Chamber and committees

I will ask about partnership working to address poor mental health. This question is for Fiona Davies and then Hannah Axon. How are integration joint boards and councils addressing the recommendation to

“urgently improve how mental health, primary care, housing, employability, and welfare support services work together to address and prevent the causes of poor mental health, by developing shared goals and targets, sharing data and jointly funding services”?

I was not on the committee when the report was published, so I am not as expert on the matter as everybody else on the committee. Looking again at some of the responses to the committee, I go back to my previous comment about timescales and actions. I have heard a lot about the Caledonian system, which seems to get a lot of good press.

The justice partners round-table discussion is referred to. Again, the response says that areas of focus will be discussed over the next 12 months. There is going to be a lot of consideration and exploration, but there do not ever seem to be any firm actions or timescales for implementation. In the area that we are talking about, the quicker we implement the recommendations that the experts tell us will work, the quicker we will see results and improvements in the justice system for the people who need it most.

Again, we need timescales and actions. It seems that people are just talking about things rather than actually doing things.

My colleague Russell Findlay has made most of the points that I was going to make. However, going through the cabinet secretary’s letter, I noted that there is a bit in it about “successive increases” and the fact that resource has been increased by 60 per cent. I want to know more about that, because a 60 per cent increase sounds really good, but if the budget was not there in the first place, was that enough? Was the original budget enough? Did the 60 per cent increase cover things that should have been implemented in the first place?

The cabinet secretary also says that the recommendations

“are complex and require resource”,

which, again, comes back to funding. She mentions the national health service and how it will have everything done by the end of 2023. There is only one month left in 2023, so I would expect an update on how that will be achieved. Basically, we have one and a half months left, and the final two weeks will be the Christmas holidays.

There is no note on whether Ms Imery will be staying on in her role, whether she has been replaced or whether the role has been ended. There is no information on that. The cabinet secretary mentions that she had a meeting with Ms Imery and that there was to be another on 21 November with Mr Matheson. Did that meeting take place? If so, what was the outcome?

I move on to the letter from Caroline Lamb. It says:

“As Ms Imery noted at the Justice Committee there was no timescale set for the implementation of the recommendations”.

I imagine that the NHS chief executives get paid a lot of money. Why did they not set their own timescales? It seems bizarre to have a report that made all those recommendations, but to have no timescales for when they will be implemented. What were the reasons for Ms Lamb and the chief executives not putting in their own timescales? She has now said that implementation will be

“by the end of this year.”

The Scottish Prison Service has given us an action plan that covers everything that it is working on along with the NHS. I note that one of the columns says what action will be taken

“in the next 2/3 months”,

but there is nothing in it. The year will end in a month and a half’s time. I would have expected to see all the actions that are happening with the SPS and the NHS. They basically have six weeks or whatever to go and implement all of this, but there is nothing in their action plan. I would have expected to see more in the Prison Service action plan.

I would like to ask a wee question about recruitment and retention. What are the reasons for the high vacancy and turnover rates in our mental health workforce? What impact is reliance on locum workers having on service provision?

Thank you for that. Given that we are short on time, Dr Srireddy, if you wanted to provide any further information, it would be helpful if you could do so in writing.

Can you comment on the effectiveness of the new mental health workforce roles, including any views that you might have on the recently published “Mental Health and Wellbeing—Workforce Action Plan 2023-2025”? Does the plan give you a sense of how we are going to achieve what it sets out?

Action 15 in the “Mental Health Strategy: 2017-2027” is to

“Increase the workforce to give access to dedicated mental health professionals to all A&Es, all GP practices, every police station custody suite, and to our prisons. Over the next five years increasing additional investment to £35 million for 800 additional mental health workers in those key settings.”

Derek Frew and Dr Williams, what access do you have to mental health workers?

I was looking at the definition of trauma-informed practice. We have heard in evidence that many of the criminal justice agencies have started to bring in trauma-informed practice without legislation being in place. When we heard from NHS Education for Scotland, it suggested that there would be benefits in extending the definition. What are your thoughts on that? If we do not get the definition right, will we run the risk of organisations only working up to the letter of the law and not going above and beyond that to keep finding new ways to improve?

I agree with that, but putting it into practice will have an initial cost. We have your letter that came to the committee last night, and all through that letter there is reference to financial constraints. Those are why a lot of previous legislation has not been implemented. I would be concerned that, because of the costs of implementing the bill, there could be unintended consequences from other things getting left on the side, and we could end up inadvertently causing more trauma to victims.

I have a final question, on the Parole Board for Scotland. The Parole Board said that it was not confident that the bill would change the traumatic experience of victims going through the Parole Board process. Do you have any plans to make more specific provisions relating to the Parole Board in the bill in order to change that?

Thank you. You have actually answered one of my other questions—I was going to ask whether you are concerned that there is not a sufficient number of solicitors who are willing to be included on the register. You seem to be doing work to recruit solicitors, so that answers that question.

I go back to the cost. You referred to the letter that you sent to the committee last night, which says that

“there are budgetary pressures in relation to implementing the Act in full”

amounting to

“£15 million a year.”

It goes on to say:

“The Vulnerable Witnesses (Criminal Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2019 ... has not yet been implemented beyond Phase 1”.

Again, in relation to implementation of aspects of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021, the letter states that those

“all have associated resource implications.”

It also says that implementation was affected

“due to resourcing and other priorities following the Programme for Government”.

I wonder, therefore, whether we should look at some of the legislation that has not yet been fully implemented, rather than trying to batter on by bringing in even more legislation that will not be implemented unless we get the proper funding for it. The implementation of that previous legislation would have a huge impact on some of the trauma that victims and witnesses face.

As the letter notes, one aspect of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 was about allowing victims

“to remain in the family home”

by

“enabling a social landlord to transfer a tenancy to a victim/survivor”.

Again, ensuring that we have implemented some of the previous legislation would go a huge way towards making sure that we reduce trauma. Should we perhaps stop and look at some of the previous legislation, and put the funding in to get it implemented? As you have said, there is a will within the judiciary to undertake trauma-informed practice.

Maybe more.