Amendment No. 126 seeks to ensure that applications for decision supports be made as quickly as possible while noting that an allowance can be made in circumstances where it is necessary for the protection of life. Amendment No. 127 is similar to Labour Party amendments Nos. 121 and 125. This amendment requires a 72-hour deadline for applications for decision supports for people being involuntarily treated to be made. I note and welcome the Government amendment that states that these applications should be happenin…

I move amendment No. 126: In page 64, lines 22 and 23, to delete “, other than treatment provided under section 48, 50 or 51 ,” and substitute the following: “, unless such treatment is immediately necessary for the protection of life of that person or that of another person,”.

I move amendment No. 127: In page 64, line 24, after “person” to insert “as soon as is practicable but no longer than 72 hours after being involuntarily admitted”.

I will speak to the section, just for the record. It is essential that there is an independent review mechanism for cases in which a person deemed to lack capacity and without access to decision supports is subjected to involuntary treatment beyond the treatment window, be that 21 days or 42 days. This safeguard is particularly critical in light of the absence of the statutory right to independent advocacy and the lack of an independent complaints mechanism within mental health services. Crucially, the mental healt…

I warmly thank the Minister of State for accepting my amendment. It is fantastic that she has proposed the removal of this provision in line with my amendment. It is so important to remove the provision allowing a psychiatrist to administer involuntary treatment for up to 72 hours to individuals who either have decision-making capacity or an advance healthcare directive refusing treatment, pending a High Court review. This provision poses a serious risk to individual rights. Administering mind-altering treatment be…

I move amendment No. 148: In page 66, to delete lines 28 to 34.

I welcome the proposed ban on the use of electroconvulsive therapy on children. I commend the Minister of State for taking this important step to protect young people. To fully uphold the principle of autonomy, this legislation should go further and clearly state that ECT may only be administered to adults with their informed and voluntary consent. This is an important safeguard. Many individuals with lived experience have described ECT as extremely traumatic, often accompanied by serious and lasting side effects s…

I totally hear that the Minister of State is committed to making this provision, particularly after listening to people describe their lived experience, because I know how she works. Would she be willing to have a chat about amendment No. 150 in future?

It would be great to have that conversation. Hopefully, we will get a chance to talk next week.

I move amendment No. 150: In page 67, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “(3) Electro-convulsive therapy shall not be administered to a person who has been involuntarily admitted unless the person has: (a) a relevant decision-making representative; (b) a valid and relevant advance healthcare directive; (c) a relevant designated healthcare representative appointed under an advance healthcare directive relevant to the treatment concerned, and that representative consents, or the advance healthcare direct…

I move amendment No. 154: In page 69, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “Chemical Restraint 57. (1) A chemical restraint shall not be applied in respect of a person receiving treatment in a registered acute mental health centre or designated centre unless— (a) the restraint is ordered and initiated by a relevant health professional, (b) the restraint is applied to the person by a relevant health professional or a specified person under the direct supervision of a relevant health professional, (c) the …

I agree with colleagues that this is a very welcome and important amendment as it would significantly strengthen the legal safeguards surrounding involuntary admission to mental health services. In introducing a higher threshold for involuntary detention by requiring that all criteria be met, the amendment reinforces the principle that such measures should be used strictly as a last resort, only when absolutely necessary and beneficial for the person and when no less restrictive alternatives are available. As other…

Numerous studies have shown that the vast majority of individuals with mental health conditions are not violent and are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. This is an important point to make. Overstating the risk people pose contributes to harmful stereotypes and public fear, which often in turn fuel stigmatisation and discrimination. That is a concern. There is little empirical evidence that involuntary detention based on a perceived risk to others improves outcomes or reduces harm. In con…

The most important thing for the people the Minister of State mentioned is compassionate treatment. The Minister of State and I know that. It is the best way to deal with those who are in that scenario. That is still the criterion, and it is about removing the stigma that obtains. International research consistently shows that people with mental health difficulties are no more likely to be violent than members of the general population and that the overwhelming majority of them pose no threat to others. I need to m…

I do not know whether this is something the Minister of State might consider but it is important. Advocacy is a fundamental safeguard for people in vulnerable circumstances. It strengthens patient autonomy and empowerment by helping people play an active role in their care. It gives individuals a clear way to express their will and preferences and have them heard and respected. The need for this statutory right is repeatedly and consistently raised by legal experts, those who have lived experience and IHREC, as Sen…

I wish to start by commending the Minister of State and her team on the phenomenal work they have done on this legislation. I am very aware she is passionate about this particular issue and that needs to be said. I am also very aware of the work the Minister of State did on older persons around advocacy. My own colleague, Colette Kelleher, if the Minister of State remembers, was here at the time and worked very closely with her on that and she did phenomenal work on it. I acknowledge the Minister of State has state…

I did not speak to my amendment. Is it okay to do so now?

Amendment No. 106 states: In page 61, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(5) Where a person has been assessed as lacking capacity, further regular reviews of the person’s capacity shall be conducted throughout their subsequent treatment, at least once every 7 days, by the consultant psychiatrists or by another mental healthcare professional involved in the care of that person.”. I will keep it short. While the Government amendments requiring regular capacity assessments at least once every 14 days c…

Yes. It relates to circumstances where the person being assessed lacks capacity.

I want to make one comment. I know that the Bill allows for regular capacity assessment, but it does not require that this capacity assessment happen before involuntary treatment. Is giving medication before a capacity assessment not likely to diminish a person's capacity? That is the question I have for the Minister of State.