversight in place for a child moving from the care of one State body to another. Then we have a situation where there is voluntary admission. I have dealt with voluntary admission of children under 16 years of age; this where there is voluntary admission of children over 16 years of age, when the child is over 16 years and he or she agrees to the admission voluntarily. Then we have parental admission of children over 16 years who are lacking capacity.”
“Any more general issues with children in care, guardians ad litem or what happens to children outside of mental health services is beyond the scope of this Bill. I have to be clear that I will not be speaking to that. I will only be speaking to when a child interacts with the Mental Health Bill. Amendments to the Mental Health Bill only relate to how those children access mental health treatment and do not contain substantive changes to the Childcare Act 1991. At the request of clinicians in the HSE and the Department of Children, Disability and Equality, the Bill explicitly sets out provisions in relation to children subject to certain orders under the 1991 Act. The Bill provides for admission and consent to treatment for children who are the subject of care orders under section 18 of the 1991 Act.”
“This brings me back to my initial conversation last week when I was here for a couple of hours. The reason there are over 300 amendments is because it is at this Stage of the Bill that we are trying to align with the Childcare Act 1991 and the Department of justice. The majority of the work in relation to the Bill, its purpose and the reasoning behind it, was more or less in place. I am going to explain a little bit. We did not speak last week about care orders because I knew we would get to it but I think this will be helpful for us all as we try to understand the way it aligns. The Childcare Act 1991 is the responsibility of the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality. This Bill only speaks to circumstances where those children are accessing mental health services.”
“The amendments in this Bill do not change this policy; instead, they reinforce it - working in conjunction with the Department of children - and make the entitlement more explicit. The Department of Children, Disability and Equality is reforming how the guardian ad litem system operates. This was the subject of the Child Care (Amendment) Act 2022. The amendments in the Bill will ensure that it is properly aligned with the 2022 Act and that the guardian ad litem system can continue to be accessed by children in mental health court proceedings. The insertion of the definition of "guardian ad litem " and the subsequent amendments ensure that guardians ad litem will continue to be appointed in certain proceedings, including involuntary admission court proceedings covered by the Bill.”
“Amendment No. 13 inserts a definition of guardian ad litem which mirrors the definition in the Child Care Act 1991. That Act and guardians ad litem in general are the responsibility of the Minister for children. I will not speak to these matters where they do not relate to the mental health Bill. Guardians ad litem are appointed to children during court proceedings and the role of the guardian is to represent the voice of the child in court. The primary role of a guardian ad litem is to ascertain and communicate a child's views to the court and to make recommendations in the child's best interests. Guardians ad litem are already appointed to children who are subject to involuntary detention proceedings under section 25 of the Mental Health Act 2001.”
“These amendments are in keeping with human rights standards and are compliant with our ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
“I will respond to the Senator's final point. It is just a style issue. It is consistency in wording. It is not a change to a different consultant looking after a child, an adult or whoever. It is more of a technical amendment. As I have said, the only way I can describe it is that there is a need to have the wording consistent throughout all sections of the Bill. It is nothing to do with the overall purpose of the Bill or the treatment that anybody would receive.”
“I will put on the record that when I came in here last week, I was accused of not having compassion. Today I have been accused of not being capable. I believe these amendments are in keeping with human rights standards. The Senator hardly thinks or imagines that we would bring forward a Bill that is not in keeping with human rights standards. He hardly thinks that an expert panel in 2014 put all the work into putting a Bill in place. He hardly thinks my officials have worked for five years to bring in a Bill that would not be in keeping with human rights standards and would not be compliant with our ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Does he honestly think that in 2025, I would come before the Seanad with a Bill that was not doing that?”
“I will speak to Senator Boyhan's question when I get to amendment No. 36a. I am speaking to these amendments now. His amendment refers to the entire Bill in my opinion. I will not just discuss it on every section. I will deal with amendment No. 36a when we get to it. On Senator Black's question, if she looks back at what has happened since the 2001 Act came in, she will see that the majority of the tribunals - my understanding is over 90% - happened between days 14 and 19. To clarify, it was decided to include it from day 14 to day 21.”
“A second difference is that the Bill states that any person, whether a voluntary or involuntary patient and whether an adult or a child, accessing inpatient services may name a family member as his or her nominated person. It is really important that people have that support. That has long been called for. On the third issue, I will repeat that I am not a clinician. However, I do have lived experience in relation to mental health and family involvement in mental health services. I also have common sense. There is a very small cohort who have been detained involuntarily, rather than being voluntary patients. They are very unwell. I believe that people who are still detained involuntarily by day 14 and need the review would still be quite ill. If they were well enough, their detention would already have been revoked. I will close on that.”
“I thank all Senators for their perspectives on this particular piece. I will make a couple of points. To respond to Senator Boyhan on human rights, the Senator has proposed an amendment, No. 36a, that I hope we will come to soon. We will discuss the issue at that stage. What he is asking about relates to the entire Bill, but I will discuss the matter when the Senator moves amendment No. 36a. A couple of things have been lost in translation. We know for a fact that, since 2001, the review can happen up to day 21. There are a few differences under the new Bill. The main difference is that the review can now happen up to three months afterwards rather than up to six months.”
“So that people understand exactly what the review involves, I will outline that it includes an examination of the person by an independent consultant psychiatrist, which is what we are talking about; an examination of the person by another mental health care professional for the purposes of a psychosocial report; consultation between the person and his or her legal team - this is where it is at the moment - and the actual hearing itself. That all takes time. I do not see it being possible to fulfil the requirements of the Act if we were to change the period to 14 days. We could not do that between the eighth day and the 14th day. I do not believe that a person who is involuntarily detained might be well enough on the eighth, ninth, tenth or 11th day to put their best case forward. I will be pressing these amendments.”
“I know from my lived experience that, in many cases, where a person who has been involuntarily detained becomes a voluntary patient, that person may decide to leave the facility. That happens a lot. People can make that decision. Senator Stephenson asked about the rationale. The rationale is very clear in my mind. We currently allow up to 21 days for the tribunal to take place. If that was to change to up to 14 days, there would be an issue in meeting the demand in light of the consultants we have available to attend tribunals.”
“I am not saying that is what the Senators are saying but we all know that when people are involuntarily detained in mental health facilities, clinicians go to work every day to make sure those people get as well as possible so that they can go home to their families or whatever. I just wanted to clarify that. The 2001 Act, which we are working off at the moment, provides for a review at up to six months. The Bill I am trying to get through the Seanad changes that to up to three months. Three months is an appropriate amount of time. Psychiatrists are compelled to discharge people when they think they no longer have a mental disorder. While we are waiting for the tribunal to happen, a person's status can change from involuntary to voluntary.”
“I will try to respond to everyone. What we are speaking about in this particular part of the Bill is adults who are involuntarily detained. That is the first point we need to make very clear. To respond to Senator Ruane, under the existing 2001 Act, the review takes place up to six months afterwards. We are reducing that to up to three months - I did not say "up to" but I should have - under the new Bill. There has been a significant move in that regard. There is another point I want to make. I have never come across a clinician who wants to detain somebody involuntarily just for the sake of it.”
“According to the statistics relating to the number of people who had that review on day 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, the majority of the reviews happen at that stage. I am not a clinician and I am not sure how many clinicians are in the Seanad, but it is really important that people get the best opportunity they can to engage with their legal representative and the review board. The best information available to me is that in most cases this can happen to people who are very ill or involuntarily detained, and it can happen from day 14 onwards. There might be individual cases that do not agree with that, but I am happy to stand over this amendment.”
“Very few families in Ireland have not engaged with somebody with a mental health disorder, illness or challenge or with emotional distress. I am often challenged by people whose loved one has been turned away by a department of psychiatry or approved centre. When people are involuntarily detained, they are very ill and at their lowest ebb. It is really important to recognise that the first body to be advised when someone is involuntarily detained is the Mental Health Commission. These people have rights and those rights are being cemented in this Bill. That means we will continue doing what we did under the 2001 Act in that a tribunal or review will be ordered between days 14 and 21.”
“I cannot speak to individual cases and it is unfair of the Senator to expect me to do so in the context of a debate on legislation. This Bill is hugely important. It will make a significant difference to many people who are very ill. The majority of mental health services are provided in the community. It is really important that mental health services be regulated in respect of CAMHS and in respect of people who have endured mental health conditions and live well in their communities. It is also really important in regard to 16- and 17-year-olds, who will be able to consent to treatment in respect of their mental health. Those who are involuntarily detained are the sickest people in society and they are crying out for help. No clinician, garda or family member supports lightly the involuntary admission of a person to a psychiatric ward.”
“Generally, a person who has been involuntarily detained is very ill and needs psychiatric support. Currently, the majority of people are seen between days 14 to 19. That is why I am slow to change the provision. We have that caveat there and the provision for family support. I take on board the Senator's point about people who might not feel competent enough to be able to speak for themselves at a review board hearing, such as people who are vulnerable, marginalised or whatever. However, I believe the provision we have made in terms of the Minister being able to make these small changes will cover that. It would be subject to the Minister looking at the data being presented. A total of 1,734 tribunals were held in 2024. The statistics show very clearly that almost 70% of them are held between 15 to 19 days after admission.”
“It is really important to remember we are talking about people, as the Senator rightly said, who are involuntarily detained, and that has happened for a reason. In a lot of cases, these people are very ill; otherwise, they would not be involuntarily detained. After the initial review board hearing, a review board will not be reconvened until an order is renewed. The Bill provides for orders to last up to three months. If it is mandated that all hearings take place before 14 days following admission, there is a risk that a person is still too unwell to properly engage with his or her legal representative. The person who has been involuntarily detained may be better able to engage with his or her legal representative and the review board between days 14 and 21. We must keep that in mind.”
“That is why I was very keen to include the provision in the Bill whereby, for the first time ever, people can nominate a person. Obviously, that comes back to the consent issue and people may decide not to nominate anyone. However, we are very hopeful that having a nominated person will be helpful. When people have a mental health difficulty or disorder, they always do much better, even in community services, with the support of a loved one or somebody else to be there with them at this really difficult time. That statutory instrument will be written into the Bill. I would be happy to review it every year to examine the statistics on how far out are we on day 14, 15, 16 or whatever. Having family support for people is vital. For me, it is the game-changer we did not have previously.”
“A nominated person can receive information of a general nature about the nominating person's condition, care and treatment, attend meetings along with the person, including meetings of the review board, and support the person in making decisions about care and treatment. The nominated person does not have the statutory right to make decisions on behalf of the person but he or she is there to support that person, help to advocate on behalf of the person and be informed of updates about the person's condition. The Senator is right about a person who is involuntarily detained and does not have capacity or somebody who is involuntarily detained and may not, as she said, feel educated enough to articulate what he or she wants for his or her care.”
“My understanding after talking to consultants is that they would support a person to attend at an earlier stage in the tribunal's process if they felt the person was well enough to do that against, for example, leaving everybody to wait 20 or 21 days. There is one small difference as well, although I think it is a significant difference. Both Sharing the Vision and the Mental Health Bill support family involvement. The Bill states that any person admitted voluntary or involuntarily, adult or child, accessing inpatient services may name a family member or any other person as their nominated person. That is not in the 2001 Act and it is really important.”
“I am also conscious of the fact that those consultants and clinicians who attend the reviews also work in mental health services, community services, departments of psychiatry and approved centres. It is important that we are cognisant of that. It is not that somebody just works as part of the tribunal system. That has to be a factor as well.”
“Every single person who presents is different. Obviously, it is a review tribunal, so it is an involuntary detention. However, when the review board meets and the person is there with his or her legal representatives, I believe it is deliberate for those who are put forward on days 14, 15 or 16 because the clinicians who put that person forward for the review would feel that he or she would be better able to articulate his or her own reasoning in that case and those who may not have responded as quickly as others are pushed out towards days 19, 20 and 21. This is something we can keep under review. It will be written into the Bill as a statutory instrument for the Minister of the day to reduce it back.”
“We found that in 2024, which is the year for which I have data available to me, there were 1,734 tribunals; 343 were held on day 20 and 139 were held on day 21. As I said, therefore, the majority of them are held between days 15 and 19. There is clear reasoning for permitting a review board to take place between 14 days and 21 days based on clinical presentation and that is what I factored my decision on. In the majority of cases, it takes two to three weeks after admission and the commencement of treatment before a person's condition improves. For a person to meaningfully engage with the review board or his or her legal representative, it would make sense to allow the person enough time for treatment to take effect. However, what I want to see happening is further engagement because every single case is different.”
“The Bill provides for orders to last up to three months. If it is mandated that all hearings take place before 14 days of admission, there is a risk that a person is still too unwell to properly engage with his or her legal representative and review board at that initial hearing and that he or she may not appear before a review board for another three months. That is a factor that I had to take on board. The current wording is that the Bill allows the Minister of the day, whoever that is, to reduce the number of days over time from 21 days to 14 days. I believe this strikes the right balance. We will go back to 21 days, which is three weeks in relation to it if we take the working week for example.”
“I thank the Senator. I compliment her on all the work she does in relation to mental health. We worked closely together in the previous Dáil and Seanad when she chaired the Sub-Committee on Mental Health. I did write at the time to support her when she was trying to keep that committee up and running. I thank her for all the work she does. To move back to the point of the current Bill, the 2001 Act allows for 21 days. This is something I have discussed at length with both advocacy groups and the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland. There are several reasons I have decided to leave it at 21 days while putting in a caveat that it can be changed. One thing to remember is that after the initial review board hearing, if that was to happen at two weeks, for example, a review board will not be reconvened until an order is renewed.”
“I am very conscious of the fact that they do clinics midweek and we did not want to cancel clinics in order to provide as much flexibility as possible, having regard also to the person who is waiting for the tribunal. The statistics I outlined earlier show that the majority of them take place on days 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. That is why I included that a Minister of the day could decide to pull it back slightly. If we can get to a situation where they are all done within 18 days, I would be happier. That is the reasoning behind it.”
“There is a clear basis for retaining 21 days as the upper limit for the holding of review board hearings. People who are involuntarily admitted tend to see their condition begin to improve between two to three weeks, as this is how long it takes for medication to take proper effect. Giving people an opportunity to improve their condition within the initial period will help them participate more fully in the process. It normally starts at 14 days, up to 21 days. It is something that I have looked at in depth and we have spoken about it a lot. When we talk about 21 days, it is three weeks, which is 15 working days. I have discussed this with several clinicians who have to attend the tribunals.”
“In many cases a person may not be well enough to properly engage with his or her legal representation in a review board if the hearing is held in the days immediately after admission. By investing the Minister with the powers to prescribe a shorter period, we can start to reduce the maximum period of time in which a review board hearing takes place. Twenty one days is the absolute upper limit of when a review board hearing can take place. This can be reduced over time by way of regulation.”
“Based on data from tribunal hearings in 2024, a significant number of tribunals take place between days 15 to 19. In 2024, of the 1,734 tribunals that were held, 343 were held on day 20 and 139 on day 21. According to the 2024 statistics, 192 of the 1,734 tribunals in total were held on 14 days or prior. There was clear reasoning for permitting a review board hearing to take place between 14 days and 21 days, based on clinical presentation. In the majority of cases it takes two to three weeks after admission and the commencement of treatment before a person's condition improves. For a person to meaningfully engage with the review board or his or her legal representative, it would make sense to allow the person enough time for treatment to take effect, which is generally from day 14 onwards.”
“I have included the amendment to revert this to simply stating "shorter than 21 days", but having considered the matter further I believe the wording as amended in the Dáil is appropriate and I will withdraw amendment No. 83. I am moving this amendment to revert to the original wording following feedback from different stakeholders. There may be some operational difficulties if the time limit for review board hearings is not set out in primary legislation, particularly in relation to compliance. It will be more straightforward to enforce compliance by services when the time limit is set out in black and white in primary legislation rather than in secondary legislation, which will not be reflected in the actual text of the Bill itself.”
“Amendments Nos. 10, 26, 46, 53 to 55, inclusive, 69 to 73, inclusive, and 78 to 88, inclusive, have been grouped together. These amendments relate generally to the involuntary admission process. Many of these amendments are small in nature. For example, amendment No. 10 inserts the term "for involuntary admission" after the words "recommendation" in line 3 of page 16. Similarly, amendment No. 46 provides for the deletion of a definition in section 11 and amendment No. 26 provides for the insertion of the same definition in section 2. I have continued to consider the matter of the appropriate length of time in which a review board hearing should take place. I moved an amendment previously to retain the limit of 21 days, but to allow the Minister to shorten this period to between 14 days and 21 days.”
“To clarify, Topical Issues are on at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and I am actually taking one. It is my understanding that the list is already full for the morning so I cannot say whether it would revert to tomorrow or further away. That does not come through me. It comes through the Oireachtas. I cannot state for definite that Deputy Mac Lochlainn's will be taken in the morning.”
“To be helpful while the official is looking up the exact Standing Order in relation to it, I have discussed with all senior Ministers that I expect, as Chief Whip, that somebody from the Department takes a question. That is why I am here myself taking the previous three health questions. I always try to come in if they are about mental health. Sometimes, it is impossible if a Minister or Minister of State is not available. Deputy Mac Lochlainn said he has seen the Minister of State. We then move to Front Bench cover. My expectation of Ministers is that, where possible, it would be fulfilled by the Minister or a Minister from that Department.”
“Under the 2025 plan, Naas General Hospital has completed works, including an 11-bed acute medical assessment unit and an emergency department admissions discharge lounge. They were some capital projects that have completed. I take on board what Deputy Farrelly is saying. With the size of the population in Kildare, the fact it is the only model three hospital in that area means there is a huge amount of demand. I will give the Deputy a commitment on the floor of the Dáil that I will speak to the Minister, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, to see what more supports can be provided for the hospital. I look forward to seeing the announcement in relation to where some of this national development plan health capital allocation of €1.56 billion for 2026 goes. I will certainly relay the Deputy's concerns to the Minister.”
“I thank Deputy Farrelly for raising Naas General Hospital and the challenges we are seeing right across the country at the moment in terms of the surge in presentations, in particular older people, relating to flu. I heard Bernard Gloster, the chief executive of the HSE, say quite clearly on Sunday that if people are very unwell, they need to present to hospital. It is especially true for older people in relation to flu. I will also take this opportunity to encourage people to take the flu vaccine as well. That is really important because we are seeing a huge surge of presentations. I could talk about waiting list initiatives and that but that will not help the Deputy out at the moment.”
“Another project involves a 15-cubicle transition unit for patient admissions and discharges to alleviate emergency department admission pressure. In 2020, Naas General Hospital received a €74 million budget. In 2025, the budget allocation for the hospital rose to €130 million. This investment in recent years is fundamental to supporting the ongoing development of services and ensuring that Naas General Hospital will continue to play an invaluable role in the delivery of health services to the local community in the years ahead. Notwithstanding the almost doubling of the budget between 2020 and 2025, I take on board the points the Deputy has raised. I will be very happy to discuss them with the Minister for Health, Deputy Carroll MacNeill.”
“The HSE capital plan sets out the planned health infrastructure investment within a given year. Capital investment plays a critical role in enabling and enhancing health service provision. Construction is underway to repurpose and refurbish existing HSE accommodation in St. Mary's at Naas General Hospital to provide short-term accommodation for enhanced community care, the integrated care programme for older people, ICPOP, and chronic disease management services. Naas General Hospital is currently at design feasibility stage for multiple projects, including the conversion of an existing operating theatre and ancillary rooms into two endoscopy procedure rooms, increasing the total number of rooms from one to three.”
“The last thing any of us wants to see are people waiting on trolleys, especially elderly people and those aged over 75. We have invested hugely in home care, day care and meals on wheels to provide as much support as possible to support people in living well in their own communities, but there comes a time when people have to present to hospital and be looked after. The emergency department can be very difficult for an elderly person when it is extremely busy. I want to highlight some of the good work being carried out at Naas General Hospital during these challenging circumstances. From January to October 2025, the median waiting time for all emergency department patients was down 18% compared to the same period in 2024. I accept there is more to be done.”
“The hospital is the sole provider of acute care in the integrated health area and serves a significantly larger population than many of its model 3 hospital counterparts. Naas General Hospital continues to experience sustained pressure across all service areas. From January to October 2025, emergency department attendances have risen by 9% compared to the same period in 2024. Emergency department attendances of patients aged 75 and over have also risen by 9% in this timeframe. The average length of stay for patients aged over 75 is more than twice that of patients aged under 75, compounding pressure on bed capacity and overall patient flow. I acknowledge the fact that the Deputy said 255 people were on trolleys through the month of November.”
“I thank Deputy Farrelly for the manner in which he has raised the issue. While acknowledging the challenges in Naas General Hospital, he spoke about this issue being no reflection on the staff and that the level of care being provided is exceptional. I want to acknowledge his work in advocating for the people of Kildare. I did not realise 250,000 people live in Kildare. That is huge population growth. Naas General Hospital is a 202 inpatient and 18 day bed acute public hospital, providing healthcare to over 250,000 people in the growing catchment area of Kildare and west Wicklow. Naas General Hospital caters for patient activity through emergency, inpatient, outpatients and day services departments.”
“The most important thing is that a person does not have to be living in that particular area to access a bed. That is a specific problem we have at the moment with St. Vincent's Hospital. I am really pleased we will be able to move this on. It does take time, but we are certainly making progress.”
“We conducted the bed capacity review and I was delighted to work with the Minister for Health, Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, to secure significant capital investment from 2026 to 2030 sitting somewhere around €400 million for mental health. I have never had that kind of funding available to me before for capital investment. As a result, we will invest in 20 adult beds. We will locat them geographically. From memory, there will be approximately eight to ten beds in the Dublin region, six in the Cork region and another approximately six in the Roscommon region. The reason they are located like that is these are three areas we have identified and approved for building new centres with departments of psychiatry where we will include these beds.”