Joe Conway (Independent)

I commend the Minister of State and her colleagues on the substantial legislation we have under consideration. I admit that only in the previous day or so have I become in any way acquainted with it, which is probably greatly to my shame. It is an amazingly complex area. I do not think anybody in this State does not have family members or people they know affected by mental health and that type of disability.

I have received some correspondence about this. While I am commending the Minister of State and it is extraordinary proposed legislation, in some of the correspondence I was requested to ask a number of questions. The first thing that was put to me was that the drafting and progression of this Bill breaches Article 44.3 of the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, which requires the full and active participation of people with disabilities, including users, survivors and receivers of psychiatry. Can the Minister of State give us some assurances on that?

It is also mentioned that involuntary treatment can be begin before the Circuit Court decision of the appeals. Following from that, it struck me, as a pecuniary-orientated layman who knows nothing about the court system, that when people have to progress an appeal through the Circuit Court, who picks up the tab? Is there access to free legal aid in this instance or what happens in that regard? There is a section I worry about where the Circuit Court and the High Court are instanced. There seems to be a potential lag in the actual training that might be afforded to the members of the Judiciary and the legal profession. Will this be fit for purpose as things stand? What is the lag with getting people up to speed with the new provisions of the Act?

Those are some of the layman's considerations I have. I am in awe of the complexity of the legislation. It is bewilderingly complex to me and I am sure to many people in the wider community. It underscores the grave complexity there is, especially dealing with what we define as "children" in this State, that is, people under 18 years of age, and the vulnerabilities and amazing complexities attached to that. The original legislation was enacted in 2001. Fundamentally, we have to admit it is a quarter of a century old and the whole thinking on mental health, mental health provisions and the enlightened attitudes to mental health and mental health provision have changed drastically in that time. So much of it is for the better. This Bill address those developing complexities and the responses. That is to be greatly commended.

My focal scoir on this is about the diminution of the activities of An Garda Síochána in the more difficult cases.Does the Minister of State have any assurances regarding the deficit that will be created by taking An Garda out of the equation?