Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Butler to the Seanad. I have to remind myself we are in the Dáil Chamber in which the Seanad is sitting for the purposes of this exercise. I read the Minister of State's speech. It is clear and is unambiguous, and I thank her for that. I also acknowledge the enormous work of the ICCL, not only on this legislation, but on other legislation that is coming before the House.

These are critical times for all of us. There is a crisis and a pandemic, and an emergency response was made. I remember the day when the then Tánaiste, Deputy Coveney, came to the Seanad to explain to us what we were facing, and nobody believed it. We were shocked and we thought it might be something that would last for a few weeks or maybe a month or two. Here we are many months later and the pandemic seems to be worse. Nobody had a faint of idea where we would end up.

My concern relates to the Mental Health Commission, so that is the only area on which I will dwell today. The Minister of State said in her speech that the Mental Health Commission, the independent regulator for mental health services in the State, approached the Department back in March 2020 to raise its concerns about the need to ensure that mental health tribunals continued, and that each patient's rights to a review in his or her case were protected. That is a powerful statement. We know the emergency provisions introduced earlier this year are due to expire on 9 November 2020 as per the sunset clause for which many of us argued at the time. There was some doubt at that stage as to whether we would even have a sunset clause.

The HSE and the Mental Health Commission wanted to extend it, or they considered it, and they have now expressed concern. The ICCL and other organisations and advocates for mental health practices and supports have also expressed concerns. The commission told the Department of Health that it was worried about the mental health tribunals and the issues it would face. The Mental Health Commission wanted to ensure that the tribunals would continue, and that patients' rights would be fully protected throughout the process. We have a duty of care to protect the rights of all citizens in this country. We particularly have a duty of care in respect of people who are under the care of the Mental Health Commission, which has an independent remit to safeguard these people. It is important the mental health tribunals proceed as normal, where possible and practical.I accept that there are exceptional circumstances in terms of Covid but where at all practical and possible, we must protect and safeguard the rights of these people. As pointed out by the Minister of State, a tribunal has three members that are made up of a solicitor, barrister or, indeed, a retired judge as the chair, and a consultant psychiatrist and a layperson. The membership has been given some thought and is balanced because these are the safeguards and advocates for the system, and all of the people involved.

The tribunal reviews admissions or renewal orders for involuntary patients. The tribunal either affirms the order or, in some cases, refuses it so the process is all open, which is important for protecting people.

A three-person tribunal is the norm but where that is not possible, as the Minister of State has said, a one-person tribunal comprised of just the chair can be used. Such a situation may arise due to the unavailability of a consultant or, in this case, issues around Covid but also the cross-contamination of the same people going to another tribunal engaging with another set of circumstances or another group of people, of which I also am mindful. On the basis of what the Minister of State has said, I am glad to say that it has not been a problem. There has been an issue with one or two cases but the system seems to have worked well on the whole, which is encouraging.

The rationale for the motion is that these are emergency measures. I think we need to consider a lesser period. No patient was denied a hearing, if he or she wanted one. I have not heard of anyone being denied a hearing but it is of concern to me, as I know it is to the Minister of State as the person with responsibility for this whole area.

The Department states that if the emergency provisions are not extended, consultant psychiatrists and perhaps others will have to attend different approval centres. Again, I understand those issues. I have considered this whole issue and talked to the various people involved. I have also listened to Senators, particularly from the Sinn Féin Party here today, who have tabled an amendment to shorten the duration of the extension to only extend to 9 February 2021 rather than 9 June 2021, which is a reasonable proposal. We are here to safeguard. We are a second Chamber and revise legislation that comes to us from the Lower House of Dáil Éireann because, as politicians, it is our job to be vigilant. I would like to think that the Minister of State will accept the amendment but I do not know. She has taken advice from her officials, which I accept and respect. I find that having reflected on what I have heard in the contributions made here today, I have decided to support the amendment tabled by Sinn Féin that proposes to shorten the duration of the extension to just 9 February 2021, as opposed to the Government's proposal of 9 June 2021. Sinn Féin's amendment is reasonable, prudent, cautious and right so I hope that Minister of State is in a position to come somewhere near the proposed date because it makes sense.

I thank the Minister of State and thank the Senators who made very considered contributions to the debate here today.