I move amendment No. 24: In page 16, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “ “responsible person” has the meaning assigned to it in section 164 ;”. Amendment No. 24 inserts a definition of "responsible person" in section 2, stating that "responsible person" has the definition assigned to it in section 164. Amendment No. 229 provides for the deletion of the "responsible person" definition in section 138.

I move amendment No. 25: In page 16, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “ “service provider” has the meaning assigned to it in section 20 ;”. These amendments relate to the definition of a "service provider". Amendment No. 25 inserts the definition in section 2. Amendment No. 35 corrects a typographical error. Amendment No. 36 provides for the definition of "service provider" to be deleted elsewhere.

I move amendment No. 27: In page 17, line 17, to delete “, in the case of an adult, a person” and substitute “an adult”.

I move amendment No. 28: In page 18, to delete lines 19 to 23 and substitute the following: “(2) A superannuation scheme made under section 40 of the Act of 2001 that was in force immediately before the commencement of section 111 or 112 , as the case may be, shall— (a) remain in force and have effect on or after the commencement of section 111 or 112 , as the case may be, as if the scheme concerned had been made under section 111 or 112 , as the case may be, and (b) be construed as if references to a member of the…

I move amendment No. 29: On page 18, line 34, to delete “10 years” and substitute “5 years”. Section 75 of the Mental Health Act 2001 provided for a review of the operation of the Act to take place five years after the full commencement of that Act. The initial review began in 2011 and eventually led to the formation of an expert group review of the Act. The 165 recommendations of that review form the basis of this Bill. Considering the comprehensive nature of this Bill and the extensive consultation, the Bill as i…

I move amendment No. 30: In page 20, to delete lines 34 to 38 and substitute the following: “(i) is aged 16 years or older— (I) it shall be presumed that the child has the necessary maturity and capacity to make decisions affecting himself or herself in relation to his or her admission, care and treatment under this Act, and (II) the views and the will and preferences of the parents or guardian of the child be recorded and given due weight, and”. This is a technical amendment to separate out section (1)(c)(i) of th…

The Bill proposes to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to consent to or refuse admission to approved centres and to consent to or refuse treatment. The Bill presumes that all 16- and 17-year-olds have the capacity to make decisions about themselves. Where a child has capacity, his or her consent is required for admission and treatment. That is really important. However, if the child lacks capacity, he or she can be admitted and treated with the consent of a parent or guardian. This means that if a child is acutely unwell …

I agree.

So that the Deputy knows, I did not disallow the amendments. They do not come to me.

I know she did not. I am saying it just so she knows. I said I would speak to it because it is an important facet. It is fully accepted that admission to an age-appropriate facility is in the best interests of the child. Section 10 of the Bill, as initiated, states: in so far as is practicable, that care and treatment shall be provided— (i) in an age-appropriate environment [we all agree on that], and (ii) in close proximity to the child’s home or family, as appropriate; However, it will continue to be necessary in…

I move amendment No. 31: In page 21, line 1, to delete “the age of 16 years” and substitute “16 years of age”.

I move amendment No. 34: In page 22, to delete lines 18 to 21 and substitute the following: “ “relevant person” has the meaning assigned to it in section 15;”.

I move amendment No. 35: In page 22, line 24, to delete “ section 13 ;” and substitute “ section 13 .”.

I move amendment No. 36: In page 22, to delete line 25.

I will touch on what Deputy Quinlivan said about CAST. I acknowledge the Deputy has been very supportive of this from the start. I went to Limerick last October to launch it during Mental Health Week. We often use the word "game-changer" in the Dáil but this is one of the ones that has really made a significant difference. I visited Limerick a couple of weeks ago to meet some of the CAMHS teams there. I acknowledge the really good work that is under way in Limerick. The waiting lists for those children waiting in a…

I will make a couple of points about what was raised. To be clear, as regards the amendment that was proposed, sections 2 and 3 of this amendment are already in this section of the Bill. That part of it is already in place. My understanding is that sections 2 and 3 will be agreed. The Mental Health Bill extends the ability of anyone detained under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act such that they can make advance healthcare directives and can access the courts. I will address the lacuna the Deputy talks ab…

A significant amount of consultation and research went into drafting the criteria for involuntary admission that are set out in the Bill as initiated. People can perhaps give consent in the morning but then withdraw it in the afternoon. That does not mean they still do not need mental health supports from the multidisciplinary team in the department of psychiatry or the approved centre. It is a small cohort who are involuntarily detained. If someone has been involuntarily detained, he or she has already met a certa…

The amendment does not speak to what the Deputy just spoke about. He is talking about somebody who has not been involuntarily detained and someone else believes that person should be, such as a family member. That is not what this amendment is about. I am speaking about somebody who is involuntarily detained and may not have had consent when being involuntarily detained but whose status then changes. That is separate from what this amendment is about. The Deputy is talking about somebody who may be very ill and a f…

-----believes that person should be involuntarily detained. There is a whole section in the Bill with the criteria for involuntary detention. I know the Deputy is talking about people who are very ill and, with the best of intentions, may need to be involuntarily detained. That will always come down to the detention criteria.

The Deputy quoted from a document I have not had a chance to look at. The purpose of this Bill is to support people who are mentally unwell but also to make sure their human rights are respected. This Bill will speak to that. If the Deputy wants to send me a copy of what he quoted from, I can take a look and come back to him with a response.