John Moloney (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputies for their contributions to the debate. I intend to deal in rotation with all the points raised but I wish to clarify a point made by the second last speaker, Deputy Ó Caoláin who quite properly asked if this Bill is in advance of some court challenge. I wish to inform him that this is not the case. This is not a matter of trying to protect against issues coming down the line.

I will deal with the issues raised by Deputies. I fully agree with Deputy Jan O'Sullivan that it is a matter of balancing rights and this should be fundamental to any change in legislation, particularly legislation which clearly in some instances was introduced in a hurry. I accept that point and I wish to apologise to the House that consultations between the Whips or the party spokespersons did not occur in the past few days. However, I refer to the time constraints as the House rises for the summer recess in two weeks. I do not use this as an excuse. I also refer to the fallout from the High Court judgment.

I take the points made by Deputies Reilly and Jan O'Sullivan regarding the safeguards in the vetting procedures. I take the point made by Deputy Ó Caoláin about privatisation. I listened to Deputy Reilly who is a GP and he referred to the issues of basic cleanliness of ambulances and the expertise of staff. All these matters will be dealt with by way of HSE protocols. I acknowledge that "protocol" is a loose word and it may be suggested that they only last for varying periods of time but the test of their validity will have to be in the criteria they will set down for employees.

I take into account the fear of changes in the mental health legislation because of possible future implications. I do not say this as an excuse but up to now there has been a difficulty in securing professional people to assist with involuntary patients. The use of external agencies is not just a matter of convenience. All personnel must comply with the mental health commission guidelines. Even as I say this, I accept that guidelines are one thing but it is a question of how strong the guidelines in the protocol will be. The guidelines and the protocols brought forward by the HSE will need to ensure that all the necessary prerequisites are in place and the most obvious would have to be the vetting procedures. Assurances will be required from external companies along with Garda security and background clearance, and with the experience of such staff in dealing with mentally ill patients. These would have to be included in the protocol.

I made the point in my contribution that there must be compliance with the guidelines of the mental health commission. The requirement for drivers is that they should work with the Garda Síochána whenever assistance is required. Protocols will be put in place by the HSE. The authorised persons will be authorised only for a period of up to 12 months and there will be continuous checking but the vetting procedure has to be put in place in advance.

As Deputy Reilly points out, HIQA should have an involvement in preparing the protocols proposed by the HSE and I would expect this to be the case. Part of its involvement in the protocols should be the vetting of applicants. I take the point made about ambulances. I do not wish to deal today with the medical board issue as this is a separate issue. We must take care when dealing with mental health legislation and in particular when there is a time constraint. I accept that Members have not had an opportunity to check with advisory groups, such as Amnesty International, but I plead with the House to understand the time constraint. The High Court judgment means that if this matter is not regularised we may find ourselves in a difficulty in the coming months with a person who needs to be transferred involuntarily to a hospital or institution. We must accept the fact that care staff have been properly trained. The people who have acted in this capacity have been psychiatric nurses. No one could act in this capacity if he or she did not have a qualification in mental health support as well as additional training in, for example, talk down techniques and de-escalation.

I always read with interest the contributions made by Deputy Neville in this area. I hope Members do not think this legislation has been bounced upon the House. We are faced with a severe time constraint.

A full review of the Mental Health Act will be undertaken in 2011 when the Act has been in operation for five years. We will then have an opportunity to tease out these issues. In the interim, this legislation will prevent people being exposed to harm by themselves or others in cases where the required staff is not available.

Deputy Neville requested a debate on mental health. That will not be possible before the end of the session but I accept his point and I will ask the Government to provide time for such a debate. Vision for Change is now in the fourth year of a ten year programme. Huge uncertainty surrounds the funding of mental health supports and the new capital programmes. Many people have asked what will happen to the capital assets involved in mental health. I intend to have a public review of Vision for Change during September or October next to reaffirm and establish how we should proceed with the rest of the programme's recommendations and how funding can be secured. It is no longer enough to talk about ring-fencing funding for mental health. Legislation must be put before the House to ensure that funding is raised. These issues should come before the House. I will support the call for that debate. I will return to the Clonmel issue, raised by Deputy Neville, at a later date.

I am not aware of any further challenges to the High Court ruling. We need only regularise matters following the ruling. Statistics for the last year for involuntary referrals in various counties show the widespread use of staff who are not members of SIPTU or the Psychiatric Nurses Association of Ireland, PNA. It is clear we could not provide the personnel resources for the involuntary transfer of patients. That is why we need this legislation. I concede that the Bill is rushed but it arises from the highly principled motive of ensuring that people who cannot care for themselves are cared for by the State.

See this speech in context