Meeting of the Parliament 02 April 2014
I thank Jim Hume for the way in which he opened this short debate, which turned out to be two debates for the price of one. I will concentrate on the motion and the amendments in the name of Mr Matheson and Dr Simpson, which are much more consistent with the longer narrative that the Parliament has had in dealing with mental health issues than the more pejorative argument that has been made, which I leave to find its place in another and more appropriate debate.
One of the great strengths of the Scottish Parliament has been the leisure of time over the past 15 years for an issue such as mental health to be properly explored and discussed. That has led to an appreciation from all parties in the Parliament of what needs to be done and support for a strategy to take that forward. At the heart of that has been an understanding that the need for public perception to change must underpin a successful mental health strategy. Public perception has been slow to change, but there are now suggestions that it is changing. I think that people now understand the way in which mental health issues underpin many other issues that we have spent time debating, such as alcohol and drug addiction, eating disorders and obesity, and crime.
We tend to talk about the preventative agenda in the sense of preventing cancers or other diseases, but I think that we recognise that, if that agenda is to be as comprehensively appreciated and applied as it should be, it has a role in the delivery of a successful mental health strategy. As the minister said, if we are to have a comprehensive health response, we should see no division between physical and mental health. The Scottish Conservatives continue to believe that there is a small role in that for forgetting the silos and having a universal GP-attached health visiting service for families with children in the early years. I do not mean that that is the ultimate solution, but it would be the beginnings of the kind of comprehensive preventative strategy that, with everything else that has been discussed, would make a contribution.
Neil Findlay said that mental health issues are some of the most prevalent conditions of our time, but I wonder whether the situation is so different now, or whether it is just that populations across Europe now understand that what they previously dismissed or denigrated are very real health conditions, and we are successfully diagnosing many more people’s mental health problems. Hopefully, through that initial diagnosis, we will have an effective strategy and treatment will be successful.
The consultation on the forthcoming mental health bill is now at an end. In the Public Petitions Committee, we have heard from people involved in the process and people who suffer from mental health problems about their strong and passionate views on electro-convulsive therapy. It occurred to me that it is very important, as we move forward with a mental health bill, that we do not look as if we are talking down to people who are suffering from mental health issues and instead involve them, and the see me campaign and SAMH, in the comprehensive work that the bill seeks to develop.
I endorse—particularly as the issue came before the Public Petitions Committee—Neil Findlay’s comments about Amanda and Frank Kopel and their campaign for support for people with Alzheimer’s under the age of 65, which is currently not available in the health service. There is an opportunity for all parties to consider their response to that appeal before manifestos are produced in 2016. The Scottish Conservatives are certainly listening.
It has been a short and slightly more controversial debate than might have been anticipated, but I think that, at heart, the chamber understands—and all parties understand—the collective need for a response from this Parliament to take forward a successful agenda on mental health.
16:41