Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this important subject. I thank the Taoiseach for agreeing readily to the request made by the leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Kenny, for a debate on suicide during Government time. I hope it heralds a new and inclusive era of political debate and consensus and, more importantly, leads to positive action to stem the tide of the loss of so many lives, many of them young, in Ireland.

I convey my sympathy to the many people who have been bereaved by suicide. The families, friends and communities of those who are tragically visited by suicide have to endure a great deal of trauma. We should recognise the uniqueness of the bereavement suffered by such people.

The issue of suicide should unite the House, rather than divide it. No single party or person has a monopoly on concern or sympathy. Action must be taken by the Government because it controls the purse strings. Action costs money, but the cost of the loss of many lives is incalculable. Suicide, which is a compelling and personal tragedy, is a terrible, bleak and lonely end to a human life. It leaves family and friends bereaved, grieving, confused and bewildered. Every suicide leaves behind pain, desolation, outrage and unanswered questions. For many years, many of us seldom gave suicide a second thought. We may have had the illusion that it was something that happened to others and not to us. The increasing incidence of this tragedy now means that we are becoming all too familiar with the incidences of suicide in our families, among our friends and in our communities. I deeply regret such familiarity while welcoming the increased public debate. We must bring this issue out of the shadows and begin to take responsibility.

We must never forget that suicide is a terrible act against nature and must not be considered as a solution to any problem in any circumstances. Suicide prevention is everyone's responsibility. The tide can only be turned by concerted and co-ordinated actions by all sections of society. This is why this debate is so important. We in this House are all charged with the development of public policy and services. This is where action on a national level can and must begin. I understand the reluctance of some commentators and reporters to accept that suicide is a political as well as a personal issue. Many believe that politicians should not play a role in addressing what is a crucial social and health issue. Concern has been expressed that political debate on the subject may upset the bereaved relatives of suicide victims whose pain is characterised by agonised questioning and a search for some explanation of what happened. One of the problems with suicide is that we do not want to talk about a subject that has been taboo for so long.

International research has shown that between 80% and 90% of those who take their lives suffer from a psychiatric or emotional condition and, in many cases, this is unidentified depression. Recent research carried out in Kildare indicated that most of the young men who died had suffered from undiagnosed depression. The development of the psychiatric services has a key role in reducing suicide and in suicide prevention. The debate on the development of the psychiatric services is similar to the debate on suicide prevention.

I have repeatedly suggested to the Minister of State that there is an absolute need to invest heavily in the development of the psychiatric services, not just to prevent suicide but to deal with the issue of mental health. One in four people will at some stage suffer from a psychiatric health condition which will need intervention. We do not have community-based psychiatric services, which are needed. In 1997, 11% of the health budget went towards the psychiatric services. This year that budget is at just 7%. In England and Wales it is at 14%. Scotland has recognised it as a special difficulty, and 18% of its total health budget has been invested in the development of the psychiatric services.

The Minister of State said that €17 million has been spent on suicide prevention since 1997, which amounts to approximately €2 million a year. Surely this is unacceptable in the context of the total spending of the Government and the Department. I just attended a committee meeting dealing with the issue of the Travers report on which €1 billion or €2 billion will be spent, yet we are talking about just €2 million a year to deal with suicide prevention. It is totally inadequate. The Minister of State referred to €90 million for the development of the psychiatric services. The budget for this service is totally inadequate and indicates the Government's lack of interest in the area. It is worthwhile repeating these facts.

This time each year, I table a Dáil question on the amount of money spent on suicide prevention and I am informed by way of letter. In early April this year, I asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children what moneys were being spent on suicide prevention this year. She could not answer me because her Department did not know the answer. The query was referred to the Health Service Executive and I am still awaiting the information. In other years it took four days to receive a reply but after the Health Service Executive was set up, the Minister has no responsibility in this regard and, after waiting for two months, I still have not received the information. This is not fair to those of us who work in the area.

Most people who die by suicide do not want to die; they want to remove the pain rather than die. Suicide is not a diagnosis, it is a behaviour. Suicide has puzzled people down through the years. Parents, families and professionals are puzzled as to why it happens but there appears to be no answer. There is need for research to find out why it is happening. Some research is taking place but we must find out why suicide is happening. There are not sufficient psychological autopsies being carried out. How can we learn if more psychological autopsies are not carried out to get more information on people who take their lives?

The most difficult thing to accept when someone takes his or her life is that no one is to blame and that it is impossible, no matter what is done, to prevent all suicides. The acceptance of this may be the most difficult of all. It is inevitable that all parties, including schools, mental health professionals and families will feel guilt when a person commits suicide. It is also inevitable that all parties will try to shift the blame to others. The purpose of the blame is to remove personal guilt. It is also denying the fact that no one is to blame when a suicide takes place.

I want to deal with the area of gender and suicide. There is a contradiction in that male suicide and hopelessness has increased while Ireland has a booming economy. I have dealt with the medical side but this is the societal side of suicide. Professor Michael Fitzgerald, Chairman of the Irish Association of Suicidology, said that in Irish society in 2005, males find it harder to find a role and identity in society. Young males are often lost. If unemployed, they are unsuccessful. They feel discarded and there is an increased likelihood that they will consider suicide. They tend to use the strategy of the stiff upper lip. In some ways, females rearing children has not changed over the years, but the massive increase in working outside the home has changed for females. Nevertheless, in agricultural communities, women always worked on the farm, therefore, the new change in work practices may not be as radical as is often perceived. The institutions in which we put our faith, such as the Church, State agencies, the Garda and politicians have lost face in recent years and lost the trust of people to a greater or lesser extent. As these institutions have been declining in stature, the rate of suicide has been increasing. The people in Ireland who are valued in 2005 are males who are successful, who are winners, who are attending third level education and earning big bucks. People who are not in this category find it very difficult to find an identity, a position in which to earn respect, support or a place in society. Ireland is a place for winners. If one is not in that category, there is no place for one in current society.

The critical issue for male adolescents is to derive an identity, self-esteem and personal meaning from their position in society. People who are not winning are marginalised and devalued by society. There is no place for them. Those who fall out of education are the most vulnerable. All the studies that have been carried out, especially those carried out by the late Michael Kelleher, indicate that there is a higher level of suicide among people who leave education early. In the past, young Irish males could have gone to church, identified with God and the idea that there is something else beyond the euro. Nowadays there is nowhere for them to turn. There is also fragmentation of the family. There is an increase in marriage breakdown and the number of separations since 1986 has more than doubled. There is a fundamental breakdown in relationships between people and their socio-cultural setting. We do not know what our true value is. We have lost our way. The euro is worshipped and happiness emanates from the euro. We are told a private car is all we need. Many males are marooned, disconnected, alienated and lost. There is a lack of integration of the individual in society and there is a lack of solidarity among people, which solidarity came from attending mass with the same people in the same church every week. The religious festivals of the past are no more and they have been replaced by drinking festivals.

It is vital that the role of alcohol in suicide should be examined. Dr. John Connolly, secretary of the Irish Association of Suicidology, has done a great deal of good work in this area. There is a high incidence of suicide among alcoholics but suicide also occurs when people consume alcohol during crises, which interferes with their objectivity. The inhibitions of those contemplating suicide are also reduced.

The Minister of State referred to the national task force on suicide, which reported in 1998, and he highlighted that eight of its 86 recommendations have been implemented, which speaks for itself. The national suicide review group published its first report in 1999 and one of its chief objectives was to implement the recommendations of the task force, although it was the Department's responsibility. The review group was set up for that purpose but only eight of the recommendations have been implemented. A strategy group was established recently. Is the wheel being reinvented? Can the Minister of State not implement the remaining recommendations of the task force?

See this speech in context