Chamber and committees

Are there challenges with the collation of the information? I know that there have been issues with the timescale for information collation in some other parts of the application process. Do you feel that that is not an issue?

Ms Black, do you want to comment on any other barriers that exist within the appeals process?

To go back to that resourcing piece and how personnel are supported, I suppose that your view is that there could be a shift in workload and the terms and conditions that are associated with that.

Tied to this is the stress that an appellant feels about the process. Going through the process can be a stressful time, particularly when it comes to waiting and to the collection of information. What more could we do to make the experience less stressful?

I rise to make a brief contribution on amendment 29. I appreciate Roz McCall’s comments on the concerns that have been raised with her by the people that she mentioned in her remarks. However, I want to put on the record the evidence that a number of organisations in Scotland, including in the social work profession, have raised about the challenges that such an amendment presents in seeking to take a blanket approach to separating children in secure care according to whether they have caused harm or had harm caused to them, which we have heard about during the debate.

When I speak to members of the social work profession, it is clear that an amendment that takes such a blanket approach would fly in the face of the principles identified in the Kilbrandon report, which we have discussed several times during the bill’s progress and in the course of the amendment process. It would significantly change the tone and ethos of social work for children and young people across Scotland. Roz McCall has outlined a key concern about local authority resourcing, which has been referenced repeatedly during the debate. However, I do not believe that such a blanket approach is the best way to deal with it.

Sue Webber’s amendment 1 deals with a particular issue and a particular challenge by ensuring that safe provision is considered prior to the approval of a secure setting.

I highlight a letter that the CYCJ wrote to the committee in advance of stage 2, which pointed out that

“Since its inception secure care has provided support, supervision and care to children who have both been harmed, and who have caused harm.”

The CYCJ went on to say that, in its opinion,

“any suggestion that secure care is not capable”

of supporting young people to share those spaces is unfounded in its body of evidence.

I also draw members’ attention to evidence from the Department for Education in England in its 2021 report “Secure children’s homes: placing welfare and justice children together”, which looked at the placing of children who are in secure care on a welfare basis in the same setting as those who are there on a justice basis. That report found no evidence to support concerns that placing children from justice and welfare systems together in mixed settings causes an increased risk of abuse.

Notwithstanding the important concerns about resourcing that have rightly been raised, I have a concern that such a blanket approach would not be appropriate and would not be in keeping with the Kilbrandon principles, which I think we all want to support through the bill.

It is very important for us to hear those points. I have heard from other third sector organisations that, when funding is late in being announced or committed to, there is a sense that organisations will bridge the gap somehow or that such services will always exist. However, as Neil Mathers outlined, the challenge is that it takes a lot of resource to have such services funded by public donations or other grants and trusts. Have people experienced that bridging issue when the Government has been late in delivering funding?

I am keen to understand whether details of spending on suicide prevention should be included in progress reports on the strategy. Would that give people a better sense of the progress that was or was not being made in budget allocation? Would it be helpful in showing the wider picture and allowing organisations to plan better? Should the committee consider that matter in our conversations with the Government?

Good morning to the panel. My questions will focus on the funding landscape and the funding of suicide prevention work in particular. Yesterday, I read comments from Samaritans Scotland and SAMH on the broader picture of funding for mental health services. Samaritans Scotland has said that, given the challenges,

“There is no indication that the Scottish Government will meet its own target of increasing mental health spend to 10% of the NHS budget”.

Samaritans also recognised that “Creating Hope Together” is a very ambitious strategy and said that funding is required to deliver it. I want to give Neil Mathers and Dan Farthing the opportunity to speak to those comments, and then we will have a broader conversation.

I am interested in what you said, Dan, about the adequacy of funding and the sustainability of funding. Last week, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations was in the Parliament speaking about those issues in a broader context in the voluntary and third sector. I am interested in the third sector work that is going on in this space, which many people round the table are engaged in. Does year-to-year funding present challenges to your ability to test change and test what works, because you need a sense of security to do that? I imagine that, within this ambitious plan, we want to test what works. Is year-to-year funding limiting or holding back initiatives that could move forward?

I hear what the member says about the support or otherwise for the motion, but will she recognise the concern about Social Security Scotland, the challenges around waiting times and the issues around fairness, dignity and respect—the motion refers to that—as I outlined in my contribution?