Hansard

It is a pleasure to speak in this afternoon’s debate on “Scotland’s Suicide Prevention Action Plan: Every Life Matters”. It is also quite humbling. Much of the narrative this afternoon has been drawn from personal experience rather than from soundbites, which is good for this chamber—it is what we should draw on when we debate policy on something as important as this.

I hope to cover three areas as well as I can: preventative actions that we can take, how we learn from suicides and what training there can be. All those issues are in the action plan.

A while back, I mentioned in the chamber part of my constituency that may be an area of particular concern with regard to levels of suicide. It would be a location of interest. Traditionally, locations of interest are places such as rivers, bridges and roads rather than communities. I will focus on that first.

We have to look at communities that have become locations of interest. When I made my contribution in the chamber a while back, I named the place. Afterwards, I was told gently and supportively that sometimes naming a place is not the best thing to do, as that can draw attention to it as a place where people can take their own lives and it can push people who are considering doing that into committing the final act. We have to deal with the matter with great sensitivity when we discuss it.

Action 7 in the action plan says that the national suicide prevention leadership group

“will identify and facilitate preventative actions targeted at risk groups.”

Because of time constraints, I will mention only some of the risk groups. They include people who live in deprivation, poverty, social exclusion or isolation; people who live with or are developing an impairment or a long-term condition; people who are affected by drugs and alcohol; migrants; and homeless people. I mean no discourtesy to others whom I have not mentioned, but that looks like a strong demographic in many parts of my constituency. When we talk about locations of interest, perhaps we have to talk about community-based locations rather than just site-based locations.

The £3 million innovation fund for innovative work on suicide prevention is absolutely welcome. An area-based, grass-roots approach and resilience work would be a positive way forward.

Samaritans has said similar things. The Samaritans briefing says:

“We need further clarity on the authority the group will have to make decisions on the allocation of funding; the setting of priority/high risk groups to target new activity; and the support, direction and evaluation needed to deliver effective activity locally.”

The key word is “locally”. Samaritans is a great, heavily volunteer-led organisation. Just imagine what local co-ordinators and capacity builders from Samaritans and similar organisations could do in leading a community resilience strategy in areas of concern or areas of interest in which there are higher risks of suicides. I would certainly appreciate local grass-roots work in my constituency from Samaritans or others using the £3 million pot of cash over the years ahead.

Action 9 in the action plan says:

“The Scottish Government will work closely with partners to ensure that data, evidence and guidance is used to maximise impact. Improvement methodology will support localities to better understand and minimise unwarranted variation in practice and outcomes.”

That takes us back to the community-based approach to suicide prevention. Variations in outcomes may be a result of demographics and some of the risk factors that are in the strategy.

Action 10 relates to reviewing all deaths by suicide and the learning experience. I thank the minister, Clare Haughey, and welcome her to her new position; I thoroughly enjoyed her opening speech. Any review of death by suicide—I have written to the minster in relation to this and received a reply—has to be based on partnership working that is open, not siloed or defensive. I wrote about a specific constituent whom I do not have permission to name in the chamber. That constituent had issues with how community health services did or did not help their mother, who took her own life. There was a review of that. They were also concerned about the long-term approach by her GPs, NHS 24 and the NHS in relation to discharge. When we take a step back and look at the bigger picture, we must ask who is reviewing the bigger picture when someone tragically takes their own life. Whatever we do in relation to action 10, which is on reviewing all deaths by suicide, we have to take a step back and not be bunkered, and we have to look at the bigger picture. The infrastructure that is in place is not necessarily very adept at doing that. Maybe there should be some new thinking along those lines.

In the time that I have left, I want to look at action 2, which is about funding

“the creation and implementation of refreshed mental health and suicide prevention training by May 2019”

and supporting

“delivery across public and private sectors”.

I do not have training in mental health awareness. I apologise for not taking the opportunities for such training that were made available to me. It should probably be mandatory for MSPs, frankly, and perhaps our staff. I deal with many vulnerable people every week. I am not always sure how best to support them and I am not always sure that statutory organisations cover themselves in glory when I raise the deep and serious concerns that I have.

I would like there to be a bespoke referral pathway that MSPs can use when vulnerable constituents come to them. I do not always have the necessary skills to say to someone that I think that there is something wrong and they need to seek help. I need advice in order to ensure that I can act in the best interests of my constituents. When we think about the implementation of training we should also think about the policy makers and their representatives in this place.

I look forward to supporting the motion and the amendments this afternoon.