Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I would not agree with the analogy that Senator McGreehan used. We are dealing with legislation that is long overdue. I still do not have a clear understanding why the 2015 Act was not initiated or used. However, I have been given the job to do that and that is what I am seeking to do in this amending legislation.

Some very legitimate concerns have been raised about one element of this legislation. My Department and I have listened to them in terms of slowing the process, undertaking engagement and looking to see how we can solve this particular issue. The difficulties with the 2001 Act in a 2023 situation are relevant to this issue and those Senator Warfield listed out in terms of the issues that the Mental Health Commission has raised. That is why it is incumbent on all of us, Government and Opposition, to get mental health reform through both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I am certainly committed, and I am more committed having gone through this process, to using my role as a Minister to deliver that reform. However, in terms of what I can deliver in my role in this particular legislation - which is not centred on reform of mental health legislation, but on assisted decision-making – having seen the very real issues that Mental Health Reform and others have raised, I brought forward a solution that addresses some of those issues. I have been very upfront; I am not addressing the whole thing.

However, as someone who believes in progressive politics and moving the line forward all the time, what I see happening here is us moving the line forward. I also see a clear recognition of the next step that has to be taken and, if not a detailed timeline, a clear process that has begun with the heads of Bill coming through Cabinet with the pre-legislative scrutiny process undertaken and with Government and Opposition in both Houses very much supporting and recognising the need for this to happen. That is what I would speak to the process and where we are in it, and my belief in terms of pushing the line forward as far as one can in each particular step.

I am happy to engage with Senator Doherty. Reading this and listening to her, I have a concern in that it seems that a consequence – I need to go through it in detail – would be that an advance healthcare directive legitimately made is being disregarded because of a particular view a medical professional took at a particular time. In many ways, that is almost the antithesis of what the advance healthcare directive is about. That is not to say the Senator is not raising a legitimate issue. However, when officials and I looked at it, we thought that was problematic. Like I said, I am happy to speak further to Senator Black and engage further with Senator Doherty on that issue. However, I just want to put on the record that I would need significant convincing in terms of either the issue or, indeed, the approach being adopted.

I wish to come back to something Senator Seery Kearney referenced in terms of people coming in and treatment. The advance healthcare directives apply to voluntary admissions. What we are talking about here is involuntary admission under Part 4 of the legislation. As I said, the legislation distinguishes between those two categories. We are now going to apply advance healthcare directives to one of those categories where previously that was not going to be the case. I see that as progress, but I have also been very clear that I recognise that there is a further step to be taken.From all the work I have done, I do not believe I can take it in this legislation. I understand others have a different view. I am happy to talk further. It has not been for want of trying that we are bringing forward this particular amendment today.