Mary Butler (Waterford, Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 32, to delete line 38 and substitute the following: "(3) If, upon the proposed discharging from hospital of a person the subject of a recommendation for involuntary admission—".

I will speak first to amendment No. 93. This amendment provides for a stand-alone section relating to psychosocial assessments to be carried out within two working days of the admission order being made rather than at the time of admission. Some stakeholders requested that clarity be given to the status of psychosocial assessments. The Bill, as initiated, clearly states that the psychosocial assessment is not part of the grounds for involuntary admission. This has been made clearer in the amendments to the Bill by providing for the assessments in a stand-alone section. Allowing for the psychosocial assessments to be carried out within two working days of the admission order being made will allow more allied health professions to participate in those assessments, particularly for professions that do not generally work outside normal working hours.

Amendment No. 72 is a technical amendment that rewords subsection 21(3) to include reference to the "person the subject of a recommendation for involuntary admission".

Amendment No. 73 is a technical amendment moving the word "means" in the sentence to make it clearer.

Amendments Nos. 74, 83, 114, 118 and 120 take out the reference to "psychosocial assessments" in sections 22 and 37 as these are all now moved to new section 26, under amendment No. 93.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 75 as I do not believe it is appropriate. Reflective of recommendation 43 of the report of the expert group on the review of the Mental Health Act 2001, I am focused on bringing the psychosocial assessment of other members of the multidisciplinary team to the involuntary admission process in tandem with the examination of the consultant psychiatrist. The detail of what is contained within a psychosocial assessment can be set out by way of secondary legislation in a regulation.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 76. However, I agree with the spirit of this amendment. This level of detail of psychosocial assessment is not required in primary legislation. It would be more beneficial for such matters to be dealt with either in secondary legislation by way of regulation or by guidance by the Mental Health Commission. The matters to be assessed as set out in the amendment are all relevant and important to any psychosocial assessment but it does not need to be reflected in the text of the Bill. As I said, however, I agree with the spirit of the amendment, and it is important to say that.

Amendments Nos. 77, 82, 84, 85, 87, 91, 92, 116 and 119 correct typographical errors.

Amendment No. 79 takes out the first reference to "involuntary admission" in section 22(2)(a) as only one reference is needed in the sentence.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 81. I would have very grave concerns if this amendment were to be carried. It would represent a serious regression in the rights of people in the involuntary admission process. The Mental Health Act 2001 only permits a person to be held for 24 hours in an approved centre before an admission order either can be made or the person must be released. This timeframe has been retained in this Bill. It would a retrograde step to extend that period to 72 hours.

We must remember that until an admission order has been made in respect of a person, that person is not involuntarily admitted. To deprive a person of their liberty is a serious infringement on their rights and must be for as short a period as possible. Extending the period in which a person can be held with an admission order being made to 72 hours without the person being examined and determined to have a mental disorder that meets the criteria for involuntary admission would seriously diminish the rights of people. I seriously believe it would be a retrograde step.

Amendments Nos. 86 and 90 provide for new subsections 22(6) and 23(6) to ensure that an involuntary admission order and renewal order are made in a form specified by the Mental Health Commission.

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 115. The independence of the second examination by another consultant psychiatrist must be protected. This is to ensure that where a change of status is sought in respect of a voluntarily admitted person, there is an examination of the person that is independent of the service where they are receiving treatment. To provide for anything less than this would diminish the rights of the person.

Amendment No. 121 is a technical amendment to reword this subsection to give it more clarity.

There was quite a lot in that contribution.

See this speech in context