Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are there any barriers to different groups working together? Earlier, you talked about making the best use of money, and you said that direct pots of funding can restrict partnership working. Are you facing any barriers?

You mentioned community link workers and said that you had a vibrant third sector. Lots of money is being invested in mental health. When groups or organisations in localities get funding from the Scottish Government, is the availability of that extra pathway made clear enough to local authorities or GP practices, so that they are aware that another group has been created that can help?

I ask Hannah Axon to comment.

Thank you. Does Hannah Axon want to comment?

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?