Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I ask if the Minister could clarify something that is not a small matter. I pointed out the difficulty at times in understanding - perhaps the use of language is part of the problem. In my view, language has to be clear and understandable so that we know exactly what we are dealing with because otherwise we are talking at cross purposes.

I made reference to page six of the Bill, subsection (3), lines 31 to 36, which are the subject of amendment No. 4 in which I seek their deletion. My understanding of this in the context of amendment No. 2 is that it absolutely restricts the appointments of directors to those who are employees of the executive holding the grade of national director or other grade within the executive of not less seniority than the grade of national director. Yet the Minister of State has responded already on this amendment stating that the filling of this post, or other posts perhaps, was open not only to HSE employees but also to other public service employees. Am I correct in saying that the prompt note which the Minister read into the record of the House earlier was particularly built around the fact that it is in the past tense - was open? Therefore, it is a distraction from the fact that we are dealing with legislation yet not enacted nor even passed as a Bill. It is important that we have absolute clarity and understand exactly what is being said and exchanged across this Chamber. I believe that what is in the Bill is much too restrictive. I seek an amendment No. 2, "In page 6, line 26, after "Act" to insert the following:", one of whom shall be a Director of Mental Health". This has been filled and has actually become a fact and this is welcome. I think it could be in the Bill which would give significant comfort to the many people who, like the Minister, have shown a concern for how mental health has been treated historically.

We will deal with amendment No. 4 presently. In subsection (3) on the same page there is a very defined limitation of access to compete for such appointments. I believe it should be open to the widest possible scope of expertise, both within the health service and externally. I do not think it is enough to say if they are successful and if they are appointed, then they will surely be part of it. That is not what this subsection requires; it requires that they are already in the service of the health service and that they already hold the position of a national director or a comparable grade. I think that is much too restrictive.

I would be disappointed that we are not able to make progress with some of these amendments for the very good reasons that we have argued. I think that the effort we have employed both on Committee Stage and now on Report Stage merits careful analysis and a weighing up of the arguments by the Minister. In this particular instance it would signal a mighty positive towards not only mental health reform but also the many other NGOs and those who are concerned about mental health services in our health service. These are concerns that have not been lessened over these two years of the Minister's stewardship. He should make no mistake about it that the €35 million just rings in our ears. We need a certainty for the future. There is a chance to do that in this legislation and I would hope that the Minister would reconsider and perhaps also explain what I see - if I am missing something, so be it and let me become aware of it - but from what I hear I believe there are conflicting messages with regard to what the Bill proposes and what the Minister of State has already responded regarding said appointments.

See this speech in context