Hansard

I feel as though I am participating in a discussion rather than in a debate; I am pleased about the consensual approach that the Parliament is adopting on this subject.

I noted with some surprise the comments of the Minister for Health and Community Care on Bruce Millan's report, and I applauded. That may seem strange to others, but I genuinely meant it, because I believe that credit should be given where it is due. I worked for many years in the House of Commons when Bruce Millan was there. Despite all his responsibilities and all our political differences—and there were quite a few—I knew him as a man who was genuinely interested in this sphere of legislation. Future generations will owe him a huge debt of gratitude for his work. His report is a massive tome, full of great information. I place on record my thanks to Bruce Millan and all his colleagues for their work. As we progress through stage 2 of the proposed bill, we may not agree with every dot and comma of the recommendations but, my goodness, has not Bruce Millan given us a good basis from which to start?

I will not touch on many of the issues that colleagues have raised, as I am sure that the minister has taken on board the points that have been made—she has nodded sensibly when colleagues have raised various issues. However, I would like to ask about the implementation and monitoring group that is referred to on the final page of the Millan report. Although it is clear that the code of practice will be reviewed every five years, there is no indication of how the implementation and monitoring group will function and report back to the Parliament. I am sure that members will want the group to report back to us.

I would also like to raise the issue of training and support. It seems to me that the training of those involved in providing services to individuals affected by mental illness and their families should be a priority. For a long time, I worked as an administrator of the now-defunct certificate in social services, which included a mental health option. We always had difficulty in attracting people to work in the area of mental health. People found working with children, the elderly or the handicapped more attractive. One reason for our difficulty was the strain that is placed on those who work in mental health services. Perhaps we do not provide enough training or support to the nurses, teachers, social workers, volunteers and voluntary organisations that work in those services.

I have two final brief messages. First, I reiterate a point that Margaret Jamieson made. The SAMH report, which I am sure all members will have read in preparation for today's discussion, contains a section headed "Fighting stigma". It mentions the insensitive slang terms that are used in the popular media to refer to people with the disabilities that we are discussing. Those terms include "psycho", "mental", "crazed" and "schizo". I know that the scribblers in our Parliament are always accurate in their use of language and in their reporting. Perhaps they could pass on that message to some of their colleagues. Use of insensitive language creates difficulties when we try to build community projects, because it leads people to say that they do not want people with mental health problems in their area. The media should be restrained in the language that they use.

Secondly, I ask the minister to ensure that we build on best practice. I am sure that she has read the report by the Moray Association for Mental Health. We have had a great deal of success in tackling this problem in our area. We are not saying that we are perfect, but all those who were involved in developing the projects that have been introduced in Moray are to be congratulated on their tenacity and on having taken such a cohesive approach.

I welcome this debate and have a message for those members of the public who are watching it. Although the traumas that happen in political life always seem to grab the headlines, people should realise that the issue that we are now discussing is precisely the kind of issue that we wanted a Scottish Parliament to be established to deal with. I cannot remember—I am sure that Malcolm Chisholm, John McAllion and others who have served as MPs also cannot remember—having an opportunity at Westminster to discuss such a vital issue at length and being able to look forward to a legislative process that will make life better in our communities for so many people. This debate is a shining example of what this Parliament is about.