Sean Barrett (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, as I always do when she attends the House. I have a few thoughts on the issue before us. On the first quarter numbers for 2011, while I do not know what role seasonality plays in the incidence of suicide, the figures from January to March 2011 indicate some improvement. During this period, the number of recorded suicides stood at 95, which would produce an annual incidence of 380 for 2011, which is lower than the figure cited by the Minister. Perhaps some of the issues on which the Minister of State has been working are starting to have effect.

The figures also show that of those who died by suicide in the first quarter of 2011, none was aged up to 14 years, 17 were in the 15 to 24 years age group, 20 were in the 25 to 34 years age group, 20 were in the 35 to 44 years age group and 22 were in the 45 to 54 years age group. The incidence of suicide then slackens off in subsequent age groups. It appears, therefore, that the main factors are those to which the Minister of State referred, namely, unemployment, poverty and the impact of the recession, especially on men. As Senator Gilroy noted, substantial research is needed on suicide to identify what approaches work and which measures could help the Minister of State achieve her laudable ambitions. I support his call for more research on this area. A targeted programme studying all the suicides that occur each year should report back to medical researchers and the Minister of State.

I, too, welcome Deputy Keating and the group accompanying him to the House. I note also that Deputy Dan Neville has acquired a considerable reputation for his work in the area of suicide over a long period.

We have a history of massive institutionalisation of those with mental illness. This approach, which have since learned did not work, dates back to before independence when large mental hospitals were constructed in Ballinasloe, Killarney, Portrane, Grangegorman, Mullingar and elsewhere. The query that academic colleagues have put to me is whether building smaller units amounts to nothing more than moving to another form of institutionalisation. Whereas under British rule, large institutions were built on the edge of towns, we are building smaller units as part of a policy that almost amounts to another form of locking people up. Should the more psychological approach discussed by Senator McAleese be invoked?

In the past when we tackled mental or psychological problems by building large mental hospitals a psychological approach was taken. One must ask whether the wrong medication featured as a cause in some suicides? Electric shock treatment has always seemed controversial to me. As we attempt to come to grips with the problem of suicide, should the Minister of State's office examine the consequences of locking people up, giving them electrical shock treatment and treating their condition as a pharmaceutical problem? How best can we help? Are we taking the correct approach? As the Minister of State will have gathered from this debate, the issue of suicide has generated considerable interest, a surge of good will and a desire among all Senators to assist in any way we can. This must involve asking serious questions of some of the policies we have inherited.