Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution. I was involved in the passage of the 2001 Act along with Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. It was a tortuous process because of the level of consultation and discussion with the then Minister and the level of concern expressed throughout, but especially on Committee Stage. The introduction of this section in one fell swoop is of great concern because of that previous experience and the concerns expressed at that time.

I recall clearly at that time the concerns expressed regarding the changes the then Minister proposed. As with the two previous speakers, I will endeavour to obtain advice on this matter because I am not in a position to technically evaluate fully the implications of the measures in respect of the rights of people. There are experts in this area who have advised us in the past but we have not had the opportunity to consult appropriately. I am concerned that the Opposition is not empowered to fully comprehend the implications of the measures because we have not had the opportunity to do so.

Who will be authorised to do this work? No criteria is laid down regarding how to select people or an organisation. Will the work involve security people, a bouncer's organisation or someone heavy handed enough to handle people? What training is necessary and what criteria has been laid down? If criteria had been laid down for the selection of people it would alleviate our concerns with the Bill, but it has not been included. Why is the detail in this area so vague such that the Minister of State has not included criteria for the selection of people to carry out the removal of people? We have encountered very serious situations in which people must be restrained for their own sake and for the sake of others. Some very serious events have taken place regarding the safety of professional clinicians who have had to deal with certain situations. I know of an unfortunate situation in Limerick where life was seriously endangered. We recognise there must be some level of intervention with respect to people with difficulties but the concerns expressed on Committee Stage in 2001 are still relevant. When that Bill was being taken in the Oireachtas at the time, I do not remember if this was one of the many issues we raised.

The introduction of a separate Bill would have been an opportunity to discuss the whole area of mental health and mental health services. We have been seeking a comprehensive debate on the independent monitoring group's report which expressed concerns about the absence of identifiable leadership in the implementation of the recommendations of A Vision for Change. The group expressed concerns that a more comprehensive plan had not been put in place to implement those recommendations. The group was very disappointed with the slow rate of progress in the implementation of the recommendations. A Vision for Change cannot be implemented effectively without a national mental health service directorate and from private discussions with the Minister, I understand there may be some moves in this regard. It is hoped these will not be delayed.

The group recommended a dedicated leader at senior and national level and this absence has impeded progress in the implementation of the recommendations. The group said this was contributing to the continuing poor facilities and standards of care in some areas and an inconsistent approach in embedding the recovery services for people with psychiatric illnesses. It would have been an opportunity to discuss this matter.

I have been endeavouring to raise a matter on the Adjournment on the subject of the report on St. Luke's Hospital in Clonmel. This was as serious as many of the reports that have been debated at length in the House but it will not be afforded the same status as some of the other reports into serious matters which have been debated here in the past six months. I ask the Minister of State to comment on the recommendation that the hospital be closed. There are very serious allegations about fractures not being identified for some time after they occurred; sensitive and frail patients being in close proximity to patients who are more aggressive and concerns about the safety of patients. I am very disappointed that the same rigour has not been applied to the Minister of State's amendment as was applied to the original Bill in 2001.

See this speech in context