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 7 of 50.
“These amendments both relate to legal representatives assigned for the provision of legal aid. Amendment No. 438 removes subsection 196 (7) which is not required now as the definition in section 2 requires the legal representative to be a practising barrister or solicitor. Amendment No. 439 sets out that the legal representative assigned must provide information to the commission, where requested, to ensure that the work carried out is "of a sufficiently high standard". This will ensure that the commission can monitor the quality of services being provided to detained people and help better vindicate the rights of people detained under the Act.”
“These new subsections clearly state that children under 16 years of age may only be discharged with the consent of their parent, guardian or the Child and Family Agency where they are the subject of a care order and that they must be discharged into the care of their parents, guardian or the Child and Family Agency, as appropriate. These amendments will ensure that there are appropriate legal safeguards in place for children who are being transferred from the care of one State body to another. I believe it is an important protection to have such admissions decided on by the Court.”
“The two amendments in this grouping do not represent a significant change in policy from the Bill, as passed by the Dáil, but have been included to clarify what should happen for voluntarily admitted children who are in the care of Tusla. Amendment No. 203 provides for children who are in the care system to be admitted for inpatient mental health treatment on a voluntary basis, with the consent of Tusla, where it is in the best interests of the child. This admission is done by way of application to the Family District Court. The Family District Court judge will, in all cases, consider whether the appointment of a guardian ad litem is appropriate and in the best interests of the child. Amendment No. 204 replaces subsections of the Bill, as published by the Dáil, with new subsections.”
“This grouping relates generally to children aged 16 or 17 who have been assessed as lacking capacity under the Bill. This is not a new policy but instead places the provision in a more appropriate section. It provides that where a capacity assessment is being carried out on a child, it is done as soon as practicable, regularly to meet the individual child’s needs, but not less than once every 14 days. This an important safeguard to ensure that the capacity of young people aged 16 and 17 is assessed frequently.”
“Amendment No. 52 is being introduced for the avoidance of doubt to state plainly that young people over the age of 16 shall be presumed to have the capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment, unless shown otherwise. Where a young person has capacity, the views of their parents are to be recorded but cannot supersede the views of the young person.”
“I agree with the Deputy 100% and, to be fair, in one situation when we moved the Central Mental Hospital from Dundrum to where it is located now, which is Portrane, the HSE spent a lot of time making sure it got that right. A lot of planning will have to be put in place when the transition from one Bill to another happens. I will be meeting the new chief executive of the HSE next week to discuss that and I have already discussed it with the Secretary General of the Department of Health. This will be a hugely important piece of work but planning is essential and giving information to all those who will be affected is essential too.”
“There are 19 sections in the new Part being introduced on transitional provisions, spread across two Chapters. At any one time there are approximately 250 persons within an public-approved centre, so it is really important we put these transitional provisions in place to make sure that when the transition happens, there is a timeframe available to it. My understanding is that every single person will have to be reassessed by a psychiatrist and that in some cases, people who were involuntarily detained may no longer fit the criteria to be detained involuntarily and their status will change. The period of 28 days, which is the maximum period, has to be allowed in order for that to happen.”
“The transitional provisions allow for a 28-day period after the commencement of the 2026 Act in which all people detained under the 2001 Act must be re-examined by a consultant psychiatrist and either discharged or admitted under the new Act. It is common practice to include transitional provisions in legislation. Transitional provisions are timebound and in the case of this Act, they will expire and no longer be in effect after 28 days. These transitional provisions have been the subject of extensive consultation with the Mental Health Commission, as the regulator of mental health services, and the HSE, as the service provider of public mental health services. Furthermore, officials in my Department consulted extensively with the Attorney General's office to ensure that the transitional provisions are legally robust.”
“These amendments relate to transitional provisions, so we are getting to the business part of the Bill. These are the sections of a Bill that allow for the transition from an existing Act to a new Act that will replace it. In this case, the existing Act is the Mental Health Act 2001 and the new Act is the Mental Health Act 2026. For example, if the new 2026 Act is commenced on 1 January 2028 - I use that to explain it - there will be a short period of time where the 2001 Act will need to continue in operation. In order to have both the 2001 Act and the 2026 Act operating at the same time, we need transitional provisions.”
“These amendments relate to the Family Courts Act 2024 and will align court proceedings for children in a mental health context with court proceedings for children in a child protection and a family law context. There are consequential amendments to change references from the Circuit Court to the Family Circuit Court and the High Court to the Family High Court. The alignment with the family courts system is a positive step for all children the subject of court proceedings because the family court is child-friendly and sets out in its guiding principles that the best interests of the child are the primary consideration of the court. This is a system responding to lived experience and aligning the Bill with the Department of justice.”
“The commission raised concerns that the list of professions would be expanded too much if professions included under section 3 of the Health and Social Care Act were included and I was happy to take the commission's advice on this.”
“These amendments delete subsection (c) in the definition of "relevant health professionals", which referred to "a registrant" within the meaning of section 3 of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005. Following the Seanad Committee Stage debates, the Mental Health Commission wrote to me regarding this definition. The commission is responsible for drafting all of the rules in relation to the use of restrictive practices, as part of its regulatory function. The commission recently revised its rules in 2023 following an extensive consultation and the input of an expert group. The commission strongly recommended that only a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse should be considered an appropriate profession to order and supervise the use of a restrictive practice.”
“The onus is on all of us when the Bill is enacted that people know they are entitled to a nominated person who can support them to access patient advocacy service. I think we are doing a disservice to the patient advocacy service, which is independent, free and confidential and is doing a great job around the country. It has to scale up and it will. I will fund it in the budget and it will happen.”
“Just so there is doubt that this is not happening, it is happening. The second point is it is in the programme for Government. It is a programme for Government commitment to extend the patient advocacy service to support those accessing public mental health services. I was the person who wrote it into the programme for Government because I was involved in writing the mental health and a lot of the health element of the programme for Government. That is the second piece. Deputy Clarke is so right about how important advocacy is but the difference in this Bill is each person, voluntary or involuntary, is entitled to have a nominated person. That nominated person will be there to support them.”
“I think there is a lot of confusion here. To be honest, there has been a lot of griefing against the patient advocacy services that are being provided. It is important to put this on the record of the Dáil. The patient advocacy service is 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 has 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. It currently provides supports for people with disabilities and people who use mental health services. It is being rolled out. That is the first point. I met with it to discuss how we can accelerate and expand it into mental health as quickly as possible.”
“It informed me that it already provides support to people with disabilities who use mental health services, most commonly in relation to housing, social protection and other entitlements. I rolled out patient advocacy supports across all nursing homes and have every intention, if I am still in this role, to continue doing that.”
“Just because a person has chosen to admit themselves voluntarily, it does not mean that they will not require some support. These amendments build on the amendment put forward by Senator Black on Committee Stage by extending access to information on advocacy supports to all people admitted to inpatient mental health settings. Advocacy is not provided for in any primary legislation, including older person and disability services. However, advocacy services are now available in those services. Officials in my Department will shortly begin preparations to draft all the necessary regulations to underpin operation of the new Act. I have asked officials to examine how advocacy can be incorporated into these regulations. As I said earlier, I have met with the national advocacy service.”
“There was extensive debate on the topic of advocacy on Committee Stage over a number of amendments and hours. Following those debates, as well as an amendment tabled by Senator Black, I introduced several amendments on Report Stage in the Seanad in relation to information on advocacy supports. These amendments will ensure that any person admitted under the new Act will be given information in relation to any available advocacy supports. This will apply to both children and adults, ensuring that information on advocacy supports will be available regardless of a person’s age. Importantly, this information will be given to people whether they have been involuntarily admitted or are seeking treatment on a voluntary basis.”
“I reassure the Deputy this is the first time that pharmacological restraint will be regulated. It was not regulated in the 2001 Act. The regulation will be drafted by the Mental Health Commission, who are the right people to do this. I understand the concerns Mental Health Reform might have raised but at the same time we have to have a workable Bill. We have to have a situation where it is led by the Mental Health Commission and all those working in healthcare will be subject to regulation by that commission.”
“Irish mental health services must be commended on their continued and sustained positive efforts in the area. We have one of the lowest rates in comparable jurisdictions, according to the Mental Health Commission. That was extremely welcome, but to put the Deputy's mind at ease, my understanding is that if a restrictive practice was applied to a young person, that young person would fall under the remit of three different entities, namely those of the HSE, Tusla or the parent, and would be informed of that decision.”
“They absolutely have to inform the family. I am looking at the amendment. They have to tell the family because they have to be able to discuss the treatment of the child with the parents. It is important to balance the debate because, while we are discussing restrictive practices, Sharing the Vision includes a recommendation to adopt a zero-seclusion, zero-restraint approach in mental health services and there has been a significant reduction in the usage of seclusion and restraint in mental health services. According to the Mental Health Commission, Ireland ranks among the lowest in comparable countries for the use of seclusion and restraint. In 2023 and 2024, there was a 34% reduction in the number of reported episodes of seclusion and physical restraint. Since 2018, there has been a 62% reduction in all restrictive practices.”
“I have heard narratives that this does not exist. However, I always listen to all voices, including lived experience, and I welcome the work that the Mental Health Commission in carrying out a rapid evidence review of pharmacological restraint. I was happy to move that amendment.”
“These amendments relate to chemical or pharmacological restraint and provide for the regulation of pharmacological restraint on adults and children. I asked officials in my Department to review this matter following a debate in the Dáil last year and requested that the Mental Health Commission carry out a rapid evidence review of pharmacological restraint in other jurisdictions. The amendments introduced in the Seanad are informed by this research by the commission. Pharmacological restraint involves the administration of medication to a person where the purpose of the medicine is only to control a person's behaviour or control access to his or her body. Pharmacological restraint does not include any administration of medication where the medication is for the benefit of the person's condition or treatment.”
“It can be a family member, a loved one, friend or a carer, or otherwise a person can appoint a peer advocate or a professional advocate to act as his or her nominated person. This is a really good element to the Bill in that they can have that nominated person to support them through their care journey.”
“These amendments update the definition of "nominated person" to clarify that a nominated person must be an adult, which is a person 18 years or older. The rest of the amendments in this grouping change the word "nominee" to "nominated person". This is being done to ensure consistency in language across the Bill. A nominated person, as I said, can be a person over the age of 16 who an adult or child admitted to an inpatient mental health setting can nominate to attend meetings with them and receive information of a general nature about the person. The wording of the Bill has been carefully put together to ensure that a nominated person can be any person of the admitted person’s choosing.”
“The Bill cannot and does not provide specific medical pathways or legal safeguards for access to services for any specific cohort of person outside of those who are subject to involuntary admission. More specially, it not provide for admission and access to services for any person either in the community or inpatient who does have a mental disorder that does not meet the criteria for involuntary admission. Importantly the Bill does not discriminate about what mental disorder a person has. The Bill does not specify but it does not need to do so. How we deliver our services will come in secondary legislation. Looking forward, my adviser and I had a meeting yesterday on the Keltoi facility and the day services which will be provided there. We are making progress. Again, the funding is there and the staff are being recruited.”
“My position is that the solution to this issue is to continue to fund both general mental health services and specialised dual diagnosis mental health services to improve access for all. I am not going to stand here and say there is not an issue. There are issues in relation to people with dual diagnosis and doors are slammed. That is why we are working really hard to change that. I launched the dual diagnosis national clinical programme, the new model of care, in May 2023. We are now investing over €5 million annually from the mental health budget, matched by social inclusion, to develop specialist community teams to support people with mental illness and substance abuse issues. The primary purpose of the Mental Health Bill is to set out the legal basis for the involuntary admission of people to acute mental health settings.”
“That was really important because there were doors being slammed into people’s faces because they might have had a mental health disorder but they also engaged in substance abuse, it could have been alcohol or drugs, and it is really important that is recognised. It will not be included in primary legislation - it will be included in secondary legislation – but I have asked the HSE to develop a protocol in relation to access to services for people presenting with dual diagnosis of a coexisting mental disorder or difficulty and a substance use disorder. I believe that a dual diagnosis protocol can address many of the issues around access raised by Senators, Deputy McAuliffe and other Deputies and provide clarity to services working across mental health and substance misuse and access to treatment.”
“The very first meeting we ever had, back in 2020 when Deputy McAuliffe was a new TD, was in relation to dual diagnosis. I thank him for raising this issue. I know he is passionate about improving the service for people with coexisting mental illness and substance abuse disorder and he has done a lot of work in his own right. I want to state unequivocally that people with coexisting mental disorders and substance misuse disorders can and do access inpatient and community mental health services. This was not always the case. An awful lot of people still have a huge affection for A Vision for Change but it did not allow for dual diagnosis, whereas Sharing the Vision did, and that is my bible. That is the bible I have worked off since June 2020.”
“I want to point out that she was the person who raised the language in relation to benefit and "materially benefit". I do remember her being very strong on that at the time. I did listen and take it on board. It is a better choice of wording. The Mental Health Commission will prepare and issue a code of practice for staff working in registered acute mental health centres in relation to the provisions of this section as well, which will be very helpful, especially on criteria for admissions. The 14 days is the absolute maximum period that is allowed but also the Bill states that a person’s capacity should be reassessed if their condition changes in any form. That is really important and it is written into the Bill. I hope those two safeguards will help in that respect. Deputy McAuliffe spoke about dual diagnosis.”
“Already they are providing advocacy services for people with a disability and some of those people are receiving those services in relation to mental health as well so the start has been made. We do need to do it and I want to do it as quickly as possible. The Deputy mentioned Kerry CAMHS. That comes back to longevity as well. The Deputy will have heard of the youth advocacy programme, YAP. I am very fond of it and have done a lot of work with it over the years. Shortly after the Maskey report in 2022, I formally opened YAP services in Tralee to support young people down there. I want to commend that organisation. It does a great amount of work. The voice of the young person is always heard in relation to that. Deputy Clarke spoke about capacity assessments. I agree with what she is saying.”
“I have a bit of longevity in the Department of Health - I am here now six years - and I was the Minister of State who introduced patient advocacy services across nursing homes. They had started to be rolled out in HSE-run nursing homes, the community nursing units, but I rolled them out throughout public, private and voluntary nursing homes and I have every intention of doing the same in relation to mental health approved centres. I met patient advocacy services recently, about two months ago, when this was a hot topic in the Seanad. My team has met them since and we will put in place those services. They have to ramp up their service as well. For those dealing with people who are very ill, who have a mental health or mental disorder, in an approved centre additional training needs to happen.”
“I will work backwards if that is okay. In relation to the patient advocacy services, and we spent a lot of time discussing this in the Seanad but it is important to put it on the record of the Dáil, I very strongly believe that patients, regardless of what health service is being assessed whether a nursing home, approved centre, day services or whatever, should be able to advocate if they are not happy with the support they are getting. The reason we have not included it here is we have not prescribed advocacy in primary legislation for any other area of healthcare, including for older people or people with disabilities. Regulations have been made under the Health Act 2007 to provide for access to advocacy services for people resident in designated centres for the purpose of, for example, making a complaint.”
“The Minister will be able to prescribe a shorter period by way of regulation, so the period can be reduced over time from 21 days to 14 days or even lower. Seanad amendment No. 148 introduces an additional safeguard in relation to the carrying out of capacity assessments for adults. The amendment requires that regular capacity assessments are carried out when a person has been assessed as lacking capacity. The amendment introduces an upper limit of every 14 days for the carrying out of capacity assessments. A further safeguard is introduced in Seanad amendment No. 156, which will ensure that, where treatment is administered to a person while the capacity assessment process is ongoing, the assessments must be completed within 72 hours.”
“This amendment was introduced following further consultation with stakeholders in the context that the criteria for admission as passed by the Dáil needed to be increased somewhat. I am satisfied that, with this amendment, the criteria for involuntary admission are robust and person-centred. This amendment was also mirrored in the criteria for admission for children. Seanad amendment No. 106 removes the lower limit of 14 days within which a review board must review an order for detaining a person. I brought forward this amendment in the Seanad following consultation with stakeholders. Under the new Act, 21 days after an order is made will be the upper limit in which a review board must meet.”
“These amendments relate generally to the involuntary admission process for adults. Many of the amendments in this grouping are smaller in nature. For example, Seanad amendment No. 12 inserts the term "for involuntary admission" after the word "recommendation" on line 3 of page 16. Similarly, Seanad amendment No. 54 provides for the deletion of a definition in section 11, and Seanad amendment No. 10 provides for the insertion of the same definition in section 2. To pick out some of the amendments of significance, Seanad amendment No. 57 amends the criteria for involuntary admission to ensure that the condition of any involuntarily admitted person must be likely to "materially benefit" from the admission, rather than just "benefit".”
“I do believe that we will get to a stage very soon where we will not have any child admissions. Nobody wants to see these admissions happening. This is what I spoke about at the start. When this Bill is enacted, a 16- or 17-year-old will be able to make decisions in relation to their mental health. Being involuntarily detained at 16 or 17, however, is different. In every single case where this was done, and it was the same the year before, it was undertaken with the support of the family and the young person knew what was happening and it was for a short time. That is the reason I feel so strongly about this aspect.”
“It can be very difficult for a child, for example, living in Donegal having to go to Galway, a child living in the midlands having to go to Dublin, a child in Waterford having to go to Cork or a child from Kerry having to go into Cork. This is the reality of the situation. We must realise, however, that the majority of supports for our young people are provided in the community, regardless of their mental health illness. For example, 95% of all eating disorder supports are provided in the community. We have seen such a surge in those figures since Covid. We do have to accept and acknowledge that these are unique cases. In a unique case, when there is a really difficult decision for a clinician to make, we have to take life over death. I say it every time. We have no choice. It is for that reason, and that reason only.”
“I will conclude with one other point. The Bill does not legislate for or against child admissions. This is important. It was the reason I felt in the Seanad that if I included an amendment that said a child cannot be retained for more than 72 hours after an admission, we were nearly saying it was okay to do this. I do not want to see that happening at all. In 2008, there were 247 admissions to adult units. As I said, this was reduced to five last year, which was six nights. We have to commend the staff working at the coalface who have done everything they can. Children are admitted to adult units only after efforts to place them in a child and adolescent inpatient unit are unsuccessful due to capacity or clinical need, depending on the situation.”
“If we write that into this new Bill, which will become an Act next week, please God, we will be saying it is okay to take a young person into an adult ward for up to 72 hours. That is the reason I did not accept the amendment. I do not want to normalise it. A huge amount of work has been done by clinicians and by those working in approved centres to make sure that they find the appropriate setting for that young person. In some cases, depending on where they are living, it can be easier and quicker to find that accommodation than in other areas. For that reason, and as I said in the Seanad, I will take it to the grave with me if I get this wrong but I do not think I am doing this wrong in this respect. If it will only help one child, it will be worth it for me.”
“The majority of the beds are in Linn Dara, Eist Linn, Merlin Park and St. Vincent's. Twenty of the 51 beds we have open are for eating disorders and in most of those cases, the children and young people are there for between three and seven months because of the nature of what they are dealing with. One of the amendments raised in the Seanad sought to write into the Bill that no young person could be detained for more than 72 hours. The reason I did not accept that amendment was because we would have been writing into legislation that it was okay to detain a young person. I want to get to a stage where no child is detained in adult wards. We had five such children last year and six the year before. Last year, it was six nights overall.”
“There was one example in Donegal when there was a storm on the particular night and it was not safe for the staff to move the person. Sometimes, there are just extreme circumstances. However, I do know that any clinician involved in having to detain a young person looks at every opportunity to not do that. They do their utmost. I remember speaking to a clinician at University Hospital Waterford about a case. Without identifying anybody, the clinician said that it was life or death at the time and if he had not detained that young person under the Act, it would have been a different story. The parents begged him to do that because they felt they could not take the child home with them. It is not a budget issue regarding beds for children. Most of the time, we are running at 70% capacity among our inpatient beds.”
“I do not know any clinician who wants to see it. However, sometimes there is a crisis in real time. It could happen at 10 p.m., 11 p.m., midnight, 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. I have spoken to families. I have spoken to young people who were that person who stayed overnight for their own safety. I do not have a medical background but I have a lot of lived experience, living experience and I listen. It would be remiss of me to tie the hands of any clinician who has to make that decision at midnight or 1 a.m. when a young person is a risk to themselves or others. Over 95% of the time, it is people of 17 years of age or older. I have come across very few cases where there is not family consent and support. We have discussed this at length here and in the Seanad. I have given examples of cases.”
“Four of them spent one night in an adult ward and the other spent two nights in an adult ward. Over the whole year, including all of the children who spent time in an approved centre, there were six nights. That happened with the support and consent of their parents in all cases. They were in a single room on their own with 24-hour one-on-one support while the appropriate supports were being put in place. I have spoken about this before. I know of one particular case - this is going back a few years - where it was appropriate for a young person to stay in a facility. There are many different reasons this happens. We have come from a situation where the amount of young people being held in adult wards was simply not acceptable. I do not want to see any child in an adult facility. Nobody wants to see it.”
“Section 74 includes a number of safeguards that will help protect the rights of children, including a very strict time limit for which a child can be in custody. Those very high criteria must be met, namely, that the child is an immediate or serious risk of harm to self or others due to a mental disorder and the automatic referral to the HSE for examination. A huge amount of work has been done on this section. There might be a time when a 16- or 17-year-old might have to be taken into Garda custody. The Garda have to have a legal framework. We are improving what is already there in the 2001 legislation. I also want to talk about children in adult wards. As Deputies will know, this is something I feel extremely passionate about. We got the figures recently while I was before the Seanad. Last year, there were five young people involved.”
“This amendment is being introduced to address operational concerns raised by some key stakeholders. There was a huge amount of engagement with the Department of justice around this. The new section 74 recognises the distinct and important roles of the Garda, the HSE and Tusla. Depending on the circumstances of the child, one of these three bodies will be responsible for taking charge of the child and the new section 74 recognises the different functions of each. It is an extremely rare event where a garda must take a child into custody due to a suspected mental disorder but it does happen on occasion. Section 74 of the Bill will provide absolute clarity as to the powers as well as the responsibilities of members of An Garda Síochána when taking a child into custody because of his or her mental disorder.”
“I thank Deputies Quaide and Clarke for acknowledging the significant improvements that have been made since we have been here last. I appreciate that. In relation to amendment No. 276, the reality is that there needs to be a legal basis for the Garda to take a child into custody where the child is an immediate and serious risk of harm and to ensure there are pathways for that child to be examined and receive treatment. That is already in the legislation since 2001. That could happen every day of the week if it was needed. It is very rare that the Garda has to take a child into custody, but it is very important for the Garda that if a child is an immediate and serious risk of harm to themselves or others, there must be pathways and a legal basis for the Garda to act.”
“Other amendments in this grouping enhance safeguards for children accessing treatment under the legislation, such as including protections where a child is taken into Garda custody and the right of children and their parents or guardians to receive information following a child's admission to an inpatient mental health service. That is something we discussed at length here as well. The amendments in this grouping enhance the protections for children in relation to the involuntary admission process. These amendments have been informed by extensive consultation carried out by officials in my Department with the Departments of children and justice, the HSE, the Mental Health Commission and other important stakeholders.”
“One thing Deputies will remember us discussing last year was electroconvulsive therapy, ECT, for children. One amendment I would like to highlight is amendment No. 330, which provides for the prohibition of ECT for children. According to information I have received from the HSE and the Mental Health Commission, ECT has not been administered to a child in Ireland in over 15 years and, in fact, the expertise and equipment to administer ECT to children is not present in the State. At the same time, I had given a commitment that I was going to come back with this amendment in place. It is really important that we spell it out loud and clear, and I am happy to do that.”
“These amendments relate to the entire process of involuntary admission of a child in Part 4 of the Bill. They include changes to criteria for involuntary admission to make the protections stronger for children. It includes minor changes to the involuntary admission process, which is done by way of application by the HSE to the District Court. This grouping also includes a number of additional safeguards for children, including protections in relation to the use of Garda powers to take a child into custody, as well as additional safeguards around the mandatory provision of information to children and their parents at the point of admission. Finally, this grouping includes amendments to provisions in relation to consent to treatment for a child.”