Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I, too, will be supporting this Bill. It is important to put the Bill into context. Tomorrow it will be five months since Mr. Justice Gerard Hogan gave his judgment on 3 May. The Minister of State has quoted the judge's language very directly. Mr. Justice Hogan gave the Government a window of opportunity up to 8 November 2018. Mr. Justice Hogan directed an "immediate and imperative response" on the part of the other branches of the Government, namely, the Oireachtas and the Government. The Minister of State has rightly quoted that. Mr. Justice Hogan has given the Government that window of opportunity. I am glad the Minister of State has come forward with this Bill.

The background to this Bill is that Mr. B's order had been renewed and extended multiple times in the case that came before Mr. Justice Hogan, that of AB v. Clinical Director of St. Loman's Hospital. Before I look at that case, however, I point out that pre-legislative scrutiny was waived because of the urgency of this Bill. That is never a good thing. I know that it had to be done in this situation but it is never a good thing. The Oireachtas Library and Research Service did not even have time to come up with a digest, but it did come up with a post and details on that, for which I and the other Deputies are very grateful.

With regard to the case background, Mr. B had been detained multiple times under the sections of the Act that have been referred to. The finding was that there was no effective process by which Mr. B could dispute an assessment that he continued to suffer from a mental disorder during the operation of these renewal orders. The court clearly said that this was unconstitutional, especially with regard to Article 40.4.1° on personal liberty and Article 40.3.1° on personal rights, and the failure to vindicate Mr. B's personal rights. The court clearly pointed out that the Oireachtas had to legislate for some independent means by which a detained person can initiate a review of an assessment that he or she suffers from a mental disorder, and to ensure that involuntary detention of patients with mental disorders is kept under regular and independent review. I shall return to this point later with regard to A Vision for Change.

This Bill sets out to correct that unconstitutionality. It sets out the maximum period of detention without a review at six months. The patient can come forward after three months, which is a welcome change. It is a change we had to bring in.

Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify one question around the extant orders as this is prospective legislation and not retrospective. With regard to existing renewal orders that have been made, section 3 states that the psychiatrist must examine the patient "as soon as possible". What does that mean?

Is there a time limit set for the renewal of those orders as soon as possible? To put this in context, I had the privilege in another life of working as a clinical psychologist and way back in the 1980s we knew exactly what the problems were. A document was produced by the then Government on planning for the future. The direction was to move from psychiatric units and into the community. However, it was not really acted upon except to take patients out of the big institutions but without providing the help on the other side. The next big document was A Vision for Change, which brought us up to 2016. It was an excellent document, which I have cited many times in this Chamber.

Such was the cynicism of each Government that an independent review panel was set up as a result of pressure. It sat for two different three-year periods and highlighted the progress being made and not being made. The response was not to take that proactively and do something but to do away with the independent review panel. I ask the Minister of State at the very least in the immediate term to bring back an independent review panel to review what is happening in our mental health services under A Vision for Change. I know the strategy is under review but it has taken an appalling length of time. I thought we would have the review in 2016 but the Government kicked for touch and went for an international review of literature. That was not necessary. Then it moved on to some type of review of A Vision for Change, which it has not implemented.

We really do not need any more literature. We do not need any more reviews. A Vision for Change set out in the clearest of English on every level, all the suicide rates back in 2006, all the information up to then was included and it set out the way forward. We know that the cost to the economy is astronomical. I pay tribute to the work of the advocacy groups who tell us that for every €1 spent on mental health, another €4 are saved to the economy. We know that it is costing the economy a large sum of money yet we are failing to implement A Vision for Change and kicking for touch with idiotic reports and international reviews of literature. They may well be necessary, I do not know, but they can take place in parallel with the implementation of A Vision for Change.

As Deputy Gino Kenny said, there are no 24 hour services for teenagers in 57% of the country. People with mental health problems are going into the accident and emergency department in Galway and walking out. We know suicide rates are very high. I do not want to repeat the figures but from my background I can say there are solutions to these problems. We want to empower people. This emergency legislation highlights our very complicated history of, and attitude to, the incarceration of people. It seems to be the answer that we have always rushed to rather than empowering people. We have used the language in A Vision for Change but we have never implemented it.

I have been in the Dáil for two and a half years. It is five months since the Court of Appeal forced the Government to take action on one aspect of mental health care. There are many other aspects, for example, people are held in a voluntary way in community institutions and there is a huge grey area about their rights. There are many other serious questions. I appreciate the Minister of State's work commitment but we want A Vision for Change implemented. The Minister of State can certainly update and improve it but if the Government is seriously interested in doing that, it would reinstate the independent review panel because that would give us all confidence that it is seriously interested in implementing A Vision for Change or whatever new document comes forward.

See this speech in context