Mr. John Saunders:

A form of tribunal was suggested as a possibility. The committee may know the mental health legislation in place operates tribunals for third-party reviews of decisions made to detain people against their will in approved centres. It is a cumbersome and costly process but it is effective enough. I am not sure how it might translate to the situation included in the heads of the Bill.

With regard to third-party review, the issue I raised is that at some point in most appeals mechanisms one can make an application to court, usually the Circuit Court, to review a decision. The point I made is that under the heads of the Bill as read now, there is no provision beyond the initial review for any appeal to a court of any description, regardless of the decision made.

With regard to notifications under head 11, the commission examined this head and it appears to be quite sensible in the sense that ultimately the Minister and the Department are responsible for all health care service delivery and should have routine information provided to them to help them understand how the services operate. It is self-evident that details about personal names and addresses should not be included in this data. With regard to the Freedom of Information Act, I understand the Act already has provisions whereby information is withheld because of its sensitive or personal nature, so a decision will need to be made with regard to the information we are discussing under the heads of the Bill.

With regard to the questions on psychiatry, psychiatrists will be asked to make decisions on the evidence presented by a woman and it is a matter for psychiatrists to reach a conclusion. I am not a doctor and I cannot give a response.