Seòmar agus comataidhean

Looking ahead, if the committee or the public wanted to know what the positive outcomes were for people using mental health services in Scotland, would we look to the individual IJBs and health boards or to the Government for the answer? There has been an awful lot of increased spending on that whole area—I will come to that in a wee while. The public can, rightly, ask what is happening with the money that we are spending and whether it is having a positive outcome for people. Where would we get the answer? Should we turn to Dr Davies’s team for a national picture, or should we ask all our individual health boards for a response? What do you think?

In the interests of time, convener, this is possibly the last query from me. Earlier, Dr Davies, you mentioned the new psychological therapies specification. The same question applies to that. How will that roll out, and how will you monitor its progress?

What is the money doing? We keep hearing about high vacancy and turnover rates in the service. What is the money—that substantial additional funding across the board—being spent on?

That is good to hear. Does anyone else want to come in?

That is great to hear. It would be great if colleagues around the online table could send the committee some examples of where the spend is making a positive difference in their areas. I am sure that the committee would greatly welcome that.

Good morning, everyone. That takes us neatly into talking about outcomes in general. My question is probably aimed at Dr Davies. The Auditor General for Scotland’s report was pretty critical in saying that

“The Scottish Government does not have sufficient oversight of ... mental health services”

and it has no information on the quality of care or outcomes for people. We have discussed a systematic approach to collecting data, but what about outcomes, Dr Davies? The outcomes framework has been published. Do you accept that criticism in the Auditor General’s report? What is the Government doing to address that?

This time, because we are the Public Audit Committee, I want to ask you about money. If you look at exhibit 7 in the Auditor General’s report, you can see quite clearly that the funding allocation for adult mental health services has significantly increased over the years. In 2020, it was £130 million; in 2021, it was £296 million; in 2022, it was £258 million; and this year, it was £290 million. Is that money being spent wisely and appropriately, and is it having a positive impact on adult mental health services in the areas that you collectively represent? Can you see the benefit of the money and the spend? The public are bound to want to know that. I would welcome a view from any of our colleagues from the health boards, as quickly as you can.

Thank you very much for that. In the interests of time, I will leave it there.

That is very helpful. I have a follow-up question. I am curious as to whether we have any figures on the average percentage of time for which a second home is occupied per year. Council colleagues may have a figure for that. If you live in your house, I imagine that that would generally count as 100 per cent occupation. What would that figure be for a second home?

Yes.