Mental Health Bill 2024: From the Seanad Dail Éireann — 2026-04-29 ============================================================ Sorca Clarke (SF), Longford-Westmeath I wish to start with amendments Nos. 57, 155 and 172, particularly in relation to the materiality benefit threshold. This is a very positive improvement. There has to be real, demonstrable justification for any state to compel admission or treatment, and there has to be that demonstrable prospect of therapeutic aim. Involuntary powers should only be used where strictly necessary and where meaningful clinical benefit is likely. However, I have some issues with wording only being on a page. The real test of this is going to be how it is interpreted in practice. I look forward to seeing it included in any review, either full or interim, how this is working in practice. Words on a page do not give equal strength across the board. If I interpret something as being demonstrable, does another person have the same interpretation? That is why I look forward to it being included in the review. Where coercive powers exist, the bar really has to be set and remain high for the patient’s well-being and legal entitlements and rights. In relation to the capacity assessments and consent safeguards, capacity is not fixed. Those 14 days have me very concerned because capacity can fluctuate very quickly, particularly when it comes to mental health. It can improve and return quickly, particularly following a crisis and during treatment. The Minister of State said she would do them every day if she could but that is not realistic. There has to be a timeframe. Given the fluid and rapidly changing nature of capacity, when it returns, personal autonomy has to be immediately restored to the person. I have very real concerns about the 14 days. A guiding principle throughout the Bill should be the least restrictive approach because that is how we ultimately get the correct balance between care, a person’s dignity, and his or her rights. In terms of court applications and treatment decisions, it is one of my most firmly held beliefs that when courts are involved in treatment decisions the process has to be fair, swift and person-centred. Any delays in court processes can further delay treatment. At the same time, we cannot deny a person’s rights simply for speed. I would like to see a system that guarantees access to legal representation, supported decisions and clear pathways so that the person understands where the courts are required. While we are debating a Bill, this is fundamentally about people. The person has got to be at the very centre of every decision we make today, or which is contained within the Bill. In relation to amendment No. 67, the administration powers engage some of the most fundamental rights any citizen has. We are talking about a citizen’s liberty, dignity and family life. That is why an application process must be clear, understood by the person, evidence-based and free from any form of conflicts of interest. Service users need to have confidence that decisions are clinically justified, procedurally fair and subject to that meaningful review. We will come back to that at a later time. I will finish on this section by saying safeguards are not obstacles. They are essential protections for every single one of us. I still have very real concerns about those 14 days. --- 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/dail/2026-04-29/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-09-21T01:01:08+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-04-29