John Moloney (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I promised on Committee Stage that I would examine this amendment but, unfortunately, it is more about terminology rather than the substance.

Having examined the issue following Committee Stage, I am of the view that I cannot accept this amendment for the following reason. Section 13 of the 2006 Act, as amended by this Bill, and the new section 13A will give the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board the power to order the conditional discharge of a patient. The point at issue here does not appear to be what actually will happen. It will be the clinical director's judgment which decides if a person should be returned to the designated centre for further review by the review board. The problem appears to be with the terminology to be used to reflect that reality. I do not consider that it would be appropriate to provide in section 13B for the clinical director to revoke an order he or she did not make. The proposed amendment would contradict the review board's independence in the exercise of its functions, which is provided for in section 11(2) of the 2006 Act. In accordance with section 13B, the conditional discharge order is deemed to be revoked. The review board will subsequently decide, after the person is returned to the designated centre, whether to discharge the person again conditionally or to detain the person.

Another serious difficulty with the amendment is that it would remove the definition of the term "material breach" which is used throughout section 13B. Accordingly, if it were to be accepted, it would in effect unravel the structure of the section as a whole. I am satisfied that section 13B will work effectively in its current form and for that reason I cannot accept this amendment.