Seanad debates

Wednesday, 2 July 2014

Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Fund Bill 2014: Second Stage

 

4:15 pm

Photo of Marc MacSharryMarc MacSharry (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am glad of the opportunity to put forward the Bill this evening and thank Senators Leyden and Darragh O'Brien for co-sponsoring it. The issue is very close to all of our hearts. At least Senator Gilroy, who has done a great deal of work with regards to the health committee and is a health professional, is no stranger to the issues that I shall raise here today.

I know that the Minster of State, Deputy Lynch, is not available. I wish her well and hope she is recovering well. I am sorry that the Minister for Health was not available to attend. In fairness, he is very good at coming here. He does make himself available to us very regularly and was here earlier today. Given the importance of this issue I would have preferred that he attended. Notwithstanding that I am delighted to have the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, in attendance. I know that he will take the Bill on its merit and in the spirit in which it has been put forward.

Last year I published a document that Senator Gilroy will be familiar with, called Actions Speak Louder than Words. The common denominator of my policy document was an admission that politicians do not have the solutions to this silent crisis. We all participate in the endless rhetoric that takes place in these Houses when there is an incident of suicide, a loss of life through suicide or a report, as there was in recent weeks, on the national mental health service. The indignant rhethoric of all us demanding that action be taken, how this crisis cannot continue and so on is deafening at times. However, when it comes to political leadership and political will to take the appropriate measures we all fall short, which is not to overly criticise this Government any more than it is to absolve previous Administrations.

My document put forward a structure and resources that we believe needs to be put in place so that the experts, such as people from Senator Gilroy's profession, the people in the National Office for Suicide Prevention, the people in the Samaritans, Console and the various other organisations, both voluntary and professional, throughout the country can begin to peel back the blindfold that is on the phenomenon of loss of life through suicide. The measures were estimated to cost in the region of €90 million. Where would one possibly find that amount of money at a time when we are trying to nurse so many deficits throughout all the Departments and so many cutbacks?

The first thing we need is the political will and courage to say that we are losing the population of an entire village every year through suicide. It is the same as saying two jumbo jets filled with people are going to crash next year but strangely we know where and, to an extent, when they are going to crash. We know what the problem is yet we are not prepared to tangibly do what is required in order to prevent suicide. That is inexcusable in everybody's book yet we continue, and again I am not overly focusing criticism on the Government or absolving other Governments, to commend ourselves on all the good work that we are doing and say it is great.

We have the policy framework called A Vision for Change which is a great plan that we all signed up for. There is scarcely a policy in the history of the State, other than corporation tax, that has such support yet it is the first target when it comes to gathering up a few shillings to fill a hole in another aspect of a Department or in another Department. Over the years we have ring-fenced moneys for mental health and suicide prevention measures. However, buried within the bowels of the HSE, the policy is subservient to the budgetary constraints and challenges of that organisation and, inevitably, is ranked lower in the pecking order than it should be.

It was suggested in our policy document that we would look at an area with scope such as the off-sales area. The Bill does not precisely mirror the proposal in the policy document but reflects its spirit. It was proposed that a levy could be applied within the off-sales sector that is based on volume and strength but applied by the retailer, collected by the Revenue Commissioners and put specifically into the mental health fund to be established under this Bill. That money would then be available for the roll-out of policy measures such as those suggested and the accelerated roll-out of A Vision for Change. The €90 million was only some of the money and, therefore, the balance would be very significant. We have calculated that up to €200 million would be available for the accelerated roll-out of A Vision for Change.

I know this is not specifically the Minister of State's portfolio but I need hardly underline the challenges throughout this area. For example, we had a report on hostels in recent weeks, the Mental Health Commission and a report into the Galway and Roscommon issues regarding mental health services in the region. Senator Gilroy would be a lot more fluent than I about the individual cases but each corner of the country has its own story to tell in how we, collectively, have failed in this regard. We have tried to come up with an innovative way to raise money, not to impose a tax on people, not to beat up the retailer who is working so hard, and not to beat up the alcohol trade generally. It can be said that alcohol is a contributing factor in terms of mental health issues and suicide but there are others such as relationship breakdown, losing one's job, depression and many other social factors.

We, with the co-operation of the drinks industry and the retail off-trade sector, would like to harness what has been shown in our research and I refer to the goodwill of individuals. Research shows that when people seek to enjoy themselves responsibly they may be prepared to pay that little bit more in the knowledge that the money would be specifically ring-fenced. Unfortunately we do not have an example to point to in this regard. There is no precedent within the Exchequer to say that funding goes directly to an issue and that is where it stays but so what. Why not test it? Why not try it? Why not put it in place? If we did we would reap the benefits.

Naturally, retailers feel challenged by the proposal. In our own area of the north west, where the Acting Chairman comes from himself, we have the Border area. If Committee Stage of this legislation was accepted then additional measures could be made to give added protections to retailers in the area who must deal with competition from across the Border and its different regime. Of course such a provision would have to be made.

People are definitely at their wits end and at the pin of their collars from an economic perspective and the effects of austerity, so they are entitled to enjoy a glass a wine at the weekend if they want.

They do not want to have to pay more for it, but an extra 25 cent on premium lager, an extra 80 cent on a bottle of wine and an extra 16 cent per measure of whiskey or vodka would be a relatively modest amount in the context of the overall price, yet the contribution it would make in terms of the mental health service, the infrastructure and staffing required and the measures outlined in Actions Speak Louder Than Words in creating that new structure and other measures aimed at suicide prevention would be immeasurable in terms of savings for the State. Instead we have had haphazard funding for mental health services, uncertainty as to whether funds will be available and the fact that A Vision for Change remains an aspiration and, despite the best efforts of the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, and her colleague, as she had to admit on "Morning Ireland" this week, will not be implemented in the lifetime of this Administration. That is not acceptable. We can make a difference here and can choose to do this. I agree that the best we can hope for is to bring about half of the people with us on Facebook. I was subjected to scurrilous attacks from certain quarters and received great support from others, but this a tangible measure that could be implemented to ring-fence funding and society as a whole would thank us for it. It is not about being popular but doing the right thing.

I do not want to pre-empt what the Minister of State will say, but there may be suggestions that there are European directives that may, in some way, impede the possibility of the Bill being implemented. I agree that some of the measures might be debatable. We sought legal advice from senior counsel and believe the Government should test the Bill. We also believe it is possible to implement its measures. Let me give one example in terms of betting. We had the potential to apply a tax in a betting office but not at the dog or race track. Equally, we are looking to apply something to the off-licence trade where, in fairness, there is scope to do so. I reiterate it is not to hammer the alcohol retail sector, but there is scope to do so in that area, given historically low prices. If the Bill is passed on Second Stage, we could on Committee Stage examine whether a proportion of the excise paid by on-trade publicans or a proportion of their commercial rates bill could be ring-fenced and put into this fund also.

A great deal of work has gone into the Bill and the Actions Speak Louder Than Words document. We have tried to come up with a tangible solution that the Government coud embrace. There is nothing I would like more than for the Minister of State and his colleagues to accept the Bill on Second Stage, make changes to it, some of which I have outlined, and bring the wisdom of the likes of Senator John Gilroy and others to bear to improve it. It would be pioneering legislation but also worthwhile and innovative in that it could reduce the incidence of suicide by 30% in ten years. Unlike the prediction made by the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, through no fault of her own, earlier in the week, it could accelerate the roll-out of A Vision for Change, which means that the Government could take full credit for its completion, instead of depending on the goodwill of the next Government to carry it forward.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.