Hansard

It is a privilege to participate in this debate about a difficult and challenging issue. At the outset, I thank all the organisations who provided briefings for the debate and who continue to do so much work across our communities to support not just vulnerable people who are at risk of suicide but the families who are trying to support them.

I am sure that not many members are untouched by the terrible sadness of suicide. We probably all know of someone in our family, among our friends or in our communities, who has had to deal with the shock and tragedy of suicide.

No one in this Parliament is indifferent to the causes and consequences of suicide. We are united in a desire to do all that we can to tackle the suffering that might lead to suicide. Collectively, we want to do what we can. We want to understand what drives people to suicide and how we might better support people who are in crisis. We recognise that every person who is at risk of suicide will have made their own journey and will have their unique story, so we must understand the challenge of creating support that matches people’s unique experiences.

As we struggle to recognise the scale of the problem and understand its implications, we are driven by the profound sense of sadness that we feel when it is clear that a suicide could have been prevented—when someone reached out for help and either did not get it or got the wrong kind of help.

In my short period convening the Public Petitions Committee, we have seen a number of petitions specifically driven by the experience of those who have lost a loved one. They have a profound sense of loss, compounded by the feeling that it did not need to be that way. The importance of understanding those direct experiences in shaping policy cannot be overstated.

We have had progress on attitudes. In my generation, the silence, shame and stigma of suicide was all too evident. People are now beginning to understand how someone might be at risk and that suicide is not the shame of the family who are living with its consequences—rather, those people deserve support.

There is evidence that we are opening up about the issue, but we know that a great deal more needs to be done. The Network Rail Samaritans advert sets out the idea that we can do something as individuals, which is a very powerful message. Last night, I watched a Channel 4 documentary called “999: What’s Your Emergency?”. It highlighted the experience of our police forces in having to deal with people with mental health issues who inappropriately ended up in the justice system because there was nowhere else for them to go. That gave me two messages: first, that issues of mental health and suicide are not unique to Scotland but go far beyond here, and, secondly, that the challenge of delivering support is experienced here in Scotland and beyond.

We know the risk to young men. That is a challenge. We see an increase in young women who are self-harming and may take their own lives. We know the impact of postnatal depression and the challenge of making sure that the right support is there. My colleague Monica Lennon rightly highlighted the impact of poverty and disadvantage on the prevalence of suicide and the experience of addiction. I note for the minister the high prevalence of suicide among those whose addiction is to gambling. That experience is often not properly recognised in terms of support.

To be clear, I do not lay at the door of the Scottish Government direct responsibility for these tragic deaths, their causes or their consequences. However, the Government has a responsibility to do all that it can to put in place the strategies, systems and actions that will result in individuals being helped, not abandoned.

At the community level, there are concerns. Is it right that a young person who seeks help from a general practitioner for a physical condition can be referred to a consultant but a young person who seeks help with depression must refer themselves, when they may be distressed and not able to take that step? Can it be right that GPs have the capacity to prescribe drugs but do not have the time to talk to somebody at greater length about how they are feeling? That is a particular issue in our poorest communities, as highlighted by GPs themselves.

The truth is that any strategy must be backed up by an allocation of sufficient resources; what we say must be matched with an honest assessment of need. We know the importance of early intervention, and yet support is being stripped out of our schools. On the support that the voluntary sector might be able to deliver, we know the pressure that the sector is under and we know the pressure from local authority spending cuts. We need to think about the consequences of those choices and look again.

I say to the Government that if we are spending money in one place, we cannot spend it elsewhere. We need to test spending against how it supports the most vulnerable and most at risk in our communities. Any equality budgeting strategy worth its salt must ensure that resources truly follow need. What representations has the minister made directly to the finance secretary to ensure that sufficient resources are being put in place? We cannot separate the cold numbers in a budget line from the lived realities of people at risk who are seeking help and those who are supporting them.

There is a clear consensus in the chamber on the issues. I would like to see a commitment to tough budgeting choices to match that concern. It is important for the minister to outline her expectation of the budget, to make sure that it can match our united commitment to those who are most at risk and to make sure that we can support them when they look for that help.