Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 14 Nov 2001

14 Nov 2001 · S1 · Plenary

Item of business

Mental Health Law

Wallace, Ben Con North East Scotland Watch on SPTV

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the opportunity to debate the proposals for new legislation on mental health. Mary Scanlon underlined our commitment to the new legislation. We recognise its importance. The Conservatives will certainly support the Executive's motion today.

There are many new initiatives and the onus is increasingly on care in the community, so it is only right that we re-examine the definition of such things as mental disorder and the criteria and procedures for the detention of those suffering from certain mental illnesses, but the narrowness of today's motion is disappointing. It focuses on mental health legislation but does not take the opportunity to use this two-and-a-half-hour debate to examine the concerns of the people who are working in all parts of the mental health sector. Nor does it allow members to discuss progress on the mental health framework initiative that was launched back in October 1997 and was originally initiated by the Conservative Government the year before that.

Building on Mary Scanlon's remarks, I want to examine in greater depth the delivery side of mental health services. The Government made it clear in its recent strategy, "Our National Health: A plan for action, a plan for change", that it would make mental health a leading priority in Scotland. Interestingly enough, it had also pledged to make it a priority in 1997 and 1999, but the positive feedback from those at the coalface has not matched the pace of the Government pledges.

Although we welcome the legislative review as fulfilling part of the Government commitment made more than three years ago, we have to ask why so many of the initiatives clearly laid out in the original framework document have only now started to take shape. For example, the mental health and well-being support group, which was designed to monitor health board action on mental health, was convened only in January last year, four years after the concept was originally proposed in the framework document.

When monitoring lags so far behind implementation, there will inevitably be a fallout. For example, the principle of equality of access for patients suffering from mental disorder still has a long way to go. According to Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia, many Alzheimer sufferers are still experiencing a high level of postcode prescribing. In addition, further concerns voiced in the Millan report by users of mental health services are still being overlooked. Nearly every mental health patient representative group has expressed frustration at the lack of information, drug treatment and the availability of alternative services.

We also recognise that changing the stigma is a long-term goal and one that requires a cultural shift. Margaret Jamieson made those points extremely well in her speech. One of the most common complaints from constituents who care for sufferers is that health boards and local authorities treat such problems at arm's length. Many of the good intentions fail to get through to the front line. Although we accept that the Government is trying to remedy that with the mental health development fund, we also think that the failure of the joint investment fund has been a lost opportunity. That fund empowered GPs and local health care co-operatives to start some of their own initiatives to solve problems as appropriate.

The Millan report's consultation with users also highlighted problems with the availability and accessibility of services in rural areas. It also drew attention to the desire to reduce waiting times. We accept that accessibility is a common concern among patients, but we think that the impact of the Arbuthnott formula in regions such as Grampian might not improve it. We should also take warning that waiting times for psychiatric treatment are on the rise again.

Nicola Sturgeon made a clear and articulate argument for the need for a clear right of advocacy. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton rightly sought clarification of how compulsory care in the community can benefit people. I agree with every word of Des McNulty's speech, which was extremely good. He tried to look beyond the legislative process and towards measures to better mental health.

The Scottish Conservatives support the SNP's amendment, which recognises that appropriate measures must be behind the initiatives, and the Scottish Executive's motion, which welcomes legislative changes. Over the coming weeks and months, as the Opposition, we will ensure that the service provision that has been promised to people suffering from Alzheimer's disease, schizophrenia, anorexia and other mental disorders will be met by the Executive.

Search Hansard contributions

Plenary, 14 Nov 2001

In the same item of business