Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Health (Preservation and Protection and other Emergency Measures in the Public Interest) Act 2020 is a vital part of the national effort to challenge and overcome coronavirus. The Labour Party supported the Act originally because it supports the objectives the Act is trying to achieve. In March, we tabled amendments to ensure that the House would be able to review sunset clauses, as is being done today. We need another date to be set to ensure that any concerns will be addressed. In fairness, I think the Minister of State knows that this is necessary and, as far as I understand it, the Government will deal with it. Although the Labour Party supports extending Part 5 of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 until 2021, we would have concerns if it were to be extended without detailed scrutiny.

I refer to an important issue that has not been examined in any great detail. In normal course, an independent consultant psychiatrist examines a patient in person, interviews the responsible consultant psychiatrist and prepares a report for submission to a mental health tribunal. Such tribunals normally comprise a chairperson who is a solicitor or barrister, a consultant psychiatrist and a lay person. These tribunals review admission or renewal orders for involuntary patients and either affirm or refuse the order. The amendments contained in the Act provide that a consultant psychiatrist conducting an examination of an involuntarily detained patient may do so remotely. They also provide for mental health tribunals to consist of just the chairperson if other members cannot attend due to the spread of Covid-19. This causes challenges and worries. It raises concerns regarding due process with people who are related to affected persons. These are real and justifiable concerns.

The information note sent by the Department to all Deputies states that no one-person mental health tribunals have been used to date but it does not state whether consultant psychiatrists have been conducting examinations remotely or, if they have been so doing, what impact this may be having on their professional assessments. I ask the Minister of State to outline whether consultant psychiatrists have been conducting examinations remotely. I presume background analysis of the impact the amendments are having has been carried out. We need qualitative analysis on that issue and to find out how the process is being conducted. It is my view that the Joint Committee on Health may wish to examine in detail the changes to the operation of these tribunals. It should consider which amendments have been used in practice and, if not of them have been used, whether there is a rationale for renewing them. We need more detail.

Ultimately, it is necessary for a sunset clause to be put back in. I understand and presume that the Government will do so. If it does not, there will be an issue. More detail on the process and how it is working to date is needed in order to assuage any concerns held by Members, as public representatives, as well as the families on whose loved ones the Act could potentially have an impact.

See this speech in context