Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is there a risk that, if you do not persuade the public through a process of raising awareness, you could damage confidence in the concept more generally? In the example that I gave, which involved an offence that 77 per cent of people believed should carry a custodial sentence, that offence would, in practice, attract a community payback order. In such cases, do we just have to say “Tough” to the public, because the system does not reflect their concept of justice?

When it looked at information and communications technology projects, our predecessor committee—and, I am sure, its predecessor committees—often found that their management, or mismanagement, had significant and negative impacts on public funds. Your briefing refers to a number of digital tools being “developed at pace”. Have you picked up on any ICT issues that are similar to those that were highlighted in previous sessions?

My first question is mainly for the Auditor General—it is just a point of clarification, really. At point 8 in the blog, you note:

“Falling referrals to CAMHS look like the one bright spot”.

I was slightly surprised that the number is down, but I note that you add the caveat that there are probably extenuating circumstances. A recent report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists pointed to data from Public Health Scotland that showed that, in the second quarter of this year, there were 10,193 referrals to CAMHS, which was the highest ever figure and equates to one in 100. Do you have any update on the data that might point to that figure being almost a mirage?

My final question is perhaps for Alex Cumming. The Government has made £40 million available for CAMHS improvement work, based on the CAMHS service specification, to try to achieve a national standard of service. The referrals pathway was one of the key issues that were identified in the 29 recommendations. What are the most significant gaps that need to be addressed in the referrals pathway?

I am a member for South of Scotland and, for the record, I am our party spokesman on mental health.

Just assuming that, broadly, we have the highest ever level of referrals, we also seem to have the highest ever level of rejected referrals. In a 2018 report, SAMH and NHS National Services Scotland’s Information Services Division produced 29 recommendations on bringing down the number of rejected referrals, and I think that all of those recommendations were accepted by the Scottish Government.

My questions are for Hannah Axon and Donna Bell, and perhaps Alex Cumming from SAMH. How effective has the Government been in implementing those 29 recommendations? What level of comfort or discomfort do you have with the overall level of rejected referrals? Is there a level that you would be comfortable with, because you think that CAMHS are not the right route for some individuals? If 25 per cent of referrals are being rejected, would you be comfortable with 10 per cent, for example?

I echo what Mr Simpson said. I am on the record already as saying in the committee and elsewhere that I have policy concerns, practical concerns and concerns about civil liberties. That is not what we are being asked to consider, although the minister’s letter to us does not reassure me that the concerns that we raised prior to the regulations being laid have been addressed. However, that is for the lead committee to consider.

We are considering whether the use of the made affirmative procedure is the right approach. We are the arbiter and gatekeeper in respect of that and it is right that we do that. The question falls on whether the regulations have been implemented in response to a serious and imminent threat. Given the fact that the Government has been talking about vaccination passports for three weeks and has now delayed their implementation, I echo Mr Simpson’s concern that the regulations do not meet that requirement. They are being put through the made affirmative procedure not because of urgency but because of political expediency, to avoid the due scrutiny that would show that the policy is deficient in many respects and, to be honest with members, simply will not work.

I have concerns that the Government is not going down the right route in that respect and I will follow Mr Simpson in voting against the regulations.

Before I go on to my next question, I draw attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which details that I am a member of the East Lothian Council education committee.

How effective do you think the Scottish index of multiple deprivation is as the measure of poverty to target additional support? Have you seen any deficiencies in the outcomes that its use has resulted in?

I do not want to pre-empt the cabinet secretary’s announcement, but I have a very quick question. How can we expect the £1 billion investment that has been announced to be targeted? Is it the Scottish Government’s view that that sum is sufficient in light of the pandemic?

Do you think that that sum is sufficient in light of the pandemic?