Dáil debates

Thursday, 26 March 2020

An Bille um Bearta Éigeandála ar mhaithe le Leas an Phobail (Covid-19), 2020: Céim an Choiste agus na Céimeanna a bheidh Fágtha - Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Bill 2020: Committee and Remaining Stages

 

11:10 pm

Photo of Simon HarrisSimon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

There are a number of issues. I thank Deputies Naughten and Berry for their amendment. I would make the point in response that there is already a sunset clause in this legislation and we have aligned it with the emergency legislation we passed last week in terms of it being 9 November 2020, but of course a resolution of this House can at any time shorten that. That is a safeguard which I think Deputy Berry was trying to achieve. If I were to accept the amendment as drafted I think it would be inconsistent with the approach adopted in the Act last week as well and would potentially create an anomaly in that regard.

I think I understand what Deputy Shortall is trying to achieve with her amendment on the reference to the WHO criteria. Ireland is proudly testing in accordance with WHO criteria and we intend to continue that scenario but in such a dynamic situation, were it not possible to do that where a meeting of the national public health emergency team would deviate from that, and if the testing for the health service was not in accordance with WHO criteria then the redeployment would not be compatible with the exigencies of the public health emergency and my officials have a concern that it would end up weakening the intended effect of the amendments we are trying to make. I get what Deputy Shortall is trying to do but we do have a concern in relation to that.

The Sinn Féin amendments to the Bill include two amendments under Part 5. I will deal with the proposed amendment on the insertion of the phrase "in person or by remote consultation" first. Remote or electronic consultation is already understood to apply, although implicitly, within the current Mental Health Act 2001. On foot of the Sinn Féin amendment we did seek advice from the Attorney General's office to, first, confirm that to be the case but also to advise against including an explicit reference to remote or electronic means in the amendments, as it may actually mean that remote or electronic means are excluded from the existing principal Act, the Mental Health Act, so for this reason we are opposing it but we are satisfied on the basis of legal advice that remote or electronic means are allowed.

The second amendment proposed by Sinn Féin would introduce a two-person tribunal comprising the chair being a solicitor or barrister and a consultant psychiatrist or a registered clinical nurse specialist in psychiatry or above. Following consultation with the Mental Health Commission, which is the regulator of mental health services, we have a number of reasons on which we wish to oppose this, which perhaps I will get back in on in a moment, but the policy decision to adopt a cascading approach to tribunals was taken because both the HSE and the commission did express very serious concerns over the expected lack of availability of consultant psychiatrists due to Covid-19 and my concern is that the two-person tribunal would not do anything to alleviate those pressures. I do need to say that in the case of one-person tribunals – this is really important and I want to say it on the record of this House – clinical input would still be given both by the treating psychiatrist and an independent consultant psychiatrist and where they differ in their opinion, by another psychiatrist. I do need to make that clear. I take Deputy Bríd Smith's legitimate concerns. This is not about a lawyer or a barrister just sitting down and deciding. There always will be clinical input. These are emergency measures to try to come up with a way of getting through this very difficult pandemic, but the safeguards of the clinical input will be absolutely there.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.