John Moloney (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

): I thank Senators for holding this debate. It will be difficult for me to answer all questions in ten minutes, because ten Senators contributed and most asked at least five questions.

I would welcome the opportunity to come back more often, and I will take up the recommendation from Senators Corrigan and Feeney that there should be quarterly sessions to gauge progress. I hope that not many patients are listening to this debate because it would lead them to wonder whether their chances of living better lives have improved. I take a very positive attitude to my current job and hope I will take the same attitude to any other Department to which I am appointed. I was staggered to hear the claim that it will take 40 years to reform mental health services. I wish to rehearse a number of points for those who take an interest in these matters.

I cannot believe that certain Senators have suggested we do not have a director of mental health services. Mr. Martin Rogan was appointed to this position six months ago. The appointment is in itself a fundamental step towards delivering the reform programme. The appointment of regional directors represents another important part of our agenda.

It was never the Government's intention to depend solely on the sale of properties. The fact that I have had to repeat this point so often goes to prove that mental health is not really the issue. I have repeatedly stated at press conferences, meetings of the PNA and public consultations on the reform programme that a combination of sales of properties, the voluntary sector by way of the Irish Council for Social Housing and primary care centres for community mental health teams will reduce the overall cost initially for delivering A Vision for Change.

As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, I dealt with the issue of the high incidence of suicide in this country, which is part of what we are discussing today. I have tried to offer hope that modern services will be made available throughout the country to provide proper support. Unlike some Senators, I have had the opportunity to learn first-hand about the huge strides that have made. I am glad mention was made of Galway. I am pleased to know that the first two Headstrong facilities are in place and that a commitment has been made to fund 20 centres by 2016.

I thank Senator Fitzgerald for her very positive attitude but assure her that funding for mental health services is ring-fenced and €50 million has been committed each year from the sale of properties. I am disappointed that people are putting out the nonsense that we will not be able to sell the properties concerned. How many more negative arguments must be made against the people who are trying to get out of institutionalised care? In respect of the ten properties we originally targeted, there is a real interest in ensuring we deliver on our €50 million commitment.

In regard to the role of other Departments, a commitment has been made to employ 7,000 people with disabilities, including in the area of mental health, by the end of 2010. We have already exceeded the figure of 5,000 and by working together our Departments will show how we can deliver the remaining 2,000 jobs.

In the area of housing, I have a track record from providing a 28-unit scheme for the elderly in my home town of Mountmellick, and a planning application has been submitted for a 30-unit scheme which will incorporate housing for people with mental health issues and disabilities. Rather than focus on negative aspects, why can Senators not be more proactive in offering leadership in closing hospitals in their own communities? This will not depend on the sale of properties. Of the 1,200 people accommodated in the old mental hospitals, 70% can live in the community. If Senators really want to deliver on A Vision for Change, they should not spend their time wondering how many community mental health teams are in place. Let us develop proposals with our respective local authorities for providing facilities. I give my commitment that the HSE will offer that level of support to each individual patient transferring out of mental hospitals.

Senator Ó Brolcháin raised the issue of equality across the regions. I accept that certain parts of the country offer excellent supports in terms of community mental health teams and local mental health groups. I also acknowledge Senator Boyle's suggestion on section 59(b) of the Mental Health Act. Last December, I gave my commitment to the Dáil that the heads of a Bill would be prepared by June.

Senator Mullen spoke about delays in the sale of properties. I again emphasise that A Vision for Change was never predicated on the sale of properties. The mental health portfolio includes 800 properties and rather than send people the message that it is simply a case of mirrors and smokescreens, I am repeating the specific commitment I gave when I first addressed the Seanad on this matter as Minister of State that we will show how we can deliver on this concept within 12 months. I am aware of the abilities of Professor Siobhán Barry but I assure the House that I have my own abilities. I do not believe for one minute that 40 years will be required to deliver on our programme.

In regard to the question of whether the policy originates from the HSE or the Department of Health and Children, I have clearly outlined my role in driving it with support from both of these bodies. The evidence for this includes the appointment of directors, the development of an implementation plan and, more importantly, the use of primary care centres to deliver modern mental health facilities.

I am all for openness and transparency. I am prepared to appear before this House every quarter as well as the Joint Committee on Health and Children. Nobody asked me to explain my plans to the public at Farmleigh last March. I chose to outline how this Government, in co-operation with all the agencies, can deliver A Vision for Change. I wish people would read the foreword to that document before they criticise it. It does not state, for example, that the programme will be delivered in year one, two or three. The service providers at the coalface recognise that it is a ten-year programme. It is nonsense to suggest that we have failed because we have not yet provided 100 child and adolescent beds. We are halfway through the programme.

The reforms are not about the capital programme or the level of spending, even though these are important elements. I often hear criticisms from politicians who are not at the forefront of delivering reform. I am thinking in particular of the need to reduce the sigma associated with mental health. In recent weeks, several people in high profile jobs have told me about the difficulties they endure every day because of their fears of being found out. I wish to throw out a challenge to the media in this regard. On 15 April, I will bring forward proposals at the Mansion House, with the help of John Saunders and other committed people, on a reform programme that will turn the tide of people's attitudes towards mental health. I invite members of the media to come on board for that programme. It is a not a one-day event; it is a two-year programme with the capacity to drive real change in terms of persuading people that mental and physical health should be judged the same way.

I would love to see the day when a specific percentage of the overall health budget is committed to mental health. Our focus should be on building a platform so that we can set out the specifics to the Government. However, I am not taken by the notion that funding for mental health services is being continually eroded. I am certain Senator Twomey is aware that some 90% of people with mental health problems present at primary care level. Funding has been delivered through the primary care process. I never once stated that enough is available.

Senator Prendergast raised the matter of Clonmel and I am surprised at her comments. I travelled to Clonmel. Then I came to the House to hear the complaints about the HSE, comments which I do not support. I support the HSE. The idea of attacking the HSE in some cases to make one popular on the ground is not my way of doing things. I supported the HSE when it came to the cancer issue in my constituency and I supported the opposite county. This is why I am surprised. I gave a commitment in the House that rather than simply believe in my own prepared script I would go down to Clonmel to listen to the public representatives and the consultant staff, and I did so. I am beginning to wonder whether this took place. Now questions have arisen about whether I knew my brief or signed off on something. I have news for Senator Prendergast because obviously she turned off while I was discussing this matter. I suspended the meeting in Clonmel and stated I was prepared to accept the word of the public representatives. I informed them that I would return to Dublin and check on the process of how the decision was arrived at. I gave a commitment to each of the public representatives, including Senator Prendergast. However, the Senator prefers to play to her local gallery rather than discuss the matter in terms of a national programme.