James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

The concerns about this Bill revolve around the new section which has been added. When the House last discussed it, we raised our concerns about the manner in which this was included and the Minister gave us the rationale behind it. The section was rushed in because of a court case so while we can accept a certain logic to this and a need to address a legal problem, rushed law often transpires to be bad law.

The Minister has told us the Mental Health Act will not be reviewed until 2011 at the earliest, which is two years away. In the meantime there is no regulation governing inspection, selection of these private companies, police vetting, regulation of hygiene requirements or the type of vehicle which can be used in the transport of disturbed patients, or the training of individuals concerned in restraint and talking-down techniques.

It is reassuring to know that the current company consists mainly of psychiatric nurses who would have all that training. There is no guarantee, particularly in light of the current economic climate, that other companies will not seek to become involved in doing the same sort of work or that individuals who are not suitably trained may join the employ of the company which holds the contract at present.

I am disappointed the Minister of State did not take on board what Members said on Report Stage and did not take the opportunity to introduce amendments which could have addressed the issues about which we are concerned. It would have been preferable if the Bill had been amended in such a way as to give the Minister for Health and Children the power, by way of introducing a statutory instrument, to impose regulations that will set standards in respect of the issues to which I refer. I do not have an ideological difficulty with a private company being involved in this area as long as the public can rest assured that proper standards and procedures relating to training, hygiene and the nature of the transport used will be adhered to. In addition, the company in question must be subjected to regular inspections and the public interest must be served by its being frequently monitored by HIQA or some other agency.

Is the Minister of State in a position to provide assurances in this regard? As stated previously, this is the only aspect of the Bill about which we are concerned. I do not want to be obliged to vote against the legislation. However, if we do not obtain some guarantees in respect of this matter, then we will be failing in our obligation to patients who are vulnerable and who will be completely at the mercy of those arrive to assist in their being brought to hospital. We all know what the word "assist" means in this context. Basically, it refers to the forced removal of patients - against their wishes - from wherever they are to a place of care. These people usually require to be forcibly removed because they are psychotic or unwell and certain procedures have to be followed for their safety and for the safety of others.

When we take extraordinary powers onto ourselves, we must be absolutely certain that the appropriate personnel and means of transport are in place. I await the Minister of State's response in respect of the matter.

See this speech in context