Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)

We are talking about a very small number of people. An involuntary admission should be the last thing we look for, but there are cases where it is absolutely necessary. I will not get into the details of another case I recall, but we were dealing with somebody who had become a danger to himself and others. He had been well beyond a nuisance for a considerable time and had caused a huge number of issues in the place where he lived. I went to a community meeting and the entire community was livid. Gardaí were there. They collected all the information. They then charged him with a number of things and brought him to court. I think there was a period of custody. There was a really good judge who then stated that the only chance there would be of bail in the circumstances would be if this person were to take treatment, and he took treatment. I do not even remember his name because that was the issue dealt with. The fact is that this was an issue that was not being dealt with. It involved someone who had a diagnosis and needed help and treatment and was not getting it, so the system was not working for him.

There are multiple other instances, some of which I have even been dealing with lately. It took multiple arrests by the Garda. We are not talking about "immediate and serious harm", but these people were carrying out continual harm to themselves and to others. Some of it was very obvious from how their lives had gone, how they were living and other circumstances. I do not believe you could go around this Chamber and not find a great many people who would say that there is an issue out there. There have been circumstances where somebody who needed treatment was not in a position to receive it. In an awful lot of cases the Garda and everybody else are attempting to get the person the treatment. I understand that doctors have to look at safeguarding, but they were saying their hands were tied and that the only way they could consider signing for involuntary admission was if we were talking about "immediate and serious harm", that is, if they were saying they were going to take action against themselves or others. We have had such instances that have gone on for months. It is usually down to good luck that nothing really brutal happens. Things get worse after a period of time. The person then does something sufficient to involve an intervention. Then, along the way, you are able to get someone who is willing to sign at that point in time. Again, though, there is the danger that is created for that person and the brutal circumstances that that creates for the family and, I imagine, even for that person when they get the treatment and hopefully move into a better place. However, they will have a whole pile of backwash from the particular way they were living that I imagine they will not be particularly happy with. I just do not think it is good enough.

As Deputy Ward and others said, the important point is that we need to get the legislation right and we need the code of practice, making sure that everyone, whether it is the Garda, those who work for the HSE or GPs, is clearly instructed as to how the law works and about the fact that there are cases where the only thing to do as regards providing someone with care is to ensure that they are involuntarily admitted on the basis that they cannot see it but everyone else can. As Deputy Clarke said, we have put into this amendment a number of safeguards. None of us is wedded to this particular amendment. We will be happy enough if the Government and the Minister of State can come back with a solution to this problem because that is all we are looking to be addressed. However, if I do not see anything like that, if I cannot see anything else or any choice we have, we will have to press this amendment because we have to make the point. I am absolutely fed up - and I am not play-acting in this regard - of dealing with these issues. It is a disaster for the families, the Garda and everyone else involved in these cases.

See this speech in context