Chamber and committees

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

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?

Good morning. One of the key issues that was identified in your briefing is that Community Justice Scotland has reported that data deficiencies mean that progress against national community justice outcomes is still not being effectively measured. Have you been able to ascertain yet whether Community Justice Scotland has identified where those deficiencies exist and who is ultimately responsible for them?

You have broadly answered the second question that I was going to ask. When you said there was little evidence of a shift towards the use of community-based sentences or of improved outcomes, is that due to a lack of data? You have pretty much said that is not the case. I want to broaden that out. As we look at the wider use of community justice and community payback orders, if that trend is achieved , will that be a more difficult environment to audit and to benchmark and in which to assess outcomes and people’s experience than a custodial environment? Obviously, if somebody goes into prison, you know the amount of time that they are in for and you know their release date, but, in relation to doing community justice payback orders, for example, how easy is it to monitor the hours that an individual has undertaken?

Finally, in relation to that, community payback orders and the performance is not included in the victim notification scheme. Is that a policy decision or does that point to any doubts that you may have about the integrity of the data?

I have a final question about the complexities of the data and comparing apples with apples and pears with pears. As community justice grows as a concept and, presumably, first offenders and those who have committed less serious crimes go down the community justice route, whereas repeat offenders and those who have committed more serious crimes go down the custodial route, how will you continue to compare the two? Obviously, a repeat offender of a more serious crime is probably more likely to offend again than a first offender of a relatively minor crime. In terms of accountability in presenting the data, will we have to be more granular and maybe add more caveats to explain that we are not comparing apples with apples and pears with pears between the two forms of justice?

From an almost philosophical or top-line perspective, what factors do you believe make the biggest difference in closing the poverty-related attainment gap? What are the key barriers to making more rapid progress? Although progress is being made in some areas of the country, the issue persists, and it is clearly a stubborn problem.