���˿���

A report in The Scotsman this morning, which is based on a Scottish Parliament information centre report, says that up to three quarters of people in certain neighbourhoods of certain areas have not yet been vaccinated. There is a concern that reliance on digital means that some people are hard to reach, because they do not have a reliable internet connection or do not have devices. What is your impression of what more the Scottish Government should and could do to ensure that those who fall into that category are captured and brought into the vaccination programme?

Is there a risk that, if you do not persuade the public through a process of raising awareness, you could damage confidence in the concept more generally? In the example that I gave, which involved an offence that 77 per cent of people believed should carry a custodial sentence, that offence would, in practice, attract a community payback order. In such cases, do we just have to say “Tough” to the public, because the system does not reflect their concept of justice?

I want to look at NHS boards’ use of the system to allocate and reschedule appointments. The national vaccination scheduling system, or NVSS, has obviously been adapted over time to improve its functionality. An example of an issue from my constituency in the early days is that people in East Lothian were not necessarily given appointments there, but were routed to West Lothian, Midlothian and Edinburgh, even when there was capacity in East Lothian. I think that many of those issues have been fixed, but what risks, if any, continue to exist for health boards in using the NVSS?

The Scottish Sentencing Council’s report says that the council is of the view that

“there is a lack of public awareness of, and confidence in, community disposals.”

I want to dig a little deeper into that, as it suggests that more work needs to be done to raise and enhance public understanding of community justice.

The report also refers to an Ipsos MORI survey that was done a few years ago which looked at various scenarios and tested public opinion and confidence in relation to custodial sentences versus community sentences. One issue is whether greater awareness will ultimately lead to greater confidence in community justice. A scenario that was put to those who were polled concerned an individual who was found to have indecent images of a child on their laptop. People were asked whether that individual should get a custodial sentence, and 77 per cent were of the view that that should carry a custodial sentence. However, that would most likely attract a community payback order, because there were no images of abuse of the child.

Who should be in the driving seat: the Government, the public or the judiciary? I do not have confidence that greater awareness will lead to greater confidence in the system. What is the Government’s current thinking on that?

One of the Government’s core rationales for the vaccination passport system was the hope that it would lead to an uplift in vaccination rates among certain target groups, one of which is young people. The system is still in its infancy, but do you have any evidence to suggest that it is doing that?

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?

My final question is perhaps for Alex Cumming. The Government has made £40 million available for CAMHS improvement work, based on the CAMHS service specification, to try to achieve a national standard of service. The referrals pathway was one of the key issues that were identified in the 29 recommendations. What are the most significant gaps that need to be addressed in the referrals pathway?

My first question is mainly for the Auditor General—it is just a point of clarification, really. At point 8 in the blog, you note:

“Falling referrals to CAMHS look like the one bright spot”.

I was slightly surprised that the number is down, but I note that you add the caveat that there are probably extenuating circumstances. A recent report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists pointed to data from Public Health Scotland that showed that, in the second quarter of this year, there were 10,193 referrals to CAMHS, which was the highest ever figure and equates to one in 100. Do you have any update on the data that might point to that figure being almost a mirage?

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.