Seòmar agus comataidhean

Perhaps I have pointed to the areas where we do not have robust evidence. Undoubtedly, there is a level of unmet need that we have not adequately quantified yet, because it is not in the system.

Absolutely. I have been very clear that we can quantify a good amount of the unmet need. Public Health Scotland already produces tables showing those who have been referred into the system and who are awaiting an assessment and those who have been assessed but who do not yet have their package, so we are absolutely certain about much of the unmet need. We have robust evidence on that. There is a very small proportion of the unmet need that I do not have robust evidence on yet, and perhaps I should not have focused on that.

Again, on the economic benefits, I have said that there are areas where this work is difficult. It is, for example, difficult to know how many unpaid carers are out there. In the business case, however, we have detailed the stuff for which we have a robust economic case. We have put in it that, in 2021-22, 236,000 people in Scotland were reportedly receiving social care support or services. We have made an assumption and said that if just 10 per cent of that group—that is, 23,600 people—experience a 0.1 point improvement in wellbeing because of the establishment of the NCS, for the reasons discussed in the business case, that could lead to a potential annual benefit of around £34 million at 2021 prices.

The business case also details that around 130,000 people were employed in the adult social care sector. If it is assumed that just 10 per cent of those people—13,000 carers—experience a 0.1 point improvement in their wellbeing on the life satisfaction scale from the establishment of the NCS, it might lead to a potential annual benefit of around £19 million at 2021 prices.

Therefore, I do not think that it is fair to say that we have not provided any economic detail; indeed, I think that we have provided really solid economic detail in the business case. However, I accept that we cannot be absolutely certain. Those are estimates; we have used calculations and formulas and have made a best guess at what we think that it will deliver, but I accept that there is uncertainty around that.

What I would state time and time again is that I am absolutely certain that this is the right thing to do. I am also certain that it will deliver economic benefits.

The first thing to say is that those are not direct costs from the bill. That is not our workforce, and those people will not be employed by us.

I ask Richard McCallum to come in on that, as that is his area of expertise.

Yes, but do you want that civil service workforce to continue to work on those issues or do you want to build a system in which they are dealt with better in the future?

The wider workforce is not directly employed by the Government—that is one of the challenges. For social work, for example, I think that the national social work agency is a jewel in the crown of the national care service. I agree that, for social work, work would need to be done to improve its status and the support that it gets in the national planning for that profession, regardless of the national care service. However, we need the primary legislation in order to bring the national social work agency into being and to fit it into the national care board so that it can have oversight of the system.

The national social work agency will deliver better support and mentorship for newly qualified social workers and better support and straightforward pathways for advanced practice. I just do not think that it is possible for individual local authorities, which employ social workers, to do that.

Yes, there were. There is a children’s panel, which helped us with the development of Foxgrove and has been part of the process of designing the building to ensure that it meets children’s needs. It also engaged in some consultation with children and young people who had been detained in medium-secure settings. Ruth Christie can say a bit more about that process.

To be clear, all of those operational details are the responsibility of NHS Ayrshire and Arran. A question with that level of detail should probably be put to NHS Ayrshire and Arran, which will be charged with that. It is easy for us to say what we expect to happen, but if you need reassurance on whether a risk assessment has happened and whether training needs were identified during that risk assessment, it is probably best to put that question to NHS Ayrshire and Arran.

Thank you, convener. I thank the committee for asking me to attend today to give evidence on the draft Mental Health (National Secure Adolescent Inpatient Service: Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2023.

Before we begin the questions, I thought that it would be helpful for me to provide some short opening comments. I am pleased that, after many years of planning and development, the national secure adolescent in-patient service—known as Foxgrove—is almost ready to admit patients. Foxgrove will be a vital and important addition to children and young people’s mental health services in Scotland.

Foxgrove will provide services for children and young people aged between 12 and 18 who are subject to measures for compulsory care and treatment, have a mental disorder, present a significant risk to themselves or other people and require a medium-secure level of security in order to meet their needs. Having the facility in Scotland will mean that young people with extremely complex needs can have their needs met in a purpose-built and designed facility, with expert care delivering high-quality mental health care and treatment.

Members will hear me speak more about the mental health strategy in the chamber this afternoon, but the opening of the facility supports the vision that is set out in Scotland’s “Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy” for a Scotland that is

“free from stigma and inequality, where everyone fulfils their right to achieve the best mental health and wellbeing possible.”

One of the outcomes within the strategy is:

“increased availability of timely, effective support, care and treatment that promote and support people’s mental health and wellbeing, meeting individual needs.”

Foxgrove will play a key part in that by providing a dedicated and appropriately skilled multidisciplinary healthcare team to deliver the level of care that young people deserve, closer to home.

Adding Foxgrove to the regulations will ensure that the service can implement a range of safety and security measures to support the therapeutic environment and ensure the safety and security of children and young people as well as staff and visitors. The measures will be applied only when necessary, and they will be applied in a proportional way that is sensitive to the developmental stage of the child or young person.

Of course, it goes without saying that, when the measures are applied, they will also uphold and protect the human rights of children and young people.

Moving on to the specific the statutory instrument that is before the committee today, the regulations make amendments to the Mental Health (Safety and Security) (Scotland) Regulations 2005 and the Mental Health (Detention in Conditions of Excessive Security) (Scotland) Regulations 2015, so that the same safety and security measures that are available in other medium-secure in-patient settings can be applied, where necessary, in Foxgrove.

Children and young people who are detained in Foxgrove will also have the same right of appeal against detention in conditions of excessive security as those detained in other medium-secure in-patient settings. I consider that a right of appeal is an essential safeguard in the process, and that children and young people should have that right when they are detained in Foxgrove.

The regulations do not create any new enforcement or monitoring mechanisms; they simply apply the existing mechanisms to Foxgrove.

Laying the regulations is an important step in preparing Foxgrove to admit patients, which it hopes to do early in 2024. They lay the framework for a safe, secure and—importantly—therapeutic environment, where children and young people’s human rights are upheld and protected, and they allow them to appeal the level of security at which they are detained.

I am happy to answer any questions that the committee has.

I will ask Dr Blower to tell you a little bit more about how CAMHS operates.

In general, and as you would expect, medical services that are available to children operate with UNCRC at their heart. In Scotland, we use getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—as a framework for all public service interaction with children and young people, so you would expect that to be human rights compliant and age appropriate.

With regard to the consultation, we have not done a formal children’s rights and wellbeing screening sheet and impact assessment to assess how compliant these regulations are, but we have asked a lot of the questions relating to the CRWIA as we have gone along. The reason for not doing a formal CRWIA is that these regulations are an amendment to existing regulations and they do not contain any new protective measures; they are about applying measures that are already available to a new site. We would certainly consider doing a full and formal CRWIA if that was what Parliament wanted.

We think that the timescales are right, because the patients are not likely to be short-stay patients; they are likely to be longer-term patients. We think that the appeal processes are appropriate.

I do not know whether it would be reasonable to ask Dr Blower about that. Would you like to give a little bit more information about that, Aileen? Ruth Christie could perhaps then pick up on the question about consultation on the timescales.