Public Audit Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Official Report 316KB pdf

---

Public Audit Committee Reports (Responses)

---

“The 2008/09 Audit of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland Administration”

Under agenda item 3, the committee will consider a response from the accountable officer to our report entitled “The 2008/09 Audit of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland Administration”. Do members want to comment on the response that we received from Kevin Woods? It is fair to say that, in our report, we were generally supportive of the action that the Scottish Government had taken, but we made some recommendations. Members will see from Dr Woods’s response that on-going work is being done on the review of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and the pension arrangements. Are members happy simply to note the response?

At the risk of continuing as the Victor Meldrew of the committee—

I don’t believe it.

You fell for it.

I find the response very negative. The Government is not really proposing to do anything. We suggested that it might consider legislation, but we are told that any legislation will be produced as part of a future legislative programme. The Parliament is not overburdened with legislation at the moment—in fact, we are having debates on food and drink fortnight and other exciting matters. We raised the question about the pensions, but we have been told that we must wait for England and Wales, which seems an unusual suggestion from the Scottish National Party Administration.

My bête noir, Dr Woods, has a huge administration underneath him but seems not to do a great deal. He is leaving soon, is he not?

Yes. Dr Woods is leaving to take over the health service in New Zealand.

Oh my god.

No doubt we send him our best wishes in that endeavour.

Yes, indeed—and the people of New Zealand.

I find the response very negative, like many of the responses that we get from the health department.

I am interested in the views of other members. On the 2003 act, it is reasonable to point out that the situation that arose will not arise with any frequency—it was extremely unusual. Therefore, the closing of a loophole does not seem to be a priority for legislation. We have been told that, should legislation be required “on an emergency basis”, that could be produced urgently; at the moment, it does not seem to be a particularly urgent matter.

On the pensions issue, it is my view that there would be merit in the review being undertaken on a UK basis, given that very similar issues arise south of the border.

I agree, but you and I are unionists.

I am happy to hear members’ comments. Or are we happy just to note the response?

Am I right in thinking that we would not have to wait for the UK Government to undertake a review if Scotland were independent? If Lord Foulkes were to support that, we could probably move forward a wee bit quicker.

I suggest that we draw a line under that particular point of debate, as we are in danger of straying off the topic. Are we happy just to note the response?

Members indicated agreement.

---

“Overview of mental health services”

Agenda item 4 is a response from the accountable officer to our report, “Overview of mental health services”. Do members have any points to raise on that?

I have frequently raised the issue of antidepressant prescribing. Having read the response from the Scottish Government, I am reasonably satisfied that some of the concerns that we have raised from time to time are being at least agreed with and addressed. We need to know about people and patients rather than dosage and levels of antidepressants—we need to know how many people are being prescribed antidepressants. Some work is going on, particularly in NHS Ayrshire and Arran, to draw together that kind of information.

The other main point, for me, is whether psychological therapies are producing a beneficial effect. Some further work on that is going on. Point 126 of the Government’s response refers to members’ concern about how effective those therapies are, as there was some confusion about that.

I am pleased to see that the concerns that the committee has raised are being addressed and that work is going on. I look forward to a follow-up report back to the committee.

Do any other members want to comment on the response?

We should take up the suggestion that the issues be included in the legacy paper for the session 4 committee to consider. I am keen on legacy papers now that I am about to go.

That is an entirely reasonable suggestion. There are a number of on-going issues, not least the one that Willie Coffey raised regarding antidepressant prescribing. Work is on-going, and a future committee will want to keep an eye on the issue. If members are agreed, we will include something about that in our legacy paper.

Members indicated agreement.

The committee will take item 5 in private.

10:44 Meeting continued in private until 11:37.