8 April 2004
Dr. Henry: I will not argue with the Minister on the rights and wrongs of having a judge on the body, as he has greater expertise than me in this area. However, it would be wiser to treat mentally ill people the same way. We are hoping that these people are being detained in a medical facility. International obligations on the treatment of people with mental illness, such as UN principles and Council of Europe regulations, require that everyone is treated in the same way. I was sorry that the Immigration Act contained a clause preventing entry to individuals having attacks of florid schizophrenia. This is not allowed internationally. Instead, it is an obligation that some care be taken of the individual. If a person is mentally ill, he or she should be detained in a hospital. I know the Bill states it may be a prison but it is hoped that they are detained in a secure unit in a hospital with other people who are mentally ill but have not committed any crime. Those people may have been prevented from carrying out a crime but could be just as dangerous. The people covered by this Bill do not appear to have half the protections given under the Mental Health Act. Why is this so?
The Mental Health Commission is already established and must have in its composition a lawyer with ten years' experience ending immediately on his or her appointment to the commission. This cannot be a non-practising a lawyer who has been brought forward simply to sit on the commission. The Minister informed the House that consultant psychiatrists' advice will be taken. However, many of them have advised that it would be wiser to have mentally ill people reviewed under the mental health commission tribunals. The Minister is right that a political officeholder should not be the person making the decision as to whether these people should be detained or allowed go free. Having looked again at the Mental Health Commission, I do not mind what recommendations the Minister makes as to who should be the chair. I assumed it should be a lawyer but it is fine if a judge is not constitutionally correct. However, I hope the Minister will look at the amendment again and see if the existing structure could be used rather than inventing another one. The body would have the same knowledge of these cases and the same type of people - although they have committed crimes - would be dealt with. The general public will understand this.
Yesterday, during Private Members' business on the proposed constitutional referendum, the Minister informed the House that the public was sophisticated enough to understand that it was not a racist issue. However, when discussing this Bill, the public has to be told that people are insane in capital letters because of possible confusion over the term "mental disorder". Either the public is capable of understanding these matters or not. The public will understand if the mental health commission tribunals investigate such cases and decide whether the individuals should be detained.
...
Dr. Henry: People are being dealt with differently because one person is detained in time before committing an awful crime. The responsibilities of the tribunal members are just as serious. Getting a person with a serious mental illness who has violent intent into hospital before he killed or injured someone does not mean there is less of a responsibility than if one is dealing with someone who actually committed a crime before they were committed to an institution. It would be better to deal with everyone in the same straightforward way. However, the Minister does not agree with me.
...
Dr. Henry: People are rarely involuntarily admitted unless they are a danger to themselves or to others. They are usually involuntarily admitted for such reasons.
...
Dr. Henry: Approximately 30% of the people in the Central Mental Hospital have not committed crimes. I would not like the public to lose confidence in the tribunals, because certain people could represent as much of a danger if the tribunals were to release them. I would not like to think that we are driven by the media in respect of issues as serious as dealing with people with mental illness.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
...
Dr. Henry: I agree with the Minister on this occasion. However, a section of this exact type was included in the Immigration Act 2004, the Schedule to which refers to "delirium" and "hallucinations" at the port of entry. One would need to shape up and to look pretty normal. If such a provision was included in the Immigration Act, why is it not being included in this legislation? Why is there such inconsistency in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? The Minister does not like this type of provision in this Bill, but he liked it in the Immigration Act. I agree that we should not include a list of symptoms and signs in legislation, but we did so in the Immigration Act.
...
Dr. Henry: Having been obliged to deal with matters in a practical manner all my life, while the Minister comes from a more esoteric realm, I know that if one tries to keep things consistent one comes out with a pretty good result in the end because everyone knows where they are supposed to be. We have international obligations - that is why I was so furious about the Immigration Bill. If someone looks as though he is having a florid attack of schizophrenia we are not supposed to put him back on the aeroplane to Manchester but should deal with him here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 10:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 27, after "may" to insert ", on the advice of the Inspector of Mental Health Services".
This is an easy one. I am delighted to see that the Minister for Health and Children will be consulted, but we should not expect him to know exactly how things stand in the various mental hospitals of the country. It would be a good idea to allow him to rely on his Inspector of Mental Health Services.
One thing that worries me about the Bill is that it is written as though people think there are still locked wards in many hospitals, which is not the case. There are very few locked wards that would be secure enough to keep inside the sort of person the Minister described. These people would have to be sent to the Central Mental Hospital. However, if somebody was not dangerous the Inspector of Mental Health Services would be in a position to give the Minister advice. For example, it is always wise, whether a person is a prisoner or a patient, to try to keep him in a location near his home and family because one hopes that at some stage he may be allowed out of detention. It would be useful for the Minister for Health and Children to be able to have the advice of the Inspector of Mental Services.
...
Dr. Henry: I will rephrase it in a way the Minister would like. I asked that the Minister for Health and Children should consult with the inspector of mental services but that does not mean that the inspector has a veto. The Minister may think it is rubbish and proceed to do what he wants, anyway. The commission is very likely to ask the advice of its inspector, who is its employee and is obliged to inspect everywhere once a year and more frequently if possible. From a practical viewpoint, one cannot expect the Minister for Health and Children to travel the country to inspect places, whereas the inspector of mental health services is obliged to do so. If the Minister would prefer it to be done by the commission, that is fine, but it should be done on the advice of the inspector. I am not saying the Minister has to take the inspector's advice.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, subsection (1), to delete all words after "designate" in lines 27 and 28 down to and including "centre')" in line 31, and substitute "an approved centre within the meaning of the Mental Health Act of 2001".
I wish to insert this wording because it is considered inadvisable, and is not considered therapeutic, to establish psychiatric centres in prisons. I have just been discussing the possibility of problems arising with detaining people in various parts of the country but such detention should mean detention in a hospital. I do not like referring back to the Mental Health Act 2001 but it would be better if we concentrated on getting people into hospitals and other specialised in-patient facilities if necessary. It is not a good idea to settle for having an approved centre in a prison or any part thereof.
...
Dr. Henry: This runs counter to the First UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Prisoners 1955, which was approved in 1957. That congress listed standard minimum rules for prisons, one of which stated that "Prisoners found insane shall not be detained in prisons and shall be removed to mental institutions as soon as possible." The same set of minimum rules went on to suggest that "All other mentally ill prisoners should be treated in prison, but their treatment should be of an acceptable medical standard". I will examine the Minister's proposed amendment on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 12:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 32, to delete "care or treatment" and substitute "care and treatment in conditions of high, medium or low therapeutic security as designated by the Inspector of Mental Health Services".
I am concerned about the use of the term "care or treatment" in the Bill because "care" can mean controlling and detaining a person. It is unfortunate to use the term "care or treatment". My amendment seeks to substitute the words "care and treatment in conditions of high, medium or low therapeutic security as designated by the Inspector of Mental Health Services".
My concern in this regard is the use of the term "care or treatment". It has been suggested to me that "treatment" means one has to have a cure, but that is not so. I have looked up the meaning of "treatment" in medical and legal dictionaries. In one medical dictionary, "treatment" is defined as "the means employed in the management and care of people". It does not mean that a cure will be possible. Butterworth's Legal Dictionary states that "treatment in relation to disease includes anything done or provided while alleviating the effects of the disease, whether it is done or provided by way of cure or not". The definitions are much the same and, therefore, I think people are entitled to both care and treatment.
The term "care or treatment" makes it look like the care is custodial - as it involves detaining the person - and the treatment is optional. The Minister should insert the term "care and treatment" in this section. I am also suggesting that the centres should be designated as high, medium or low security. The matter that concerns me most, however, is substituting the term "care and treatment" for "care or treatment".
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 13:
In page 4, subsection (3), line 37, to delete "Part IV of the Act of 2001" and substitute "All of the protections of the Act of 2001, including Parts III, IV, VI and any other parts relevant to the independent review of the involuntary admission of such persons". I move this amendment because these mentally ill people should have the protection of the Mental Health Act 2001.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 14:
In page 4 subsection (4), to delete lines 41 to 43, and substitute the following definition: " 'relevant designated centre' means the designated centre at the appropriate level of security for the part of the country where the patient ordinarily resides, or the Central Mental Hospital.".
The amendment proposes a practical measure, which it would be wise to include. People should, if possible, be placed in secure units as near as possible to their families because it is important that prisoners should maintain contact with their families. Few patients in the Central Mental Hospital receive family visits. That is why I tabled the amendment.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 16:
In page 5, subsection (2), line 5, after "if" to insert "having obtained the opinions of two approved medical officers, one of whom is the clinical director of a designated centre, the court finds that".
This is self-explanatory. It would be wise early in proceedings if a person is suspected of being mentally ill to have him or her seen by two approved medical officers. Seeing that he or she will be sent to a place of detention, one doctor should be the clinical director of the designated centre. Certain people may be so disturbed they have to be detained in prison and the clinical director may be able to tell the court if the facilities capable of containing the person were available. It would be of assistance to the court and the judge if this information was available at the beginning.
...
Dr. Henry: Does the Minister think I am looking for jobs for my friends, such as two senior counsel and one junior, that sort of thing? Some people pretend to be mad and are very good at it. We probably have more trouble with that than anything else. One need not have them, if that is the case.
Section 3(2) states "if he or she is unable by reason of..." Would it be better to substitute "incapable" for "unable"? What brought this to my mind was the Minister's use of the word "incapacity" yesterday. I am not trying to get jobs for the boys or girls. However, I will withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 19:
In page 5, subsection (3)(a), line 19, after "Court" to insert "having obtained the opinions of two consultant psychiatrists, one of whom is the relevant psychiatrist at the relevant designated centre or the Central Mental Hospital".
The court would benefit from the advice of the psychiatrist of the centre to which it is proposed to send the person. It is not a question of trying to get jobs for anybody.
Dr. Henry: This is all very well, but there are no practical provisions in the Bill to make available resources to allow people to be maintained at the facility. The Minister is aware of the utterly appalling condition of the Central Mental Hospital. Approximately 30 beds at the hospital are unavailable because of an embargo on staff recruitment. What is the hospital supposed to do with people sent to it given the lack of accommodation? I suggest that whoever is running the facility must be given some say as to whether the hospital is in a position to take people in. If all 100 beds were operating but full, how would the hospital accommodate an extra ten people sent to it?
One must consider the practicalities at some stage. The receiving facility will face a very serious problem if it is not in a position to place persons sent to it in safe custody. What is the hospital to do if it has no room to spare? I suggest the hospital staff should be listened to for that reason rather than to encourage the Minister to provide them with a power of veto. The Bill's enactment will lead to a requirement for resources only in the case of the review board. That is not so. The mental health services will also require resourcing and, certainly, money, to detain people properly. If the clinical director of the relevant centre has no beds available, he or she should be permitted to inform the courts. It is not a question of providing a veto; it is one of practicality.
Mr. M. McDowell: I am very well aware of the shortcomings of the Central Mental Hospital. I took the trouble to visit the institution which, although it is not directly under my remit, is very intimately connected with many of the functions of my Department. I was shown around by the staff.
Dr. Henry: It is appalling.
...
Dr. Henry: I am aware the Minister visited the Central Mental Hospital. Like him, I am very shocked by the padded cells in use. When the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, opened what the press called his "estate agency" for State property, I organised a Private Members' debate in the House on selling something to pay for the building of a new central mental hospital. One problem with that site is that the old hospital is so antique there is a preservation order on it. It is one of the most antique medical institutions in Europe, and that is a serious problem. We might have to use part of the ground to build a new hospital.
Mr. M. McDowell: I profoundly disagree with that proposition. It should be moved elsewhere. Whatever difficulty exists with that building should be addressed by either redesignating it or by a planning decision which would allow it to be converted into apartments or whatever with major internal structural alterations. Preserving it as it is and using that campus for the purposes of the Central Mental Hospital is a decision to keep 80 million Euro locked into an unsatisfactory situation. The facility could provided in a more convenient location. I am not in favour of rebuilding on the current site as it would be a waste of public resources.
Acting Chairman: Is the amendment being pressed? We are not concerned with the building. This debate is not related to the amendment.
Dr. Henry: I do not mind where it is located as long as someone uses it but I would not like it to be in Abbottstown or somewhere like that just because the land is available. I do not think we can even convert the present complex into apartments--
Acting Chairman: The Senator is now entering the area of speculation. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 20:
In page 5, subsection (3)(b), line 25, to delete "approved medical officer" and substitute "clinical director of the specified designated centre".
In terms of the clinical director, any doctor will not do in this case. Whoever receives this person has to be in a position to say whether the institution is capable of taking him or her. The Minister will say they cannot have a veto over that but from a practical point of view I would have thought this would be useful.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 21:
In page 5, subsection (3)(b) line 29, to delete "or" and substitute "and". I explained earlier the reason I believe it is important to use the term "care and treatment" rather than "care or treatment". The custodial element of care is being preserved and separated from treatment but as I pointed out to the Minister when I discussed it earlier, treatment does not mean one necessarily has a cure. The medical and nursing professions would be in a terrible state if we had to say that every treatment would cure a person.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 22:
In page 5, subsection (3)(b), line 30, to delete "commit him or her to a specified designated centre" and substitute "commit him or her to the designated centre subject to the agreement of the clinical director of the specified designated centre".
This again seeks to ensure that the clinical director be given some possibility of saying his or her unit is entirely unsuitable or that the place needs to be closed down.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 29:
In page 6, subsection (5)(c), line 27, to delete "or" and substitute "and".
This appears to be the amendment on which there is some good news. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 30: In page 6, subsection (5)(c), line 28, to delete "a specified" and substitute "the specified". The court should know where the person is going. It should not refer to "a specified designated centre" and I propose changing this to "the specified designated centre". A decision should be made as to where the person should go. Mr. M. McDowell: The phrase is "a specified designated centre" and the Senator wants this to become "the specified designated centre". A specified centre must be specific. There will be no lack of specificity if we leave the indefinite article rather than the definite article in this case. Dr. Henry: It is unsatisfactory not to know where the person will go.
Mr. M. McDowell: It has to be specified, which means the court has to be specific about it. The phrase "a specified designated centre" means one that has been specified. The definite article is not required, as it would not be specified if it had not been identified.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 32: In page 7, subsection (8), line 9, after "alleged" to insert "excluding any reference to a specific intent".
I did not think it up on my own and was given advice on this matter as follows: This has caused confusion and difficulty in the jurisdiction of England and Wales since "act alleged" can be taken to mean the offence alleged. Where the offence is murder, a person may be technically found to have committed murder when if found fit to plead they would have had available to them the defence of diminished responsibility (see R -v- Antoine [2000] UKHL 20;[2000] 2 All ER 208 (30th March 2000). Similar problems can arise even in relation to offences such as theft where the capacity of a mentally disordered person to form mens rea can be severely impaired e.g. due to significant intellectual disability. It is essential that this section should specify that "act alleged" does not include any element of the mens rea for the offence as charged. In the alternative, in each case the trial should proceed to consider whether the person accused at material time had the mental capacity to form the requisite intent.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 34:
In page 7, subsection (1), lines 16 and 17, to delete "a consultant psychiatrist" and substitute "two approved medical officers, one of whom is the relevant consultant psychiatrist at the relevant designated centre or the Central Mental Hospital".
Here we are again. I am trying to get some advice for the Minister and for the court from people who should be useful. However, I know what I will be told, that there is no need for them and the court will decide. I will let the Minister speak for himself.
Mr. M. McDowell: I am not attracted to the amendment on grounds that I have already stated.
Dr. Henry: What a surprise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 35: In page 7, subsection (1)(a), line 19, after "disorder" to insert "(within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 2001)".
Again I refer to the Mental Health Act. It would be useful to have one form of mental disorder in the Bill, which ideally should be the same form of mental disorder as is covered in the Mental Health Act. However, we are now working under the Minister's form of mental disorder and not the form of mental disorder specified in section 3. We have changed our forms of mental disorder and now have the Minister's form. I believe the form of mental disorder should be the same throughout the Bill.
Mr. M. McDowell: In my view that would be a bad idea for the reasons I outlined yesterday. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 36:
In page 7, subsection (1)(b), line 26, to delete subparagraph (iii).
This is an important amendment. I have a copy of the third interim report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Mentally Ill and Maladjusted Patients. As far as I am aware, the McNaughton rules, when first published, did not contain a section on the defence of "irresistible impulse" and that it in fact arose out of case law. Many people believe it folly to include this in the Bill because everyone will be claiming they had an irresistible impulse to do something. For example, the Minister spoke yesterday of kleptomania. A constant plea of those who sexually abuse children is that they had an irresistible impulse to do so and could not stop themselves.
It is foolish to include such a provision in the Bill. It is not included in the legislation of any other country. It certainly is not included in UK legislation. I have been told that some states in America have included a similar provision. I suggest, no matter how great the wisdom of those judges who decided a person had an irresistible impulse to commit a particular crime, it is not wise to continue with the provision for such a defence in the Bill.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 40: In page 7, subsection (3)(a), line 38, after "if" to insert "having heard the evidence of the relevant consultant psychiatrist of the relevant designated centre".
We are back again to getting the advice of my friends and I have told the Minister already why I think he should accept the amendment.
Mr. M. McDowell: Regarding amendment No. 40, and amendment No. 41 if it is moved, I have not changed my mind in the last few minutes. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment No. 41 not moved.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 42:
In page 7, subsection (3)(b), line 49, after "so" to insert "subject to the agreement of the relevant consultant psychiatrist of the relevant designated centre or, in the case of the Central Mental Hospital, a consultant psychiatrist from that hospital".
I disagree with the Minister about these amendments since it is a good idea to have some idea whether those who will accept the person are able to treat him or her.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 43:
In page 8, subsection (4), line 10, to delete "for murder" and substitute "for any offence which on conviction carries a sentence of imprisonment".
I was not clear why the Minister decided on murder alone. Let us suppose that the person is accused of a serious crime such as rape or a serious assault which did not go as far as killing the victim, should the accused not also be in that position? Even for lesser offences, the District Court comes into the situation. Should the accused not be able to use this section too rather than only those on trial for murder?
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 44:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 20, after "murder" to insert "having heard the evidence of two consultant psychiatrists". I cannot remember why I thought this idea better than that of the Minister. My two friends advised me to table this amendment. It is better if one has a little advice.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 45:
In page 8, subsection (1)(c), lines 24 and 25 to delete all words from and including "not" in line 24 down to and including "was" in line 25. This is the one where I could not work out why it was such a good idea.
Mr. M. McDowell: If the Senator withdraws the amendment, she can retable it on Report Stage.
Dr. Henry: I will resubmit it. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 46:
In page 9, subsection (3), line 39, to delete "consultant psychiatrist" and substitute "approved medical officer".
I cannot understand the reason the Minister has included the words "consultant psychiatrist" in the Bill.
Mr. M. McDowell: There is a simple answer which might not be obvious, however. An "approved medical officer" is defined as somebody practising in the State. If we use the term "consultant psychiatrist", it will allow somebody from abroad to discharge the function. There is no great mystery about it. The term "approved medical officer" has the meaning assigned to it under the 2001 Act. One has to be geographically located in the Irish State. The term "consultant psychiatrist" which seems to mean the same thing does not carry that limitation.
Dr. Henry: I thought we had managed to fix it up in the Mental Health Bill. This is a problem because when tribunals are being set up, allowance must be made for the inclusion of persons from another area. As I can see what the Minister means, I will withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 91:
In page 14, subsection (6)(j), line 4, to delete "Review Board" and substitute "Mental Health Tribunal".
This again substitutes "Mental Health Tribunal" for "Review Board". We have discussed this substitution in other areas, and the Minister does not propose to use the mental health tribunals and save the taxpayer a great deal of money by having one organisation dealing with everybody. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments Nos. 92 to 102, inclusive, not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Amendment No. 103 not moved.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 104:
In page 14, subsection (1), lines 29 to 34, to delete paragraph (b). This might indicate I am trying to get jobs for my friends. It is not suitable to have the governor of a prison acting as a consultant psychiatrist, which the clinical director would be. This section only encourages the use of prisons as places of detention for mentally ill people, which we all agree is not a good idea. Such people should be in a hospital environment, which would be more therapeutic than being in a prison regime.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 128:
In page 16, before section 13, to insert the following new section: 13.-(1) In relation to any person remanded into custody or sentenced to imprisonment, the Minister shall-(
a) have the power to give a transfer direction if he or she is satisfied by reports from two registered medical practitioners, one of whom is a consultant psychiatrist on the staff of the Central Mental Hospital, that the person is suffering from a mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 2001) and is in need of in-patient care and treatment in the Central Mental Hospital,
(b) in the case of all remanded prisoners, the court shall be informed of the making of this order and that the person has been transferred to the Central Mental Hospital.
(c) at the request of the clinical director of the Central Mental Hospital, the Governor of the prison from which the prisoner was transferred shall provide for transport and security for court appearances or other purposes,
(d) the person shall be detained in the Central Mental Hospital for treatment and shall have the same protections and rights as are contained in the Mental Health Act 2001,
(e) if the person is a prisoner who is on remand he or she shall be detained in the Central Mental Hospital until sentenced by the court, and
(f) if the person has been sentenced by the courts he or she shall be detained until the expiry of the sentence.
(2) In both cases the person shall be detained until the relevant consultant psychiatrist forms the opinion that the person is no longer in need of in-patient treatment or care at the designated centre and the consultant psychiatrist shall forthwith notify the Minister of this opinion; and
(3) Where the remanded or sentenced prisoner appeals successfully against his or her continued detention in the Central Mental Hospital to a Mental Health Tribunal, the Mental Health Tribunal shall forthwith notify the Minister of this decision and the Minister shall then order the return of the person to the prison from which that person was transferred.".
I welcome the provisions of section 13 because there are serious difficulties about the legality of the transfer of prisoners. All those in the psychiatric service to whom I have spoken are anxious that this whole area should be straightened out. However, my amendment proposes to change the wording of the section. I believe my wording is better than the Minister's. Some of the conditions are the same. The section is self-explanatory and as we are on the home strait, I do not wish to delay any more on this matter.
Mr. M. McDowell: I agree that Senator Henry's proposed wording is preferable to the existing text. It was initially planned to amend this section but we held back. I propose now to deal with this issue on Report Stage. I hope to table an amendment resulting in as good, if not better, a wording than Senator Henry's for this section.
Dr. Henry: I would be glad if the Minister were to do so because there are worries about the legality of this issue among those in the psychiatric service.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 13.
Amendments Nos. 129 and 130 not moved.
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 131: In page 17, subsection (7), lines 14 and 15, to delete "or an officer or servant of the designated centre".
I am concerned about sending an officer or servant of a designated centre to arrest an individual who may have absconded from a detention centre. The Garda has training in this area and unless some training is provided to an officer or servant of the centre, there will be complications. The last time I recall that an individual had to be arrested in these circumstances, he was running along the railway line in Inchicore, half naked. It may not be a good idea to send out workers from a psychiatric institution, without training in arresting people, after such people. The Garda is in a better position to control such a situation.
...
Dr. Henry: I would be grateful if the Minister reconsidered the amendment in these days of better communications with mobile telephones and the like. One frequently hears the Garda advising members of the public not to approach certain individuals because they are considered dangerous. I would not like psychiatric institution staff members to believe they had an obligation to arrest an abscondee and risk possible serious injury.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
...
Dr. Henry: I move amendment No. 132:
In page 17, subsection (8)(a), line 22, after "custody" to insert "and the clinical director of the designated centre concerned may, if necessary, request the Governor of the prison from which the patient was originally transferred, or the Garda Sı´ocha´ na if the patient has not been in prison custody, to assist the members of the staff of the designated centre in the removal and supervision of the patient and the Governor or the Garda Sı´ocha´ na shall comply with that request". This amendment seeks to have the Garda required to assist members of staff at designated centres with the transfer of patients. Mr. M. McDowell: I will examine that amendment for Report Stage. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech: Click Here
