Meeting of the Parliament 24 June 2015
The bill is a very important piece of legislation, but it is close to me personally for a number of reasons. I have experience of close family members who have gone through periods of mental ill health, some of whom continue to go through such periods. I therefore have a very strong interest in mental health. Aside from that, I am also interested in learning disability and the autistic spectrum, so I will address that issue first.
There is often a feeling that in politics we invent division where division does not exist. Amendment 1, in the name of Jackie Baillie, was rejected, but the intention behind it and what it sought to do were broadly supported; indeed, they were supported by the Scottish National Party in the Parliament, which is why the minister has committed repeatedly to undertake a review. However, I rejected amendment 1 because I felt that it had technical elements that might have constrained the process at a later stage.
One thing that might be helpful—I am interested to know whether the minister might be open to this at a later stage—is to have an early, wide-ranging stakeholder event that could look at, for example, terms of reference for the review and other matters that require to be considered. That could be an opportunity to demonstrate good faith to those on different sides of the chamber who have expressed doubt about the Scottish Government’s commitment to the matter and could be a helpful approach. I wonder whether the minister could address that in his closing remarks.
To respond to Jim Hume’s comments, I think that another difficulty that we often face in politics is that we overstate the effect of certain situations on sections of our society and our health service. There is no doubt that mental health services face pressures, but all our health services face pressures. It is the nature of the health service that it will face pressures, because it is a demand-led service and people will seek out support and help from it as they require it.
If we look back to mental health services prior to the SNP Government coming into being, we see that there has been a remarkable improvement in the funding that is allocated to them and in the driving down of waiting times for treatment. I would not disagree for a second that there is more to be done; indeed, the minister has said repeatedly that there is more to be done on waiting times for mental health treatment. However, I think that anyone who looked at the situation that the SNP Government inherited and compared it with where we have got to would be hard pressed to say that no progress had been made. That is not to say that there is not more to be done, though. That is why it is welcome that the minister has on more than one occasion announced funding allocations specifically to drive improvement in mental health services.
Funding is not the only answer in this area, however. Funding for mental health services is important, but it often focuses on dealing with problems as they arise. We cannot prevent all mental health conditions from arising and we know that mental health problems can affect anybody in society at any time, but we can look at where in society there are more occurrences of certain mental health problems and see whether they are linked to societal pressures. In particular, I would welcome an opportunity for us to consider—perhaps not in the Parliament but elsewhere—the great pressures that young people in society now face as a result of their interactions with one another through social media. The impact that those can have on young people’s mental health merits further examination at some stage.
I welcome the bill and I hope that it receives unanimous support at decision time.
18:25