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 41 of 50.
“From listening to and engaging with gardaí at many levels, I am aware that nearly one third of all involuntary detentions, especially of very ill people, are made by gardaí. That is not their role. It is a role they want to move away from but that cannot happen until we have enough authorised officers. For authorised officers as we know them, it is an additional part of their work. I will not call it overtime but it is an add-on. We are going to need full-time authorised officers, especially in the larger cities.”
“Following Committee Stage, the HSE must begin to make preparations for the expansion of the authorised officer system, but I know it has already begun. I heard from the Orla Keane at the Mental Health Commission today that it had provided some of this additional training already. As I have said, for all facets of the Bill there will be lead-in time, but we have to be 100% sure there are enough authorised officers to respond wherever they are requested all over the country. It is one of the areas where we will not be able to make the changes from gardaí to authorised officers until we are satisfied that we have enough of them. We have a good start with 174. That is the most recent figure available to me. We have to at least double it, if not more. That is the most up-to-date information I have, but the figure will rise quickly.”
“All officers are mental health professionals, with the majority being either mental health nurses or social workers. At present, people work as authorised officers as an add-on to their existing job in the evenings and on weekends. The HSE also provides specific training, so some are psychiatric nurses, occupational therapists, registered psychiatrists and social workers, but they are mostly clinical nurse specialists, psychiatric nurses and social workers. The HSE has been aware of the introduction of this system for a number of years and must be satisfied and ensure all of us, me as Minister of State and the Department of Health are satisfied that it has enough authorised officers and that the system as designed can work effectively. Initial costings estimate the system for authorised officers will cost €3.5 million per year.”
“I thank the Deputies for their appropriate questions. In 2023, 16% of applications were made by authorised officers and 32% by gardaí. That is to put it into context. The Department and the HSE recognise that for the authorised officer system to work effectively, officers must be available nationwide on a 24-7 basis. I am in 100% and total agreement. The expectation is not that an authorised officer would be available in every village, but one should be available in at least every county and in every medium to large urban centre, but I believe we have to go further than that. The CAST project in Limerick is a useful example of how the authorised officer might work in the future, with a dual Garda-health service approach. As of the last figures I had available, from September 2024, there were 174 authorised officers trained within the HSE.”
“An Garda Síochána stated it would be inappropriate to assign this responsibility to gardaí as it is not part of the statutory responsibility for gardaí to provide transportation outside of defined arrangements such as custody. Amendment No. 178 inserts a new subsection (7) into section 71 to allow the HSE to step in and assist gardaí where the parent or guardian of a child cannot be located or if it is unsafe to release the child to them. I believe the amendments I am moving today in relation to Garda powers for taking adults and children into custody make these provisions more operational and bring greater clarity to members of An Garda Síochána working under the enactment and, crucially, greater clarity to people being treated under this enactment. I thank An Garda Síochána for all its engagement on this section of the Bill.”
“172 and 176, in relation to Garda powers to take children into custody, replace the wording "unless it is unsafe to do so" and "it is unsafe or not in the bests interests of the child" with "there is an immediate and serious risk to the health or welfare of a child by releasing the child into the care of that person or persons". An Garda Síochána asked for greater clarity on what constitutes unsafe. The revised wording aligns closely with the current wording of section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991. Amendment No. 173 provides for the deletion of section 71(5) in relation to where any of a parent, guardian or the Child and Family Agency request the assistance of gardaí when transferring the child following their release.”
“70 inserts a requirement into section 19, which states that authorised officers will comply with a Garda request to consider making an application for a recommendation for involuntary admission as soon as practicable. An Garda Síochána requests that some acknowledgement be included that the HSE be compelled to respond within a timely manner to a request for an authorised officer. Amendment No. 126 introduces a requirement that An Garda Síochána shall respond as soon as practicable to a request for assistance in bringing back to a registered acute mental health centre a person who has absconded without leave. Amendments Nos.”
“The wording in the Bill as initiated may cause duplication or conflict if a separate set of regulations in relation to custody are prepared. Amending the reference here allows the Minister to make broader regulations in relation to Garda powers under this legislation. Amendment No. 68 inserts a new subsection (10) into section 18 to allow An Garda to retain a copy of the recommendation for involuntary admission, as is currently the case under the existing Mental Health Act. It is retained with the custody record of the person and used in assisting with the transfer of the person to the approved centre. Amendment No. 69 deletes "but not later than 12 hours" from section 19(1) as members of An Garda Síochána are already compelled to bring a person to a registered acute mental health centre as soon as is practicable. Amendment No.”
“66 inserts the term "or a consultant psychiatrist acting on that clinical director’s behalf" in subsection 18(8). This will expand the staff members whom the Garda may contact to arrange for the person to be brought to the registered acute mental health centre. This amendment was requested to align this provision with section 19 and to reduce the possibility of delays in arranging transfers. Amendment No. 67 is being moved in relation to section 18(9) to read, "when a member or members of An Garda Síochána exercise powers under this section or under sections 19, 39, 71, 77 or 131". Members of An Garda Síochána must apply the regulations for the treatment of persons in custody in Garda stations to any person taken into custody, including under the Mental Health Act.”
“This has been included at the request of An Garda Síochána to ensure, for the avoidance of doubt, that there is an explicit power to use reasonable force to take a person into custody. Of course, members of An Garda Síochána are bound to act within the powers granted them under this and other enactments, but also are bound by Garda policies on use of reasonable force. Amendments Nos. 62 and 171 replace the term "a Superintendent or Chief Superintendent" with "a member ... not below the rank of Inspector" as the grade that can extend the timeframe for holding a person in custody. This was requested by An Garda Síochána because it may be difficult to get in contact with a superintendent outside of normal working hours. Amendments Nos. 63 to 65, inclusive, are technical amendments. Amendment No.”
“I move amendment No. 61: In page 29, line 9, before “take” to insert “take all reasonable measures necessary to”. Following publication of the Bill last July, officials in my Department continued to consult key stakeholders. Invaluable feedback was provided by An Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice regarding the provisions on Garda powers in the Bill. An Garda Síochána examined the Bill in terms of operability and suggested amendments that would help improve how the new Bill could be operationalised. I will provide some detail on the proposed amendments and the rationale for moving them. Amendments Nos. 61 and 170 provide for the term "take all reasonable measures to", which is being inserted into sections 18(1)(a) and 71(1)(a).”
“I move amendment No. 56: In page 27, line 13, to delete “view” and substitute “opinion”. These are technical amendments to replace the word “view” with “opinion” at various points throughout the Bill.”
“I move amendment No. 54: In page 26, to delete line 41, and in page 27, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following: “(6) In this section and section 18 , “relevant person” means a person who— (a) is a spouse of the person, the subject of the application, but does not include a spouse who is living separately and apart from the person or in respect of whom— (i) an application for an order has been made but not yet determined under the Act of 2018, or (ii) an order has been made under the Act of 2018, (b) is a relative of the person, the subject of the application, (c) has a bona fide interest in the mental health, safety and welfare of the person concerned, or (d) is a mental healthcare professional (other than a consultant psychiatrist).”.”
“I move amendment No. 53: In page 26, to delete lines 39 and 40 and substitute the following: “(5) A direct application for a recommendation for involuntary admission shall be made in the form and manner specified by the Commission.”. This amendment provides for a new subsection (5) to ensure that direct applications are made in a form specified by the Mental Health Commission.”
“I move amendment No. 51: In page 26, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “(d) is a spouse of the person, the subject of the application, who is living separately and apart from the person concerned or a spouse in respect of whom— (i) an application for an order has been made but not yet determined under the Act of 2018, or (ii) an order has been made under the Act of 2018,”.”
“I move amendment No. 49: In page 26, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(14) In subsection (1) , “spouse”, in relation to a person, does not include a spouse who is living separately and apart from the person, or a spouse in respect of whom— (a) an application for an order has been made but not yet determined under the Act of 2018, or (b) an order has been made under the Act of 2018.”.”
“I move amendment No. 44: In page 24, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “(d) is a spouse of the person, the subject of the application, who is living separately and apart from the person concerned or a spouse in respect of whom— (i) an application for an order has been made but not yet determined under the Act of 2018, or (ii) an order has been made under the Act of 2018, or”.”
“I move amendment No. 43: In page 23, lines 36 and 37, to delete “recommendation for involuntary admission for the person, the subject of the request,” and substitute “recommendation for the person the subject of the request”.”
“The Deputy quoted from a document I have not had a chance to look at. The purpose of this Bill is to support people who are mentally unwell but also to make sure their human rights are respected. This Bill will speak to that. If the Deputy wants to send me a copy of what he quoted from, I can take a look and come back to him with a response.”
“-----believes that person should be involuntarily detained. There is a whole section in the Bill with the criteria for involuntary detention. I know the Deputy is talking about people who are very ill and, with the best of intentions, may need to be involuntarily detained. That will always come down to the detention criteria.”
“The amendment does not speak to what the Deputy just spoke about. He is talking about somebody who has not been involuntarily detained and someone else believes that person should be, such as a family member. That is not what this amendment is about. I am speaking about somebody who is involuntarily detained and may not have had consent when being involuntarily detained but whose status then changes. That is separate from what this amendment is about. The Deputy is talking about somebody who may be very ill and a family member or whoever-----”
“That is the thrust of what I am trying to achieve in the Bill. I took a huge amount of advice from people working in psychiatric hospitals who have many years of experience. Sometimes, people fall between the cracks. That is not what we are trying to address here. Subsections 2 and 3 of the amendment are already in the Bill. We are all in favour of that. In my opinion and that of those I have listened to, there would be vast unintended consequences to making capacity a part of the criteria for involuntary admission. The consent of people with enduring mental health conditions, who may be psychotic or very ill, can change hourly, daily or weekly.”
“A significant amount of consultation and research went into drafting the criteria for involuntary admission that are set out in the Bill as initiated. People can perhaps give consent in the morning but then withdraw it in the afternoon. That does not mean they still do not need mental health supports from the multidisciplinary team in the department of psychiatry or the approved centre. It is a small cohort who are involuntarily detained. If someone has been involuntarily detained, he or she has already met a certain threshold. Consent can change daily or weekly. Normally, if people have been involuntarily detained but they can then give consent, their detention is revoked and they can ask to leave. There is a very small minority of people who, when their detention is revoked, leave but still need help.”
“Somebody may be very ill and not have capacity when being involuntarily detained but if he or she regains capacity two days later, that person can leave of his or her own free will even where a consultant and multidisciplinary team feel treatment is still required. It is for that reason I cannot support that part of the amendment. As I said, two thirds of it are fine. A small cohort of people are involuntarily detained who may have capacity today and may not have it tomorrow but still need treatment. That is the reason.”
“A person may have a mental disorder that meets the criteria for involuntary admission but still retain some level of decision-making capacity. Under these proposed criteria, these people would not be able to be admitted. That is the worry. On what has been proposed by the Deputies, there is a small cohort for whom it would make it more restrictive to be involuntarily detained. That is why I cannot support it. I am not trying to object to amendments for the sake of it. That is not what I am about. It is all about engagement and trying to make this the best Bill it can possibly be. Capacity is not a binary; it can fluctuate over time and even within a day. If the person lacks capacity on the day of his or her admission but regains it a day or two later, under the proposed criteria, that person's order may be revoked.”
“As the Deputy knows since we have discussed this many times, there is crossover with the Department of justice and the Department of disability and children, so those Report Stage amendments will come. They are still being worked on. They are very technical. It is just a matter of trying to make sure that everyone can make an advance healthcare directive. Again, this is about consent. We all have contact with people who might have an enduring mental health condition. That might be challenging as regards their mental health. We have all had cases, some of them involving family members, and there are days of the week when a family member or friend might give consent for a member of their family to be involved in their care and treatment. That can change overnight. That is the mean reason I cannot support this amendment.”
“I will make a couple of points about what was raised. To be clear, as regards the amendment that was proposed, sections 2 and 3 of this amendment are already in this section of the Bill. That part of it is already in place. My understanding is that sections 2 and 3 will be agreed. The Mental Health Bill extends the ability of anyone detained under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act such that they can make advance healthcare directives and can access the courts. I will address the lacuna the Deputy talks about as regards the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act on Report Stage. When this Bill started out, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act had not been enacted.”
“It is important to note that members of An Garda Síochána will in no way be responsible for making the application for involuntary admission and will not be involved in the assessment or have any decision-making power over whether to refer a person for involuntary admission.”
“45 is a technical amendment to insert a full stop at the end of the sentence as the following sentence is being deleted in amendment No. 46. Amendment No. 46 deletes subsection (2)(e), as it is necessary to allow members of An Garda Síochána to request the HSE to assign an authorised officer to assess a person and decide whether to make an application for involuntary admission. If members of An Garda Síochána cannot request an application, gardaí will have the ability to take into custody a person who they believe is a risk of harm to self or others due to their mental disorder, but cannot refer the person on to a health setting.”
“We heard today that a very small cohort of people are involuntarily detained, at half the rate of our neighbours in the UK. Later amendments I will move will amend the approach to consent to treatment. The Bill as published already provides for the commission to make a code of practice regarding admission. It is such a large Bill that is hard to debate one section without its effect on another. I do not intend to support amendments Nos. 38 to 41, inclusive. I have spoken to this issue previously in my earlier reasons for opposing the grouping of amendments Nos. 13 to 17, inclusive, regarding the term "mental disorder". I will move amendment No. 43, which removes the second use of the term "involuntary admission" on the making of an application, as the second reference is not required. Amendment No.”
“The term "serious likelihood" of causing "immediate and serious harm" is similar to the wording related to risk in the Bill, where there is a risk of immediate and serious harm to the life or health of the person or another person. Of course, the prediction of risk is never easy but it is a matter that must be considered under the existing Act and it will continue under the Bill. I do not believe we are in a position to remove risk as grounds for involuntary admission, as had been suggested at the hearing of the health committee this morning. We cannot have a situation where a person’s health or life is at serious risk because of his or her mental disorder and that person cannot be admitted. The Bill as published provides for involuntary admission only as a last resort. That is really important.”
“I believe that the criteria for involuntary admission in the Bill as initiated reflect an appropriate compromise between the views of key stakeholders and ensure that involuntary admission remains available when necessary for people on the grounds of risk and of treatment. I would like to mention the concept of "risk" as I understand it was discussed at length at the health committee briefing this morning. The existing Mental Health Act provides for detention on the grounds of risk where, "because of the illness, disability or dementia, there is a serious likelihood of the person concerned causing immediate and serious harm to himself or herself or to other persons".”
“Under these proposed criteria, these people would not be able to be admitted. There are potentially vast unintended consequences to making capacity a part of the criteria for involuntary admission. Capacity is not a binary and it can fluctuate over time even within a day or half a day. If the person lacks capacity on the day of their admission but regains it a day or two later, under the proposed criteria, his or her order must be revoked. This means that even if the person meets all the other criteria that relate to his or her mental disorder, he or she cannot continue to be detained. A significant amount of consultation and research went into drafting the criteria for involuntary admission that are set out in the Bill as initiated.”
“It is something I will certainly fund through the Estimates. It is a really important initiative. The co-operation between An Garda Síochána, mental health services, the HSE and the Judiciary is really important. I hope it is only the start of more things to come. I watched Chief Superintendent Derek Smart and Assistant Commissioner Paula Hilman today. They spoke about it glowingly, which is really important. I am digressing from the Bill but I wanted to acknowledge the really good work that is happening in Limerick. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to support amendment No. 37. I do not believe that capacity or lack thereof should be grounds for involuntary admission under this enactment. A person may have a mental disorder that meets the criteria for involuntary admission but still retain some level of decision-making capacity.”
“I will touch on what Deputy Quinlivan said about CAST. I acknowledge the Deputy has been very supportive of this from the start. I went to Limerick last October to launch it during Mental Health Week. We often use the word "game-changer" in the Dáil but this is one of the ones that has really made a significant difference. I visited Limerick a couple of weeks ago to meet some of the CAMHS teams there. I acknowledge the really good work that is under way in Limerick. The waiting lists for those children waiting in advance of 12 months have reduced by 90% and the waiting list overall has reduced by 59%. They are doing it so well in Limerick so if we can copy that around the country, we will be doing very well. I met the regional executive officer, REO, and spoke at length about CAST and funding it.”
“That is the reason, even if the amendment had been allowed, I would have been having the same conversation. With regard to the timeline for the review, the Deputy will not see many Bills into which it is written when the review should happen. I am quite happy for it to be written into this Bill that the review will happen five years after the Bill is fully enacted. There will be a significant lead-in time for enactment of this Bill, as with other complicated Bills that we have.”
“When any child is admitted, there is mandatory reporting. All the statistics can be verified. Under GDPR we cannot speak to them, but they are verifiable. The Department will continue to work with the HSE to continue the decrease in admissions to adult units, including promoting new care options around mental health for young people via continued implementation of our national mental health policy, Sharing the Vision. I go back to the point that a consultant psychiatrist - a clinician - has to make a decision in real time. If you are a consultant psychiatrist in Donegal dealing with a young person who is psychotic, it may not be safe to move that young person. Many years ago there was a case in which it was not safe for the ambulance staff to move a child to Merlin Park in Galway. Sometimes a decision has to be made; a prediction of risk.”
“I know she did not. I am saying it just so she knows. I said I would speak to it because it is an important facet. It is fully accepted that admission to an age-appropriate facility is in the best interests of the child. Section 10 of the Bill, as initiated, states: in so far as is practicable, that care and treatment shall be provided— (i) in an age-appropriate environment [we all agree on that], and (ii) in close proximity to the child’s home or family, as appropriate; However, it will continue to be necessary in exceptional circumstances, where there is a clear clinical imperative, to admit a small number of children to adult units for the shortest time possible. There is a protocol between the Mental Health Commission and the HSE for child admissions. There is mandatory reporting. That is really important.”
“It is not ideal to have a 13- or 14-year-old young girl who has an eating disorder receiving inpatient supports with a 17-and-a-half-year-old young man or woman who might be psychotic. That does not work either. It brings us back to the conversation. We will probably have many more hours of debate in the Dáil on the transition from CAMHS to general adult mental health supports and the right way to do that.”
“I know that two young people have been admitted to adult psychiatric wards so far this year, and I hope we get to a stage where there will be no young person admitted. However, to write this in legislation would mean that a consultant or a multidisciplinary team on any given night might have to make a decision that might mean a young person would not have a good outcome if he or she were not detained voluntarily. The trend is very clear that it appears to be always done with the consent of the parents. The young person is put into a room on his or her own and has one-to-one support for the entire duration of the stay, whether it is for 24 hours or 36 hours. It is a very difficult situation and I personally do not want to see any young person in it. I agree with what Deputy Clarke said.”
“These clinicians are making a decision in real time - I am delighted to say they have always had the consent of the parents - to admit that person for a very short period until the appropriate placement is found. It is a very short period. I would be loath to accept the Deputy's amendment, even if it had been allowed. I would not tie a consultant psychiatrist's hands because I know of too many cases where, if that young person had not been admitted at that time on that particular night, the outcome could have been much worse for the family. I have spoken to people who were admitted at that age and who realise that, at that time, they were very ill - maybe psychotic, maybe suicidal - and if they had not been admitted at that moment, there could have been a different outcome for them.”
“Children are admitted to adult units only after efforts to place them in child and adolescent inpatient units are unsuccessful due to capacity or clinical needs. I know the Deputy's amendment relating to this area was not allowed. Last year, five young people were admitted to adult psychiatric wards. Deputy Ward and I discussed this issue many times when the numbers were much higher. All five of those young people were aged over 17 and they were all admitted with the consent of their parents. I have spoken to many consultant psychiatrists, clinicians and GPs on this issue. It involves a clinician making a decision in real time. It could be 2 o'clock in the morning. There could be a very distressed 17-and-a-half-year-old who is psychotic and a CAMHS bed may not be available at that particular moment.”
“The general perception is that with regard to one's physical health, consent is required at 16 years of age. A huge body of work that has been done on this issue over many years recommends that a person should have the requirement of consent with regard to decisions about his or her mental health. It is something I looked at very closely myself as a mother. I met representatives of the group that deals with eating disorders. Many families are very concerned and I can understand why. However, I made the decision after talking to clinicians and taking account of the supports that are provided. If a 16- or 17-year-old child does not have the capacity, the parents or guardians can give that consent or go down the route of the courts, which nobody wants to do.”
“If a child has capacity and refuses admission and treatment, the involuntary admission route via a court will remain available to clinicians. It seems likely that, where a child is unwell enough to warrant admission to an approved centre, he or she will probably lack the capacity necessary to make decisions about care and treatment. The Bill as initiated provides a legal framework that balances the rights of 16- and 17-year-olds to make decisions about their care and treatment while also ensuring treatment can be administered either by receiving consent from a parent or guardian, where the child lacks capacity, or via the involuntary admission route, where the child has capacity and refuses admission. We spent a long time working on this amendment.”
“The Bill proposes to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to consent to or refuse admission to approved centres and to consent to or refuse treatment. The Bill presumes that all 16- and 17-year-olds have the capacity to make decisions about themselves. Where a child has capacity, his or her consent is required for admission and treatment. That is really important. However, if the child lacks capacity, he or she can be admitted and treated with the consent of a parent or guardian. This means that if a child is acutely unwell with a mental health difficulty as defined in the Bill under "mental disorder", he or she will still be able to be admitted with the consent of a parent or guardian, similar to what is provided for in the existing Act.”
“I move amendment No. 30: In page 20, to delete lines 34 to 38 and substitute the following: “(i) is aged 16 years or older— (I) it shall be presumed that the child has the necessary maturity and capacity to make decisions affecting himself or herself in relation to his or her admission, care and treatment under this Act, and (II) the views and the will and preferences of the parents or guardian of the child be recorded and given due weight, and”. This is a technical amendment to separate out section (1)(c)(i) of the Bill as initiated to make it clear that the views of parents-guardians are recorded and given due weight but that a child aged 16 years or older will be presumed to have the maturity and capacity to make decisions about his or her own admission, care and treatment.”
“I agree that five years is a more timely timeframe after the enactment of the Bill. I thank all the Deputies for their support on that.”
“I move amendment No. 29: On page 18, line 34, to delete “10 years” and substitute “5 years”. Section 75 of the Mental Health Act 2001 provided for a review of the operation of the Act to take place five years after the full commencement of that Act. The initial review began in 2011 and eventually led to the formation of an expert group review of the Act. The 165 recommendations of that review form the basis of this Bill. Considering the comprehensive nature of this Bill and the extensive consultation, the Bill as initiated provided for a review of the operation of this enactment ten years after commencement. I have listened to feedback from stakeholders and have moved this amendment to reduce the period of the review to five years from commencement of the Act.”
“The amendment is a transitional provision that needs rewording to ensure that the superannuation scheme in place for all staff of the Mental Health Commission, currently provided for under the 2001 Act, continues when the new Act has commenced.”
“I move amendment No. 28: In page 18, to delete lines 19 to 23 and substitute the following: “(2) A superannuation scheme made under section 40 of the Act of 2001 that was in force immediately before the commencement of section 111 or 112 , as the case may be, shall— (a) remain in force and have effect on or after the commencement of section 111 or 112 , as the case may be, as if the scheme concerned had been made under section 111 or 112 , as the case may be, and (b) be construed as if references to a member of the staff of the Commission included references to a member of the staff of the Commission as established under the Act of 2001.”.”