Before I call Senator Ruane, I want to welcome Virginia McGregor and her husband, Bob, from Scranton, Pennsylvania. They are here on a trip from the US. I am delighted they are able to be here. The Distinguished Daughters of Pennsylvania are among the many Irish American organisations involved in the ad hoc committee for the protection of the Good Friday Agreement. I thank her for doing all she does on the America 250 Commission. She is also the treasurer of the Democratic National Committee. Virginia and Bob are most welcome. I thank them for being here today. I know they met the Government Chief Whip earlier. They can discus war stories about politics in general.

I spoke to these amendments already, but I will give a quick recap. The first amendment in that grouping relates to CORU. I completely accept the Minister of State's explanation and response on why psychologists are not named at the moment. I will withdraw the amendment, but between now and Report Stage, the Minister of State might consider putting it in the Bill. If a later commencement date was put on it, the Minister of State would not have to the return to the Bill to amend it. We have had later commencement dates on particular segments in the past. That might be an alternative rather than returning to the Bill at a later stage to amend it. It might also be an easier option in terms of the Department.

In relation to the other two amendments, again, I spoke yesterday about the need and importance of ensuring that the wider psychosocial care team is involved with people at certain stages of their mental health interventions or assessments, etc. I will not labour the point today, but I just wanted to recap on where we finished yesterday.

I also want to refer to something that Senator Ruane raised yesterday about people who may have had criminal pasts but are helping people now. We have to acknowledge that people can change while also having due diligence. I would hate it if someone who was a really good asset and really understood the struggles of some people was not able to help others. We have to acknowledge that while some people may have a past, they can make a huge contribution in helping other people break the cycle. I just want to acknowledge that.

I thank both Senators for their contributions. We will certainly take a look at Senator Ruane's suggestion in relation to that. I will be back in the new year with this Stage and Report Stage. I will ask my officials to look at it. I cannot give the Senator an answer here and now, but we can certainly look at that . I am hoping that the CORU piece in relation to psychologists will be resolved very soon. It may not need that statutory instrument at all if the time works out in relation to it.

I also agree with what Senator Costello said. I think everyone deserves a second chance. We have a fantastic organisation in Waterford for those who have had difficulties and have spent time incarcerated for different reasons. It is called Treo Port Lairge. There is another organisation off that called Renew, which is all about the circular economy. There are four lads working there who have a second chance in life. They do phenomenal work recycling paint and servicing and restoring bicycles. I completely agree with the Senators; everyone needs a second chance and an opportunity to live their best lives.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 17, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

“(d) a member of a person’s wider psychosocial care team;”.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 17, line 14, after “healthcare” to insert “and psychosocial care”.

Amendments Nos. 23, 354, to 359, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 361 to 366, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Amendments Nos. 23, 354 to 359, inclusive, and 361 to 366, inclusive, have been grouped together. Amendment No. 23 updates 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 has been done to ensure consistency in language across the Bill. The role of a nominated person is to support the person throughout the admission and to be someone whom the admitted person can consult at the points where he or she is making a decision regarding, for example, treatment options and discharge. The nominated person may also attend review board hearings with the admitted person as well as any other meeting the person requests their attendance at. The nominated person is also entitled to receive information of a general nature on behalf of the admitted person. It is important to note that this role and the entitlement to attend meetings or receive information may only ever be done with the consent of the admitted person. It is his or her decision what information is shared and with whom.

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 18, to delete line 37.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 18, line 37, after “restraint” to insert “, chemical restraint”.

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 21, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

“(5) An applicable person shall not 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 welcome guests of Deputy Pádraig Rice from the Social Democrats to the Gallery. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 21, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

“(5) An applicable person shall not be precluded from accessing mental health care or treatment by virtue of the fact that they present with a concurrent mental health disorder and a substance use disorder.”.

Amendments Nos. 36, 193, 200, 204, 208, 209, 213 to 216, inclusive, 219, 220, 223 to 227, inclusive, 230, 232, 239, 257, 283, 285, 287 and 289 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Amendments Nos. 36,193, 200, 204, 208,209, 213 to 216, inclusive, 219, 220, 223 to 227, inclusive, 230, 232, 239, 257, 283, 285, 287 and 289 have been grouped together. 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.

In short, where a child is subject to court proceedings under this Bill, such as where a child is to be involuntarily admitted, those proceedings will now be heard in the Family District Court rather than the District Court. If it is not possible to arrange a sitting of the Family District Court, the regular District Court can continue to hear such proceedings. These are consequential amendments to change references from the Circuit Court to the Family Circuit Court and from the High Court to the Family High Court.

The Family Courts Act 2024 is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, so I will not speak to the provisions of that Act in detail. However, I will say that the Family Courts Act 2024 reforms our family law system by establishing specialised courts within the District, Circuit and High Courts. This Act will appoint judges with family law expertise to these courts and introduce regional hubs. These amendments align court proceedings for children under the mental health Bill with the family court system. The alignment with the family court 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. Officials in my Department will continue to liaise with officials in the Departments of justice and children as we move towards commencement.

I will be brief on this. I do not propose to talk at great length on this group of amendments because we will have another opportunity in a few minutes. Has the Children's Rights Alliance been in touch with the Minister of State on areas around this particular section of the Bill? It is very much focused on children and the courts. I have had some correspondence, but I wanted to ask if the Children's Rights Alliance had been in touch with her. What is it saying to the Minister of State or her officials? Have its concerns been considered as part of this?

The Minister of State might say that it is pretty obvious, but I do not know. That is not a trick question, I am just looking at some correspondence from the Children's Rights Alliance. I do not know the process or if the latter has made submissions directly to her, but she will be aware of that organisation in any event. Could the Minister of State indicate whether there are particular concerns - if they come to mind, but she should not worry if they do not - that are included here or whether she has a view on that?

I have met with the Children's Rights Alliance. It was a couple of months ago, but I certainly met with it. The alliance did not raise any specific issues in relation to this aspect of the Bill. Because the Family Courts Act 2024 is new, I imagine that the alliance would have engaged with the Minister for justice at the time. These are family-friendly courts. When a child is being involuntarily detained under a care order, the Family Court is the right place for the child and the family to be. To answer the Senator's question, I met with the Children's Rights Alliance and it did not raise this aspect of the Bill.

I thank the Minister of State.

I move amendment No. 36a:

In page 22, after line 38, to insert the following:

“(a) in line with the best interests of the child, this section must be fully compliant with the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) of which Ireland are signatories;”.

I submitted this amendment because we had not reached section 10, and it was open to me to submit an additional amendment. It very much hinges on many of the issues I talked about. The amendment reads:

In page 22, after line 38, to insert the following:

“(a) in line with the best interests of the child, this section must be fully compliant with the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) of which Ireland are signatories;”.

We went through this at some length. I will give the Minister of State a brief rationale of why I am bringing this amendment forward. She will have considered matters at this stage and she will know the position that she best wants to promote here.

Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 57 in my name were ruled out of order. That is not the Minister of State's call; it is the Cathaoirleach's call. Those amendments sought to make the sanctions more robust. I came back at it. I spoke to a number of people, and I thought this might be very much a broad brush-stroke that would catch many things.

The Children's Rights Alliance has promoted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I will not go into that at any great length. There is also the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which contains many articles. I looked at Article 7. I was conscious that there is a reference to this in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. That prompted me to further investigate the issue. These memoranda are very handy. It is not my work; it is the work of the Minister of State's officials and the Parliamentary Counsel.

This relates to section 10 and the guiding principles that apply in respect of children. Rather than continue talking and reading out what I had prepared, it might be more productive to listen to the Minister of State and hear her rationale and the reason for it. Perhaps we will meet in the middle, but I do not know because I cannot pre-empt what she will say. I will hand over to her, if that is possible, and I will then respond, if that is permitted.

I thank Senator Boyhan for tabling the amendment. IHREC also published on its website concerns around this particular aspect. I want to add to Senator Boyhan's comments in that regard. Has the commission's advice on the CRPD and the Convention on the Rights of the Child been taken into account?

As Senators may be aware, it is already mandatory for Ireland to comply with both UN conventions. Ireland signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities optional protocol in 2024. That protocol establishes a complaints mechanism whereby individuals or groups of individuals who claim to be the victim of a violation of the convention by a state party, may refer a communication to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Under the optional protocol, a state party recognises the competence of the committee to receive and consider such communications. Communications are subject to certain admissibility criteria, including a requirement to exhaust all available domestic remedies. Throughout the drafting of this Bill, there was an acute awareness at every point of Ireland's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Bill has been subjected to extensive legal advice and ongoing consultation with the Attorney General's office. My officials and officials in the Attorney General's office considered each provision in light of our commitments under these conventions. I believe the Bill is compliant with these conventions within the State's understanding of both conventions when we ratified them. A process was already in place to adhere to the convention and optional protocol. Specifically, the State's mechanism for implementing the convention is the National Human Rights Strategy for Disabled People 2025-2030, which is led by the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality. The strategy sets out a whole-of-government approach to disability over the next five years. This means that Departments and State bodies are responsible for planning and delivering commitments across various sectors. There is already accountability on the part of the State directly to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Ireland is regularly reviewed for compliance at its periodic reviews and issues of non-compliance by the State can be raised at any time. Ireland ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1992. Again, there is a process in place to monitor the convention. More specifically, Ireland's compliance with this convention is reviewed by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. We will continue to be held accountable by the committee for compliance with the convention through periodic reviews.

Given the structures in place, I am assured that there are appropriate mechanisms and processes in place to deal with the issues raised by the Senator by way of the amendment. It is unclear what the amendment would provide for beyond the provisions contained in the Bill itself and the already mandatory compliance by the State with both conventions. As provided for in section 10, what is in the best interests of the child is the primary consideration in any decision to be made concerning a child and his or her mental healthcare and treatment. The primacy of the best interests clause aligns directly with the UN. Considering the potential unintended consequences of this amendment and the fact that Ireland must already comply with both conventions, I cannot accept the amendment.

Could the Minister of State comment on whether she has met with IHREC? I believe it had concerns about the fact that the Bill does not align with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular the piece about independent advocacy and about children being treated in adult units. Those were the two aspects about which IHREC raised concerns in terms of non-compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I will just respond to the Minister of State. What she said is disappointing in light of the representations. I do not see any conflict in the overarching acceptance. If there is no difficulty with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, I do not understand why they cannot be embedded in this primary legislation.

Let us be clear as to what I am asking for here. The amendment proposes to include the following wording:

... in line with the best interests of the child, this section must be fully compliant with the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) of which Ireland are signatories ...

The Minister of State pointed all that out and told us when the convention was ratified. I would have thought that what I have put forward is quite simple. I do not think I could make it simpler. There is a desire for advocates in terms of children and disability. We have had many debates on it in this House.

I want to single out Senator Clonan and others who have pioneered a lot of work in the disability sector and in the children's sector and to highlight the importance of that work. This is a simple ask. I am conscious also that we have an excellent Ombudsman for Children and am aware of his constant advocacy work in respect of children. These are two conventions that the various advocacy groups are constantly promoting. The Minister of State rightly stated that we are signatories to these conventions.

I do not know which attorney would suggest that there was a difficulty with them. To suggest that there is a difficulty or to cast doubt, the Government somehow feels it has to take cover or take advice on the basis of not putting them into the Bill. I do not know why; I cannot guess. It is right that they should put into the Bill. It is an important one. It is a statement. We talk about legacy in politics and people. This is a simple ask. I did not write these conventions but I support them. The Government supports them and, therefore, they should be embedded in this legislation.

I am not going to go on at great length because we have had a long debate on these two issues. I have two options. I either bring it to a further debate on the next section or press it to a vote. If the Minister of State is not going to accept it, it is not going to get me very far today but it puts on the record that this is the Government's position and it is not prepared and it does not see it as an important priority. I cannot anticipate what advice it has received. I find it extraordinary that these groups who advocate strongly for these UN conventions and the comfort these sectors are receiving from this convention will not be embedded in this primary legislation in terms of mental health and mental health reform.

I agree with Senators Boyhan and Stephenson. The Minister of State is aware that adult units are inappropriate. She knows it is potentially harmful for children. We all know these settings are not designed to meet the development and the emotional or safeguarding needs of those young people. Placements in such environments even briefly can be frightening, isolating and traumatic, especially during a mental health crisis. As others have said, the practice violates international human rights standards. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has explicitly called for an end to this practice. Ireland is signatory to the convention. It has to reflect that commitment in law and service delivery.

I wish to highlight what I said yesterday around the fact that even though the Minister of State has reduced the numbers of children going into adult units and she done a lot of work on that, my concern is that if it is not in this legislation that future Ministers will not abide and will not put in the same amount of work and effort. That is why it is important to have it in this legislation. It might be something that the Minister of State may consider going forward.

I have not met IHREC representatives, but my officials have. I met the Ombudsman for Children recently to discuss the Bill. We went through concerns that he had.

I will try to explain where we are coming from on the amendment. While the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been ratified, it has not yet been incorporated into domestic law. Similarly, the UNCRC has not been incorporated into domestic law. Neither convention has been adopted directly into Irish law under any childcare, disability or equality legislation. If a decision is made to incorporate either or both conventions into law, this should surely bedone on a whole-of-systems basis rather than solely applying to mental health law. There is a potentially significant provision with major unintended consequences. Without any kind of analysis or impact assessment of this amendment, it is impossible to know what ramifications it may have. Neither convention has been incorporated into law to my knowledge. This Bill should not be used as trial run for what would be a completely untested legal provision. To do this would undermine the Bill as a whole. It should be noted that the incorporation of either convention into law would require a Government decision, as such that is the reason I cannot support its inclusion by way of amendment to this Bill.

I am reassured that throughout the drafting of the Bill there was an acute awareness at every point of Ireland's obligation under the UNCRC and the UNCRPD. Significant effort has gone into each and every section - all 220 of them - ensuring that the best interest of the child is upheld and where there is an infringement on a child's rights that such infringements are subject to stringent legal safeguards. With all our discussions and new amendments in relation to being compliant with the Child Care Act, justice Act and Family Courts Act 2024, providing for the family-friendly courts, we had to make sure that with every official working on the Bill with the Attorney General and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel that in every section that the best interests of the child are upheld. That was paramount across everything that was done.

The Bill provides a balanced approach to the provision of mental health treatment, enshrining the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in all decisions. I understand where the Senators are coming from, but I have to act on the advice that has been given to me. We took this seriously since it was raised last week. We have looked at this and got advice from the Attorney General on this. I reiterate that neither convention have been incorporated into domestic law in Ireland. Notwithstanding that, there has been a huge effort across all the work that has gone into this Bill. When it is considered that this Bill was moved at Second Stage in the Dáil in September 2024 and now I am here in December 2025, there has been a huge amount of time, effort and toing and froing legally to make sure it is sound. I do not have a legal background, but I state categoricallythat the Bill as a whole is compliant with the standards in relation to the issue that the Senator has raised.

On Senator Black's point relating to the admission of children to adult units, I discussed this at length with the Ombudsman for Children, Mental Health Reform and various different organisations. It is something I feel extremely strongly about. When I came into this role in 2020, quite a lot of children were being admitted to adult wards for their own safety. I was not comfortable with that. Children are admitted to adult wards only after efforts to place them in a child and adolescent inpatient unit are unsuccessful due to capacity or clinical needs. All admissions of young people under the age of 18 are notified to the Mental Health Commission and to a national CAMHS lead manager within the HSE mental health. On each occasion that a young person requires to be admitted to an adult unit, they are nursed on a one-to-one basis continuously over the 24-hour period as part of the commission's code of practice. The vast majority of child admissions to adult units are for those in the 16 to 17 age brackets. The HSE indicates that admission to an adult unit may often be more appropriate for the individual and to avoid any impact on younger children.

Progress has been huge. Last year in 2024, there were five HSE admissions. All five admissions to an adult unit for a short space of time was with the consultation of the parents. A total of four of the cases were aged 17 plus and it was for a short time. To date this year, two teenagers have been admitted so far. We have to weigh it up in our minds in relation to the best action for the young person.

I am thinking of the clinicians who must act in real time at 2 o'clock in the morning on a Friday, Saturday or Sunday night where a young person may have attempted suicide, for example. I remember a very specific case in Donegal a few years ago when I was Minister of State. We had a very bad storm that night and there was a young man of 17 who was very unwell. It would have been a risk to him, the ambulance staff and those who would have had to accompany him to bring him to Merlin Park in Galway that night. That was an absolute fact. He was detained overnight, with the support of his family, and moved the next day to Merlin Park.

I had a similar case locally in which I engaged with the family and supported them. I believe it would be wrong to legislate to stop clinicians dealing with a situation in real time where, in what are very rare cases, a young person is a risk to themselves or others. If having spoken and thought for a long time about this matter, which I feel really strongly about, I legislated for it, I would be tying the clinicians' hands behind their backs. I have to choose life over death. If legislation were put in place and a young person were not admitted on a given night to an appropriate setting, approved for either adults or children, I could not guarantee their safety. That is the only reason I am not prepared to legislate for what is proposed. I feel really strongly about this. I spoke to a consultant in Waterford last year when there was a very serious situation in which a young person, whom I do not want to identify, had been taken from the river. I know for a fact that if the consultant had not admitted him that night to the department of psychiatry in University Hospital Waterford, he could not guarantee the family, who completely supported the decision, that the young person would be alive the next morning. The young person had told him categorically that he would go back to the River Suir. I cannot legislate for what is proposed in all good conscience; I just cannot do it. I am emotional about it and feel so strongly about it. I do not want to see the number in question anywhere else. I want to see it go down to zero. I do not want to see children inappropriately placed, but in all cases we are talking about involving 17-and-a-half-year-olds, there has been family support. There has not been a case where there has not been the support of the family.

I explained all this to the Ombudsman for Children and all the various organisations I have met. What I have outlined is the only reason for the very few cases that have arisen. I am referring to where no other facility is available on the night in real time. I have to take cognisance of the fact that I do not want to tie the consultant's hands behind his or her back, in order to make sure a child in the circumstances we have described will see the next morning.

There is a lot in that, and that is why it is taking so much of our time. However, I too am emotional and passionate about this. I have spent my entire life as an advocate. I do not see myself ever as a politician but as an advocate, and this is one of the areas in which I have always advocated because I believe in the cause in my very heart and being. Also, I have lived experience of it. Therefore, I put great store in the Ombudsman for Children. Any time he is here, I seek to engage with his presentations. I have great support for the Children's Rights Alliance. I wholly believe in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in its entirety, just as I believe in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It is unacceptable for anybody to advocate, allow or accept the continuation of a situation in which children do not get age-appropriate care. All children are entitled to it. We have got to put our money where our mouths are and our resources where they are needed. We need age-appropriate accommodation for all our children. It is not appropriate to incarcerate any child with an adult in a psychiatric care situation. There has been a litany of abuses of children in all forms of institutional care, but not necessarily to do with mental health. There are worries for both the child, who is paramount in any debate, and the institutions themselves.

The Minister of State has explained, and I fully accept, that she has devoted a lot of time to this. What is really important is her statement that the UN convention was not incorporated into domestic Irish law. Is that not a challenge for us as politicians on all sides of the House?

For everyone.

No. We are the policymakers, the legislators. It is a challenge for us. It is a failing that it is not a priority. I do not know whether anyone thought this issue was important enough to put into the programme for Government. I do not have it in front of me. What I do know, however, is that the issue was not accorded sufficient priority by those who have been in government for many years in some shape or form. There are amazing, strong advocates on the Government and Opposition benches in the Seanad who have advocated very strongly for the disability sector, children, justice, equality, care, and compassion and empathy for people less fortunate than ourselves or who are particularly vulnerable. I am referring to both children and adults. Anyone who is vulnerable needs support.

I was not aware of what the Minister of State told us today about the conventions. I put my hands up in that regard. It demonstrates the benefit of teasing out, line by line, the legislation. I was simply not aware that neither of the conventions has been incorporated into Irish law. I would love to know who will prioritise this and how it will be prioritised. I would have thought a Minister would come in here one day and say it is on the Government's agenda. This has to be regarded as important. My colleague Senator Clonan has been doing amazing work on disability. I do not even know if he was fully aware of what I have referred to. I would have thought that because the Minister of State has been working on this primary legislation for a long time and became aware at some point of the position on the important conventions, she would have tried to incorporate them into legislation. This Bill could be referred back to committee. Technically, that is possible.

I am not in the business of frustrating legislation. I have five amendments and believe three were ruled out of order. The all-encompassing amendment that I came up with, No. 36a, covers the areas of debate I wanted to raise with the Minister of State. That is important. The issue of age-appropriate care is important. Let us be clear for people listening tonight and tomorrow to these proceedings, which will be on the record, that nobody in this House on any side wants our children incarcerated under any circumstances. We have been talking about this for years, and report after report has condemned the fact that vulnerable children have been put into adult care settings. Whose interest is paramount in all of this? The psychiatrists, psychologists and gardaí will all have their interests but children are of principal importance.

What we are discussing is the weakest part of this legislation. I am not here to knock this legislation; I am trying to improve it. We are the advocates for the children. We should cherish all the children of the nation equally and support them. This is central to our being. I do not see anyone who has a veto on this. We all believe in it.

I am not sure what the proposals are. I do not know what the Minister of State's advice was. She might share it with me if she can. She might not be in a position to do so, which I understand. Has there been discussion at Government level? I note the Minister of State's point that there must be a whole-of-government approach rather than one involving any one segment of the Government. I note that but I wonder whether there is now a commitment to make this a priority. The Minister of State has highlighted it here and in other places.

I am flabbergasted to think about whether these conventions mean anything. In fact, they are not incorporated into domestic law. I could go on at length about this.

I reassure the Minister of State that my only motive is not to block any reform of mental health. It is really important. I want to thank the other organisations that have been in touch with me, including Mental Health Ireland. The Government is spending a lot of money on assistance and financial support for advocacy groups. I got a bit a of a handle on that today. It is important in a democracy that we support advocacy groups. This is a weakness in the Bill and it needs to be rectified. I hear what the Minister of State is saying. That is her call. She is ultimately the Minister of State and is driving the Bill through, and I respect that.

I thank the Minister of State. I appreciate what she is saying in respect of the challenge around children in some very extreme circumstances being admitted to adult wards. I recognise that the Department met IHREC officials. However, we have heard from IHREC that when it comes to the question of beds on adult wards and statutory independent advocates for children, the Bill will not be in compliance with the UNCRC As it stands, the Bill will not be compliant which is from where a lot of our concerns stem.

While we have not transposed those two conventions into domestic legislation, following the advice of advocacy groups, including IHREC, we are potentially going to pass a Bill that will not bring us in line with those conventions. That feels perhaps the not right step to be taking. We should try to make sure that all of the legislation we develop is compliant, whether it includes Senator Boyhan's explicit reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The fact is we currently believe it to be non-compliant, which is a concern for us. We would then have to amend the legislation in the future.

The last two speakers have come from a good place. Their hearts are in the right place and they have made sincere contributions. That is not at issue. I understand the point made by the Minister of State. In an emergency, while it is not ideal or what anyone wants, when there is a threat to an individual's life or thee lives of others, or a high-risk situation, an emergency response is needed. I genuinely think that.

If I was asked to identify things I have been pleased to have been involved with in my life, one is that I was the founder and chairperson of Bailieborough Mental Health Association, which for years was active on a number of fronts and did a lot of work. I was chairperson, followed by a succession of chairs. It did huge work, in conjunction with the local medical health centre and in the community generally. I am very proud of that involvement. I speak with sincerity and genuine interest in this subject. The Minister of State is correct that the emergency provision or possibility of it has to be in the Bill. It is nobody's wish. The two Senators who have spoken are sincere about this. Only a very cynical individual enters this kind of debate with anything other than sincerity. It would be an error to legally close off the option of an emergency response.

I will come to Senator Boyhan first. In response to his discussions on the conventions, co-ordination of the conventions is the responsibility of the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality. Any review of whether the conventions should be reflected in primary legislation must be led by that Department. That is something we know for a fact. The Senator spelled out that it is not incorporated into domestic law. That is quite stark. It is something of which people may not have been aware. Every effort has been made in the Mental Health Bill 2024, as amended by the Seanad, and it puts the best interests of the child forward at every single move.

On admissions to adult units, everybody wants the same thing. The best interests of the child must always be the primary consideration. To be very clear, the Bill does not legislate for admissions to adult units. It does not state anywhere that a child should be admitted to an adult unit. There were two rare cases this year. It must be acknowledged that both cases involved the support of parents. The young person - a teenager or adolescent – is not put into award with adults. I have to be clear about that. They are put into an individual room with one-on-one support. There is a clinical person with them at all times, with the support of their parents. The fact is that we are not legislating for admissions to adult units. The Bill does not state that if a place is not available, a child will be put into an adult unit. I would not legislate for that. I do not want to see it happen. The Bill does not enshrine that practice anywhere in law. It is not there.

However, as Senator O'Reilly said, in an emergency we cannot have a scenario arise whereby a child cannot access mental health services for myriad reasons. There have been two such cases this year. I have had many discussions on this. There were five admissions last year and I believe in 2020 the figure was 80 or 90. They are high numbers, which have come right down. We also know that the most appropriate place for a young person is an appropriate setting. There are inpatient units in Dublin, Cork and Galway. It is very difficult to have inpatient units for young people all over the country. People will never have that, no matter where they live.

People will always have to travel.

I recently visited the new mental health wing in the children's hospital and, please God, it will be open as soon as possible. It is fabulous. It was my first time there about three months ago. We hear a lot of negativity about the cost and the length of time but, my God, it is good to actually go and see it. It has 20 en suite rooms, parents rooms and classrooms. It is spectacular. It was 95% finished, to my eyes, and the furniture was in. It has been fitted out that far, although perhaps not from a clinical perspective. That will make a significant difference as well.

Senator Black referred to 72 hours. I do not want to legislate to put a child into an adult facility because we do not want it to happen. I will tell the House of an interesting case I dealt with before I was the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health. This was probably in 2016 or 2017. A 16-year-old, with the support of his parents, did not want to move from the area he was in to Dublin, Galway or Cork. For a short time, he stayed as an inpatient, with the support of the parents and the clinicians. I do not wish to legislate for admission to adult units. That is what it would involve to put a 72-hour timeframe on it. I am afraid the numbers would go back up.

In most cases, the length of stay is a maximum of 48 hours where it is justified. We use private capacity if needed. We buy private capacity to move a young person out of an adult ward. I get an update on the waiting lists for children's wards every week on a Tuesday morning. Our waiting lists are currently running at approximately one to two. We have been running under capacity nearly all of this year from an inpatient perspective. That is down to community supports having improved, especially in relation to eating disorders, and the new teams we have in place.

I understand exactly where both sides are coming from. I understand exactly where everyone has spoken from. However, I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 36 a .

This also relates to amendment No. 41, which is on the same lines. I can wait and contribute at that stage, but I might as well make my point now.

I hear exactly what the Minister of State is saying about the timeframe and not wanting to put in the 72 hours. I worked for a long time as a youth worker. I worked with CAMHS, and I was involved with many young people who ended up going to Merlin Park. I can see the point about not having the 72 hours without safeguards. The Minister of State 100% brought down the waiting lists, which is amazing, and it is fantastic to see that admissions to adult wards reduced. That has to be commended big time. However, in the absence of safeguards on the 72 hours that young people can stay in adult wards, what are the chances it will just go back up again?

The Minister of State explained that she does not want to put this in. However, are we not at this stage just legislating for failure, rather than making a commitment? If we have the 72 hours, and have a specific time frame so young people cannot stay longer than 72 hours, will that not be a commitment and put pressure to build the adequate infrastructure and have the adequate staffing levels that are needed? This might apply in particular to the north west. It is wonderful to have the children's hospital, with all the money that has gone into it, but there are not enough emergency beds for the young people who need them. It is about putting in safeguards to ensure it cannot be longer than 72 hours. If that were put in at the same time, in tandem, there could be a commitment to ensure that the next Government or future governments would do this, because it might not be for this Government. If it were in there, would it not ensure there is adequate infrastructure to address young people's mental health?

To follow on from what the Senator said, in relation to capacity, we currently have 52 beds open. I secured the funding for 30 whole-time equivalents to reopen ten beds in Cherry Orchard next year. They were closed two and a half or three years ago because we were not able to provide safe staffing numbers. In budget 2026, I secured 300 whole-time equivalents and of those, 30 will be provided to reopen the beds in the Cherry Orchard area.

I have asked the Mental Health Commission to review the existing code of practice on such admissions. I am keeping the commission busy at the moment. The code will set out protections for children and time limits for such admissions. I have asked that. It is something we can discuss for secondary legislation because the timelines would not be an issue for primary legislation.

Like everyone here, I do not want to see anybody - any young person, any adolescent - in the wrong facility. I know I am labouring the point. In nearly all instances, they are aged 17 plus and are there with the support of their families. I have not come across one yet who has been in involuntary detention. The Mental Health Commission is informed straightaway, as is the Department. We are aware of these cases, and they are monitored exceptionally closely. It is always about putting the mental health challenges of the child front and centre for that short space of time, and to have them moved on to an appropriate setting as quickly as possible.

I reiterate that I have asked the Mental Health Commission to review the existing code of practice on such admissions. I would prefer not to legislate for admission to adult wards, which is what it would mean to put in the timeframe. We can look at it in the secondary legislation. I will be back to the Members a lot this year in relation to what comes next when we move to the enactment of the Bill. I am sure we will discuss the UN convention again. You never know. Maybe there will be a role for it there.

I remind Members that we are that we are discussing amendment No. 36 a at the moment. I call Senator Costello.

I have been listening to the debate and can see where Members are coming from. As a parent, if my child was in an emergency situation, I would want them in any unit that would be able to help them in that emergency moment. I understand where people are coming from. However, could I honestly live with myself if a child did not get emergency care because of something we legislated for here? I do not think so. Would it sit right with us, after this goes through, if a situation arose and a child was not able to be facilitated in an adult unit in an emergency situation? How would we feel about that? That is what I am asking myself when I am sitting here listening to everybody.

I know everybody is coming at it from a place where they care, and I feel the empathy around the room from everybody. We want to get it right. It is really good that we are having such a lengthy debate on it because it really matters. As a mother, as I am listening, I am thinking that if it was my child, I would work with them, as the Minister of State said about those two cases. I am sure that for those parents, it was not a nice situation to be in, but they worked, and they agreed to that because it was in the best interests of their child. To have that option removed would not sit easily with me.

At this stage, I am conscious that we need to move on. The Minister of State has stated her position. I have stated mine. However, it has been a wake-up call. As I say, my takeaway is that both of these conventions have not been worked into domestic law.

I am already drafting in my head Private Members' business that I will table. I will engage constructively with Ministers, as I always do. Clearly this is something I will certainly be writing to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste about in the next few days. I will also write to the various mental health spokespersons in the parties. We have a strong line in the Opposition in the Seanad on it.

We are legislators. We are mature and big enough people, and we will talk, laugh and engage after this debate. I have no doubt our paths will cross. The challenge the Minister of State has put up to us is that there is concern about the ratification in domestic law. This is my takeaway from this. Am I sorry that I pursued this line of engagement? No, because from this engagement I am going away having learned more from the Minister of State on certain segments of it. I am now more determined than ever that this needs to be highlighted at the highest level possible. There are challenges for us but this is what parliamentarians do. They have to be pragmatists, they have to meet, they have to engage and they have to see whether there are other opportunities for legislation.

I have no doubt this is something that is not going to go away. I have no doubt the media will pick up on this. I urge the advocacy groups looking in here to rigorously and robustly pursue it. I will certainly make contact with the Ombudsman for Children tomorrow and see what his views are on it. There are challenges for us all and we may have been going along with our eyes slightly blinded or closed but surely this is an issue of significant importance. The best way to test it and pursue it is through some sort of Private Members' motion or Bill and we should work to do this. We have had an important debate and we have learned from it.

I agree.

I do not doubt anyone's commitment to reform in this area.

I am a bit confused and I ask the Minister of State to bear with me. Before I speak about my confusion, I have heard what the Minister of State is saying about emergencies and about the anxiety and worry about the children. As a mother and a grandmother I would love to see child-centred mental health infrastructure. This is my dream. It is very important. If we had the proper staffing and the proper crisis response systems that ensured timely access to appropriate care, and if we could put those safeguards for children into the legislation, it would be the beginning of something. I do not want this to sound like pie in the sky because I do not believe it is.

I would also like to hear a little bit about independent advocacy. I would like to hear the Minister of State's own thoughts on the importance of this. What I am confused about is the 72 hours and the 48 hours. I asked about introducing a 72-hour maximum stay for emergency situations because it would be a very good compromise. Is the Minister of State saying this should be reduced to 48 hours? Is this going to be in the legislation? This is what I am asking.

I thank the Senators again. In order to clarify, nowhere in the Bill talks about a young person being admitted to an adult ward. Nowhere in the Bill does it state a young person cannot be admitted to an adult ward. What I said earlier is that in the majority of cases I am aware of, the stay is up to a maximum of 48 hours. This is not written down anywhere. I have asked the Mental Health Commission to review the existing code of practice on such admissions in relation to the timeframe also. It would be very helpful if there were a clear code of practice on such admissions and that it would be updated.

If I were to table an amendment to state that any child under the age of 18 admitted to an adult ward should be there for no more than 72 hours, then we would be legislating to do it. This is not the right thing to do because when we legislate to do it, it can happen. I am trying to not legislate in order to prevent it from happening. If I were to legislate to state that if it does happen then it is okay for them to stay up to 72 hours, it would open the door. Please God, the number next year will be zero. This is what I want to see happening.

At the same time, as Senators Costello and O'Reilly said, there will always be situations which are very difficult to legislate for. Something such as Storm Bram could happen and there could be a young person in a critical condition and it may not be safe to move them. Do we legislate to stop a clinician putting that child into a safe place? I do not think we can. If we were still in the situation we had when I came in in 2020, with 80, 90 or 100 children being inappropriately placed, it would be a different situation. I would be standing here feeling differently. Because such an effort has been made across all approved centres to reduce this to a situation where we have practically no child, teenager or young adolescent inappropriately placed, the right thing to do is what I am proposing. I believe this 100% in my heart of hearts. If there is a situation at 10 p.m., 11 p.m. or 12 midnight on any night of the week and a consultant has to make a choice that will result in a young person seeing the morning or not seeing the morning, the right thing to do is not to tie that clinician's hands behind their backs. I feel really strongly about this. I hope I have explained it.