Mental Health Bill 2024: Report and Final Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-04-16 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland I am very happy to co-sign the amendment with Senator Boyhan. I support amendment No. 38 as well in terms of the review. Amendment No. 41 sets out a very reasonable requirement for a report within nine months in relation to independent advocacy, whereas amendment No. 38 is more detailed, suggesting particular facets that should be part of any review of an independent advocacy service. At the core here is the need, which the Minister of State has acknowledged verbally, for independent advocacy for those accessing services, which comes at multiple points. There is the advocacy support that people need in accessing mental health supports, the advocacy they need within and during the time in terms of how they are treated by the mental health system we have, and the advocacy needed for those who believe they have been mistreated and wish to try and follow up. At each stage in the process, we see those who are lucky enough, perhaps. That is why it is interesting in our amendment, and we talk about caregivers as well, that in some cases there are parents or others who will step into the role of advocacy and are suddenly reading everything. They have to become experts on an entire system, which is not necessarily their background or training. They step in but it is not a role that individuals, either those who are accessing mental health support or those who love them, are always necessarily equipped to step into. It should not be the case that we are putting this huge pressure on individuals, or their loved ones, to become champions through a system, when there should be an independent advocacy support they are able to tap into that says, “We understand you and your situation and we are helping you navigate an entire system in a way that is going to make sure your rights are centred and protected in every way.” That is something that is best done in a way that is led by the individuals themselves, but with that kind of professional and independent piece. That is why in amendment No. 38 the Minister of State will see that if we put advocacy pieces in place, the independence of it is there. What is interesting is amendment No. 38 references "operational, structural and financial independence". Saying "independent" is not the same as ensuring independence. The Minister of State mentioned, for example, situations such as nursing homes, congregated settings and situations of care, where advocates may have an institutional relationship that is ongoing and a number of individual clients who are changing. How do we ensure that independence is there? How do we ensure that independent advocacy is being delivered? Fighting for access is the first point, and fighting for access to what you actually need. The second point relates to ensuring you know. The kinds of situations we have heard about were where patients and their families were unaware of what kinds of medication they were effectively being treated with. That is an appalling piece. On situations of mistreatment, and I know we have moved past this to some extent, amendment No. 107 on electroconvulsive therapy was ruled out of order. However, I know, and I recall historically, how that was abused in the past. When I was a teenager, I had a friend in his 20s who was effectively subjected to electroconvulsive therapy in relation to his sexuality. Effectively, this was the problem that was being addressed. These are extremely invasive processes. In amendment No. 107, what we are looking for is to ensure that there would be, if not an advocate, an appropriate representative who would be there in any situation where that was to be involuntarily applied, so that for the individual who may not be able to give consent, there would be somebody there representing them. If we at least had an advocacy system in place, if amendment No. 107 is not accepted, it would mean that if somebody feels they have been mistreated in relation to an intervention such as that, they would be able to take appropriate steps and have that support after the fact. As I said, it is access during and post where we need that advocacy piece. The Minister of State referenced my colleague, Senator Black, who has engaged with her on this and pushed for it. If the Minister of State is committed to bringing forward the advocacy piece, and I believe she is, then having a report named and identified in the Bill and having that requirement strengthens her hand because I do not doubt that she, individually at Cabinet, and others are pushing for this to be brought forward. It makes the Government’s hand stronger if the Minister of State says, “In fact, it is nailed down in the legislation that I have to deliver on this.” When the Minister of State says she wants resources allocated in September in the budget for this, and for it to be fully independent and properly resourced so that it can be independent, that would strengthen her hand. I urge her to consider accepting either amendment No. 38 or No. 41 to ensure the commitment - not just her personal commitment - and recognition of independent advocacy as a crucial part of our mental health architecture in this State is visible within the Bill, and that we know there will be that follow-through. I genuinely think this is something that will make the Minister of State’s work easier. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-04-16/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:49+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-04-16