John Gilroy (Labour) | Oireachtas source

With the indulgence of the Chairman, I will repeat the remarks I made this morning at the outset of the earlier session in order to introduce a level of consistency between the respective groups of witnesses. I thank the Chairman for his ongoing support for this public consultation process. I also welcome the witnesses who are giving evidence this morning. I do not intend to say a great deal about the paper presented to the committee as I prefer simply to listen to the comments and the opinions of the witnesses. I acknowledge that one or two clarifications have been offered in respect of the opening statements of some of the witnesses. These clarifications have been noted and will be incorporated into the report in due course.

The witnesses will note that I have circulated to them hard copies of the paper. There are one or two minor editorial changes. It was pointed out to me that the paper's intent might not be 100% clear and consequently, I added one or two minor changes in the interests of achieving greater clarity. For instance, the signposts for conversations within the paper might best be approached as if they were a series of questions. Instead of being thought of as recommendations, it might be better to consider them as asking the question "What if we were to do...(whatever is contained in the signpost in question)?".

As for my background, I am the health spokesperson for the Labour Party in Seanad Éireann. Previously, I worked for 28 years as a psychiatric nurse in the mental health services in Ireland and the United Kingdom, mainly in the area of acute mental health. I was appointed as the joint committee's rapporteur and decided to approach the project in a manner that might not immediately suggest itself. Some might have thought a good place to start such an exercise would have been to hold discussions with the Department, the National Office for Suicide Prevention or the main agencies working in the area. However, I decided to pursue a different path and instead sought the opinion of members of the public in the first instance, including those who have been affected by or who have an interest in the area. Having done that, I decided I would bring their concerns to the attention of the main stakeholding organisations. This is how we find ourselves at this meeting today.

I held public consultation meetings at nine locations through the country that were attended by approximately 600 people. I also met many individuals, groups and organisations and during the past 12 months, I have devoted virtually all my political time to this project. During the course of the public consultations, many issues were raised and I have incorporated those concerns into five main points in the paper. The first point relates to the effects of the recession, which was one of the most frequently raised questions from the public. Points 2 to 5, inclusive, also were raised constantly. While I do not believe any member of the public used terminology such as expressing to me the need to reconfigure the policy formulation and delivery apparatus, this was the theme of many conversations I had. Consequently, I have modelled the questions within the paper on that kind of thematic view. These are questions on how to deliver services or how such services have an impact on the lived experience of those affected by suicide as well. Therefore, I have attempted to bring together the various points by formulating the questions in the manner to be found in the paper. To expand on the points and create a conversation around them I laid them out in the manner the witnesses can see before them and while the writing is mine, the ideas are not. I could have laid out the five points for discussion as a series of five questions but to create a conversation around the points and achieve a level of engagement with stakeholders, I decided to put forward some ideas as to how they might be addressed.

I am pleased to note a divergence of opinion among stakeholders with regard to this paper, as its purpose is to create a conversation. Were one able to agree on everything, one could claim that everything was being done perfectly and this is not the case. I look forward to hearing witnesses' opinions of the paper and remind them that this is not the final report. These are the opinions and comments I have gathered from members of the public that have been formally brought before the committee and the witnesses. Following today's hearings, I intend to move onto the next phase of public consultation, which will involve engagement with the stakeholder organisations such as those represented here today.