I move amendment No. 73a: In page 38, to delete lines 24 and 25 and substitute the following: “(3) A notice under subsection (2) shall include a statement in writing and in a form and language that may reasonably be understood by him or her, to the effect that the involuntarily admitted person—”. These amendments relate to the information made available to persons involuntarily admitted to registered acute mental health services. It states that a notice outlining their rights must be made available to people who ar…

Did I hear the Minister right? She is accepting amendment No. 73a.

The Minister of State is accepting the amendment.

That is wonderful news. It is music to my ears. Go raibh míle maith agat.

The Minister of State is accepting it.

I move amendment No. 73b: In page 38, line 28, after “admission,” to insert the following: “including adequate information in a form and language that the person can understand on the nature, purpose, likely effects and potential side-effects of the treatment concerned,”. I move and withdraw my amendment for now.

I move amendment No. 74: In page 39, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(7) The consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of an involuntarily admitted person shall, as soon as is practicable but not later than 24 hours after the making of an involuntary admission order and any renewal order in respect of an involuntarily admitted person, inform the person of the availability of independent advocacy services and how to access them.”. There have been continuous calls from Mental H…

That is great, go raibh maith agat.

I move amendment No. 75: In page 39, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(7) Upon request from the involuntarily admitted person, the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the person’s treatment shall refer the involuntarily admitted person to the National Advocacy Service.”. I will withdraw amendment No. 75 for now.

I move amendment No. 84: In page 47, lines 25 and 26, to delete “21 days, or such shorter period as may be prescribed which period shall be not less than 14 days” and substitute “14 days, or such shorter period as may be prescribed”.

I wish the Minister of State and those in her Department a very happy Christmas.

I know how hard the Minister of State works in respect of area. This is a welcome provision that provides greater clarity on the rights of children aged 16 or older and ensures greater parity with their physical health and treatment rights. Will the Minister of State provide a little more detail on what the term "due weight" means? I am concerned that it could place an unreasonable burden on clinicians, who would be left to determine whose wishes should ultimately prevail. I just want to get an understanding of wha…

I meant to say that the amendment gets rid of due weight for over-16s. Again, I am looking for a little clarity. It says due weight must be given to the decisions of under-16s. I ask for more clarity on under-16s with regard to due weight.

I move amendment No. 42: In page 23, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “(2) No child shall be precluded from accessing mental health care or treatment by virtue of the fact that they are acutely drug or intoxicant affected, or are addicted to drugs or intoxicants.”

I move amendment No. 43: In page 23, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “(2) No child shall be precluded from accessing care or treatment by virtue of the fact that they present with a concurrent mental health disorder and a substance use disorder.”

I want to put on record what I said last week. While it is welcome that the Bill recognises age-appropriate care for children, the qualifier "in so far as is practicable" is far too vague and weak. Huge progress has been made in this area, and I commend the Minister of State on that, but I still believe legal safeguards are needed. While the number of children placed in adult units has declined significantly in recent years - the Minister of State is to be commended in that regard - there is a risk of regression in…

I am sorry but do we need a quorum? Do we not need a quorum to start? Should there not be five?

I am a bit concerned I might have missed my amendments. I did not realise it was starting an hour earlier.

As it stands, this section appears to permit side-by-side housing only where there is a visible physical disability and the relevant dwelling was adapted for the accommodation of a person who has a disability, while failing to take account of people with non-visible cognitive, neurological or age-related disabilities, including advanced dementia. This approach raises serious concerns in relation to compliance with disability and equality legislation, most notably the Disability Act 2005. Under that Act, public bodi…

This section is trying to convert the State's failure into a financial burden on homeowners. The families affected are not simply seeking compensation. They are seeking safe, habitable homes that the State should have ensured were compliant from the start. They have done absolutely everything right. They have worked hard and saved for their homes and now they are just falling down around them. After decades of regulatory neglect it is disgraceful to suggest that homeowners should carry any additional charge. The la…