Yes.

I want clarity on amendment No. 243, just for my own understanding. Amendment No. 243 covers the bringing of a child subject to an involuntary admission order to an acute mental health centre by gardaí. Will any safeguards, training or guidance be made available to ensure Garda involvement is used only as a last resort? It should be trauma-informed to minimise distress. The reason I say this is that a few years ago, when I was on the mental health committee, I had a meeting with a young man who was having a really …

Amendment No. 234.

Yes.

It is wonderful that there are authorised officers now. It is really powerful but unfortunately it allows for gardaí to still bring people to centres. I imagine that it can be very traumatic. If I have an adult child who is having an episode and I ring the Garda and a garda comes, he may not understand what is going on and could react in a retraumatising way. There has to be some form of safety for that individual. I question whether this issue should be reviewed and I think there should be some kind of training fo…

I move amendment No 246a: In page 84, line 29, after “admission,” to insert the following: “including adequate information in a form and language that the person can understand on the nature, purpose, likely effects and potential side-effects of the treatment concerned,”.

I move amendment No 247a: In page 84, line 37, after “ Chapter 3 ,” to insert the following: “consent in this case means consent of the person obtained freely without threats or inducements where adequate information in a form and language that the person can understand on the nature, purpose and likely effects and potential side-effects of the treatment concerned has been given to the person,”.

I am in agreement with my colleagues. I want to know what alternative locations or other place is envisaged under this amendment for a child who has been involuntarily admitted. There is a bit of a concern. If it is, for example, a hospital for their physical health, they may not be in a position to return immediately to the approved centre because their order has expired. In cases where a child has been transferred to another place, the child will be in an approved centre despite being involuntarily detained, mean…

I move amendment No. 300: In page 94, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “Chemical restraint 88. (1) A chemical restraint shall not be applied in respect of a child receiving treatment in a registered acute mental health centre or designated centre unless— (a) the restraint is ordered and initiated by a relevant health professional, (b) the restraint is applied to the child by a relevant health professional or a specified person under the direct supervision of a relevant health professional, (c) the ap…

Amendment No. 309 is very positive, in that the centre is required to explicitly inform the child and any other relevant parties about the application of restricted practices, gather views and record those views. However, I have a concern. When a child is 16 years of age or older and in the care of the State, Tusla must also be informed, but when a child is 16 years or older and in the care of parents or guardians, it appears that they do not need to be informed. I want to get an understanding of the reason for tha…

That is all positive. I am happy to hear that. When a child is 16 or over and in the care of the State, Tusla are informed but when a child is 16 or over and in the care of the parents or guardians, it appears that Tusla does not seem to be informed. I would like some clarity on the reason for the difference in approach.

These are very important amendments. A report examining the existing complaints process and setting out recommendations for strengthening it as requested under amendment No. 312 would be really welcome. I have a later amendment around the need for an independent complaints process. At present, the HSE's Your Service, Your Say mechanism functions only as a basic service-level feedback tool. It was repeatedly raised to us during the pre-legislative scrutiny that there is a need for a direct complaints mechanism in re…

I thank the Minister of State for her constructive engagement on the Bill. I appreciate it and I hope it continues during this session. I hope we can find further places of alignment. The amendment seeks, if an involuntary admission order is revoked prior to a review board tribunal hearing date, to have that hearing automatically go ahead unless the person explicitly opts out. The fact that a person was detained under mental health legislation remains a serious matter and proceeding with the hearing would ensure th…

I move amendment No. 104b: In page 59, line 36, after “admission,” to insert the following: “and that consent in this case means consent of the person obtained freely without threats or inducements where adequate information in a form and language that the person can understand on the nature, purpose and likely effects and potential side-effects of the treatment concerned has been given to the person,”

I move amendment No. 104c: In page 59, line 38, after “procedure,” to insert the following: “including adequate information in a form and language that the person can understand on the nature, purpose, likely effects and potential side-effects of the treatment concerned,”.

Amendments Nos. 104b and 104c were part of the grouping taken on Tuesday evening but, like today, I lost track of the numbers, so I did not get to speak properly to the matters to which they relate. I get very confused sometimes with all the amendments, so please bear with me. I will speak to section 42 and outline why these changes are so important. For the section to require that voluntary patients be provided with clear information about their rights is an important provision to help safeguard those rights. Ensu…

The work that has been done on this so far is great. We have come a long way. I just want to put as many protections in place as possible for voluntary patients. That is why this particular piece is so important.

I move amendment No. 106: In page 61, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(5) Where a person has been assessed as lacking capacity, further regular reviews of the person’s capacity shall be conducted throughout their subsequent treatment, at least once every 7 days, by the consultant psychiatrists or by another mental healthcare professional involved in the care of that person.”.

I move amendment No. 113: In page 62, line 38, after “completed” to insert the following: “if such treatment is immediately necessary for the protection of life of that person or that of another person”.

Should I have spoken to amendment No. 113?