Mary Henry (Independent)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, lines 14 to 16, to delete "TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW BOARD" and substitute "TO PROVIDE SUCH PERSONS WITH THE SAME PROTECTIONS AS ARE PROVIDED IN THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2001".

My intention with this amendment is to save the taxpayer money. One interesting aspect of the explanatory memorandum is its statement that there are no financial implications to the legislation. I have never heard anything so ridiculous. There is no Bill without financial implications and if people are to be given proper treatment or care there will be financial implications. The explanatory memorandum states:

It is not anticipated that the proposals in the Bill will have significant financial or staffing implications. There will be some extra costs associated with the work of the new Mental Health Review Board because its responsibilities as set out in the Bill are more extensive and onerous than those of the ad hoc Advisory Committee which it replaces.

There will be expenses, not just with the review board, but also if there is to be any kind of semi-adequate care and treatment given to those who are at present not getting treatment.

The purpose of the amendment is to save some money for the taxpayer by providing that members of the mental health tribunals, established under the Mental Health Act, act in this manner and that the chair should comprise a judge or a lawyer of at least ten years' standing.

Is there a problem, a Chathaoirligh?