Professor Matthew Sadlier:

I have a very simple answer. I am not sure, and the issue is that we are not sure. The fear is that the Mental Health Commission will become a body that only regulates the State services. We know that mental healthcare is provided by non-governmental organisations, some of which accept State funding and some that do not. It is provided by fully private, insurance-based hospitals and a variety of different services. What we are seeking there is to ensure that the Mental Health Commission, when it expands its remit from inpatient units to community services, does not just look at the State-provided community services and that it looks at the other sectors. It is up to the Mental Health Commission to determine how it does that, what standards it sets and how that is operated.

We know that the difficulty with talking-type therapies is the regulation of them. There is no central register of therapists. I have a qualification, but anybody can put a plaque on the wall in the morning and say he or she is a something-or-other therapist. There could be somebody with very little qualification who has been engaged in exploitation of clients of various different types who, unless the person is criminally prosecuted, can just walk down the road and put a plaque up on a different wall and set up again.

It is that security, so my answer is, "I do not know". The problem is that we do not know. The issue is that the Mental Health Commission not only gets involved in State services but that it also has some type of remit towards the non-State orientated talking therapies, the therapists and qualifications that are out there and that it sets standards of some description. That probably would require a session by itself, to be honest. However, it is that setting of standards.