Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

I share the concerns expressed by Deputy Ó Caoláin. It appears there is not a registration system and that we will rely on HSE protocols. The legislation contains no requirement that the people concerned should be in any way professionally qualified. The Minister of State says he expects they will be and that the kind of people who do this work generally are. However, the legislation does not require it. Professionally qualified people are, generally, governed by a regulatory authority of some kind. Doctors, for example, are governed by the Medical Council and they can be struck off.

Generally, if somebody does not act in accordance with the norms and standards expected of them as professionals, there is a consequence. However, if anybody can do this, there might be no consequence if that person does not behave appropriately in restraining the person concerned. It is not easy to restrain somebody who does not wish to be restrained. We are not discussing a situation where somebody just asks a person to come back to a place. It will probably be fairly physical. We are obliged to ensure there is proper protection and that the people concerned are appropriate. This is about a balance of rights and ensuring people's rights are protected.

I have looked at the wording of the original Act. It refers continually to clinical directors, consultant psychiatrists, registered medical practitioners and so forth. The amendment, however, refers to the registered proprietor of an approved centre. That is privatisation, in effect. The proprietor of a public institution is presumably the State, the HSE or the Minister, that is, wherever these institutions are vested. The amendment uses the term "registered proprietor" and states: "Where the registered proprietor of an approved centre has entered into an arrangement referred to in subsection (1) with a person, the clinical director of that centre may authorise in writing...". There is a handing down of authority to the clinical director but it is the registered proprietor who makes the agreement with the authorised person to carry out the work of bringing the person back. Why is that language used in the amendment? I have seen no reference to registered proprietors in the original Act, which refers consistently to consultant psychiatrists, medical practitioners, registered nurses and staff. Why are proprietors getting involved rather than clinical directors?

I have a problem with being dependent on HSE protocols to ensure this will be done in an appropriate way. HSE protocols are all very well for some of the issues raised by Deputy James Reilly, such as cleanliness and the like. However, with regard to a person's behaviour to a very vulnerable individual who is having something done to them that they do not want, that is, being brought back to a centre against their will after absconding from it, it is vital that the person who carries out this work is appropriate, and has appropriate standards. There must be some type of appropriate redress if it is not done in the right manner. Under the original Act this is done by clinicians who can get the assistance of the Garda. My reading of the amended version is that the authorised persons can also get the assistance of the Garda, as in some cases the Act provides for entry of a dwelling or other premises by force if necessary. I presume the gardaí would do that. Perhaps the Minister will clarify if these authorised persons can also get the assistance of the Garda and how that will work.

There are very real issues here and I am not reassured by the fact that the HSE will introduce protocols. I do not believe it addresses the human rights elements of this.

See this speech in context