No.

My understanding after talking to consultants is that they would support a person to attend at an earlier stage in the tribunal's process if they felt the person was well enough to do that against, for example, leaving everybody to wait 20 or 21 days. There is one small difference as well, although I think it is a significant difference. Both Sharing the Vision and the Mental Health Bill support family involvement. The Bill states that any person admitted voluntary or involuntarily, adult or child, accessing inpati…

I apologise for interrupting the Senator.

It is really important to remember we are talking about people, as the Senator rightly said, who are involuntarily detained, and that has happened for a reason. In a lot of cases, these people are very ill; otherwise, they would not be involuntarily detained. After the initial review board hearing, a review board will not be reconvened until an order is renewed. The Bill provides for orders to last up to three months. If it is mandated that all hearings take place before 14 days following admission, there is a risk…

I cannot speak to individual cases and it is unfair of the Senator to expect me to do so in the context of a debate on legislation. This Bill is hugely important. It will make a significant difference to many people who are very ill. The majority of mental health services are provided in the community. It is really important that mental health services be regulated in respect of CAMHS and in respect of people who have endured mental health conditions and live well in their communities. It is also really important i…

I will try to respond to everyone. What we are speaking about in this particular part of the Bill is adults who are involuntarily detained. That is the first point we need to make very clear. To respond to Senator Ruane, under the existing 2001 Act, the review takes place up to six months afterwards. We are reducing that to up to three months - I did not say "up to" but I should have - under the new Bill. There has been a significant move in that regard. There is another point I want to make. I have never come acro…

I thank all Senators for their perspectives on this particular piece. I will make a couple of points. To respond to Senator Boyhan on human rights, the Senator has proposed an amendment, No. 36a, that I hope we will come to soon. We will discuss the issue at that stage. What he is asking about relates to the entire Bill, but I will discuss the matter when the Senator moves amendment No. 36a. A couple of things have been lost in translation. We know for a fact that, since 2001, the review can happen up to day 21. Th…

I will speak to Senator Boyhan's question when I get to amendment No. 36a. I am speaking to these amendments now. His amendment refers to the entire Bill in my opinion. I will not just discuss it on every section. I will deal with amendment No. 36a when we get to it. On Senator Black's question, if she looks back at what has happened since the 2001 Act came in, she will see that the majority of the tribunals - my understanding is over 90% - happened between days 14 and 19. To clarify, it was decided to include it f…

I have done a lot of Bills.

I have put a lot of Bills through in the past ten years.

I am certainly capable of it.

I will put on the record that when I came in here last week, I was accused of not having compassion. Today I have been accused of not being capable. I believe these amendments are in keeping with human rights standards. The Senator hardly thinks or imagines that we would bring forward a Bill that is not in keeping with human rights standards. He hardly thinks that an expert panel in 2014 put all the work into putting a Bill in place. He hardly thinks my officials have worked for five years to bring in a Bill that w…

I will respond to the Senator's final point. It is just a style issue. It is consistency in wording. It is not a change to a different consultant looking after a child, an adult or whoever. It is more of a technical amendment. As I have said, the only way I can describe it is that there is a need to have the wording consistent throughout all sections of the Bill. It is nothing to do with the overall purpose of the Bill or the treatment that anybody would receive.

I said that-----

The language is very simple.

No. Senator Boyhan will not put words into my mouth. I will repeat what I said already, which Senator Boylan did not write down. I am capable of saying it again.

These amendments are in keeping with human rights standards and are compliant with our ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I thank Senator Costello.

Amendment No. 13 inserts a definition of guardian ad litem which mirrors the definition in the Child Care Act 1991. That Act and guardians ad litem in general are the responsibility of the Minister for children. I will not speak to these matters where they do not relate to the mental health Bill. Guardians ad litem are appointed to children during court proceedings and the role of the guardian is to represent the voice of the child in court. The primary role of a guardian ad litem is to ascertain and communicate a …

This brings me back to my initial conversation last week when I was here for a couple of hours. The reason there are over 300 amendments is because it is at this Stage of the Bill that we are trying to align with the Childcare Act 1991 and the Department of justice. The majority of the work in relation to the Bill, its purpose and the reasoning behind it, was more or less in place. I am going to explain a little bit. We did not speak last week about care orders because I knew we would get to it but I think this wil…