What those crowds outside the gates during the Minister of State's ten-minute speech heard was waffle and spin. They live the reality of this Government's failed housing policies. Their families, friends and co-workers live this reality. They know as well as we in opposition do that the Government at this stage might as well be a meme for fiddling while Rome burns when it comes to housing, because that is what it is doing. Instead of putting on its big boy socks and admitting its policies are wrong, it comes along …

Hear, hear.

In July 2020 there were 2,112 children waiting on a first-time appointment with CAMHS. Of those, 747 had been waiting for over a year. According to the reply I received this morning to a parliamentary question, there are 4,554 children now waiting on a first-time appointment with CAMHS, of whom 763 have been waiting for over a year. This is an eye-watering increase of more than 200% in children waiting on a first-time appointment. These are not just numbers. The Tánaiste knows this. They are not just numbers; they …

I welcome this amendment. It is incredibly positive. For far too long those who have lived and who have endured domestic abuse have seen that abuse in other areas outside of the family home. To think that it could be extended to somebody who is suffering with their mental health is absolutely deplorable. This amendment is a good one and we will certainly support it.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 14, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “ “dual diagnosis” means the term used when a person experiences both a substance abuse problem and a mental health issue such as depression or an anxiety disorder. Treatment options must address both;”. This amendment deals with the unaddressed issue of dual diagnosis and its treatment in our mental health services. It seeks to ensure the treatment of both conditions is addressed. For far too long, individuals struggling with both …

I do not doubt the offer made by the Minister of State is genuine and my door is always open to her and we will talk further. I cannot withdraw this amendment and I will push it to a vote for the very reason Deputy McAuliffe mentioned. The DCU report was in 2019. It is now 2025, we are still standing here, and this is still an issue. With a view to those who are struggling with addiction and mental health issues, to those who have lost their lives to addiction and mental health issues and to those who have lost yea…

This is one of those unusual situations where we agreed the original wording that was in the proposed Bill simply was not strong enough and did not quite reflect modern society. It was very dated. It did not have that modern language that people who are struggling with their mental health need to see. It also did not reflect or capture those struggling with mental health issues who do not have a formal diagnosis. It is a peculiar one because we all want to see the best possible determination, but there are half a d…

The Minister of State said at the committee meeting this morning that she would follow up on the contribution from the IMO on this issue because she had not seen it all. I am unsure if she has had a chance to do so. It is an issue of real concern to parents, not just those of children who may be 16 to 18 years of age but parents of adults in their early 20s who suffer from eating disorders. It is of profound concern to those parents. The issue raised by the IMO this morning, and perhaps Deputy Rice could also speak…

Amendment No. 32 has been ruled out of order on the basis that it could potentially impose a charge on the Revenue, which I find quite flippant seeing as it would actually redirect funding into a CAMHS bed. The Minister of State spoke of not wanting to tie the hands of a consultant who is in a very difficult situation behind his or her back. Nobody wants to do that. However, this is actually in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the UN Committee on the Rig…

To have an appropriate level of inpatient CAMHS beds would absolutely be the pinnacle and that is where we need to get to. I recommend to the Minister of State that the young people who were placed in adult psychiatric units, voluntarily or involuntarily, should be brought back in as part of the five-year review. In five years, we will have the first opportunity to review the implementation and effectiveness of this legislation. They are a very unique cohort of people. We should listen to them. I am very annoyed th…

I did not say the Minister of State did.

I move amendment No. 33: In page 21, between lines 23 and 24, to insert: “Guiding principles to apply in respect of persons with dual diagnosis 11. Services shall provide integrated care pathways for individuals with a dual diagnosis and the range of services including home, community and inpatient care as appropriate.”.

I move amendment No. 37: In page 22, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: “Criteria for involuntary admission to registered acute mental health centre 12. (1) A person may be involuntarily admitted to a registered acute mental health centre pursuant to an involuntary admission order and held there if he or she fulfils each of the criteria (in this Act referred to as the “criteria for involuntary admission”) specified in paragraph (a) : (a) a person with psychosocial disabilities or as a condition that …

With the greatest of respect, the Deputy has clearly not read the amendment because it specifically states: Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as authorising the involuntary admission of a person to a registered acute mental health centre by reason only of the fact that the person— (a) has a psychosocial disability or a mental illness that does not fulfil the criteria for involuntary admission, (b) has an intellectual disability, (c) has a personality disorder, (d) substance use issue [and so on].

I will speak briefly to the general scheme of these amendments and the important and critical issue that Garda representatives raised with the health committee this morning about the availability of authorised officers. Their asks, which are incredibly reasonable, are that there be authorised officers for them to call upon. The Mental Health Commission said it planned to bring forward a proposal to increase the numbers. There are questions still remaining as to where those staff members will come from. However, it …

There is no way to plan outside of 24-7, 365 days a year. I do not think the Minister of State will find an objection from anybody in this House were a proposal brought forward to do that. We all recognise the importance of them and the role and incredible work gardaí do, so when they come looking for something, we should be the ones to say that if we can, we will.

The Minister of State spoke of authorised officers per county. There has to be a better model than that. In my constituency, an authorised officer may be needed in Coole. Granard is ten minutes up the road but Athlone is an hour's drive in the opposite direction. A more open approach, as opposed to one based on restrictive county boundaries, could work much better, particularly in rural areas.

I have a straightforward question. If there are 174 authorised officers at present, how many does €3.5 million equate to?

It would be related to their existing rate of pay if it were considered overtime.

I imagine the information is there somewhere. Somebody has said it is going to cost €3.5 million. What is that cost?