John Moloney (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

During the previous debate on this amendment, I made the point that it would have certain effects. I would like to reiterate what they would be. First, it would allow the District Court to send people charged with minor offences to centres other than the Central Mental Hospital for examination when an issue of fitness to be tried arises. I recognise that is in line with the spirit of what the Deputy is saying. Second, it would allow higher courts to send people charged with serious offences to other centres for examination where an issue of fitness to be tried arises. Third, it would allow the District Court to order people who are unfit to be tried for minor offences to be detained in centres other than the Central Mental Hospital. I understand the spirit of what the Deputy is suggesting. She is alluding to the stigma associated with people being referred to the Central Mental Hospital. I have taken up what she said on Committee Stage about the need for other centres to be designated. Finally, it would allow higher courts to order people who are unfit to be tried for serious offences to be detained in other centres.

Deputies will appreciate that this amendment would have far-reaching consequences. I accept the principle of trying to ensure people with mental health problems are treated in less restrictive settings, if possible, as envisaged in the commitments and aspirations of A Vision for Change. I introduced an amendment in the Seanad to give the Minister for Health and Children the power to designate centres other than the Central Mental Hospital to be used for the purposes of examining persons referred by the District Court when a question of fitness to be tried arises. More serious difficulties arise, however, with regard to offences that are tried in the other courts. As criminal cases before the higher courts can involve serious offences, certain security issues might arise. Higher courts, by their nature, have an extra level of security activity. This amendment would involve a far-reaching change to the current situation and would require careful examination by way of referral to the higher courts. I am totally at one with the spirit of what the Deputy is suggesting by way of the lower courts.

Similarly, sending persons who are unfit to be tried to centres other than the Central Mental Hospital for detention, care or treatment raises difficulties which cannot be resolved within the timescale envisaged for the enactment of this Bill. I made the point to the Deputy on Committee Stage that the whole issue would be dealt with in the context of the planned review of the 2006 Act. Again, we must remind ourselves that the purpose of this Bill is to make a small number of amendments to the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006. Amendments to the 2006 Act are being kept to a minimum because this Bill is required urgently to deal with the whole issue of the conditional discharge of patients from the Central Mental Hospital.

In a nutshell, in terms of the spirit of what Deputy Kathleen Lynch and other colleagues have mentioned in relation to the need for patients to be referred to centres other than the Central Mental Hospital, it must be recognised that there are enormous difficulties involved in the higher courts. That is my stated position. The broader issues raised by the amendment would be more suitably considered in the context of the planned review of the 2006 Act. The last day we discussed this there was no talk of a general election and quite clearly people were wondering whether this would happen. Obviously, I gave a commitment to the effect that if I was here it would happen, and I presume that when somebody else is here it will definitely happen.

See this speech in context