Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I welcome the Bill and I am very glad it has been given extra time today. I pay tribute to Senator Boyle and former Senator Déirdre de Búrca who were both responsible for promoting the Bill. I also pay tribute to the campaigners who have highlighted the abuse of human rights as a result of the existing wording of section 59 of the 2001 Act. We are all on the same side and I am delighted the Minister of State has committed to changing the wording. We are all agreed that section 59 denies the right of a competent patient to refuse ECT and we all want to change that position. I am grateful to Amnesty International for its briefings, proposing that this needed to be changed and expressing the view that a comprehensive package of reforms needed to be introduced. The Bill represents an opportunity for the Minister of State and the other House to consider what needs to be done to provide for proper safeguards in the administration of ECT in the very rare and exceptional cases in which it continues to be performed. I believe most such occasions take place on a voluntary basis.

I welcome the Minister of State and express my delight that she has been appointed to her role, in which she will be excellent.

We are all keen to ensure anyone who is able to refuse consent is not denied his or her right of refusal. It is a critical point which is addressed in the amendment. The deletion of the words "or unwilling" from section 59(1)(b) of the Mental Health Act 2001 is critical and will ensure competent patients will have the right to refuse ECT, as they should be able to do under international human rights law and the Constitution. However, their mere deletion is not enough. As Senator Boyle acknowledged, the provisions of the Bill are not enough to ensure adequate safeguards for mental health patients. The other human rights concerns raised by organisations such as Amnesty International about section 60 of the Act, the need for comprehensive capacity legislation, the right of appeal and the provision of a ban on the administration of ECT in the case of minors all need to be dealt with in more comprehensive legislation aimed at protecting the rights of patients and ensuring we will be in compliance with international standards and best practice.

All of these issues have to inform the debate. We are all trying to strike a better balance than that struck in the 2001 Act and all accept that there are flaws in the Bill we are debating. The best we can do today is to accept the amendment. Senator Boyle accepts that the wording of amendment No. 2 is flawed, but I am happy to accept amendment No. 3 and withdraw my opposition to section 2. I understand he is happy to accept amendment No. 4. In a spirit of co-operation, therefore, we can proceed to accept the Bill and I am very happy to support it. We all want to see more comprehensive legislation put in place to protect the human rights of psychiatric patients.