Seòmar agus comataidhean

That was an interesting insight into the extent to which demand has increased and how that constrains your freedom in relation to resource allocation. We will need to consider that further.

Capital and revenue budgets have been split since 1998, and there is a proposal to have preventative expenditure as a third component. In Glasgow, the situation around homelessness services is particularly acute—I understand that there is an overspend in the current financial year of £27 million, and that is forecast to increase next year. Preventative expenditure could act almost as a kind of automatic stabiliser, because there is a statutory obligation to meet that need, which can create an uncontrolled spiral in expenditure. We must also consider the opportunity cost with regard to capital investment in housing stock and the expansion of housing acquisition and supply and so on—I accept that that is not necessarily within the control of an IJB-HSCP. We want to achieve our mental health goals, but one of the foundations of good mental health involves meeting the hierarchy of needs—shelter, housing and so on.

It is quite clear that we are treating a symptom of a wider structural problem, and the essence of preventative spend would involve punching through that silo and taking a cross-cutting approach to dealing with the immediate crisis. How is the particular scenario that I mentioned playing out? It seems to me like there is quite a looming crisis in Glasgow, and it is probably the case in other parts of Scotland as well. However, we appear to be in a straitjacket with regard to our capacity to bring public resources to bear to deal with homelessness in a structural and preventative way by, for example, building new stock rather than simply treating the symptoms by renting hotels.

I thank the members of the panel for attending today. I think that we have already heard consensus among the panel that the current data on mental health budgets does not give a clear picture of activity at a national level and that there could perhaps be an improved connection between budget allocations and stated priorities for mental health at national and local levels. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in that assessment.

Our main source of data is Public Health Scotland’s costs book, and the latest figures are for the financial year 2023-24. The 2023 report from Audit Scotland on adult mental health highlights that

“Limited data and inconsistency in how spending is categorised make it difficult to track spending on adult mental health.”

The Mental Health Foundation’s submission also highlighted the issue of data gaps and inconsistencies, and it is not clear that the Government has responded to those data gaps.

Perhaps Mr MacLeod could highlight what we need to do, or what the Government needs to do, to improve the data picture. It is one thing to criticise the lack of data, but what would good look like? Could you hint at what that should look like? Are there other countries or other methodologies that we should emulate?

My thanks to the panel. I am finding this really interesting, because in the mental health context, it can be quite tricky to reconcile different approaches. What might suit a logistically rational top-down approach—say, a diabetes screening programme or vaccination programme—might not work as neatly with a mental health programme. There might be much more gradual and interrelated impacts with regard to housing, urban planning, the community, employment, training and so on. How rich is our data on mental health budgets and their impact on and interfaces with other public services to support the use of a top-down, analytical, gradual, PBMA approach to allocating resources at a local level?

Okay. I am just thinking about this from an urban planning perspective, which is a personal interest of mine. An American urban planner in the 1960s, Jane Jacobs, contrasted what she called cataclysmic money—that is, a sudden influx of capital spending to do something like slum clearance and building a new housing estate—with gradual money, or community-based investment made over a longer period. The latter might preserve a lot more of the rich, organic, intangible activity that is valuable, but it is the sort of activity that does not trigger any signals that might be recognised by urban planners looking down, godlike, on a situation. They might see building new housing as the simple solution, but it actually destroys rich activity and value in the process. From your own perspectives, are there any such risks in using PBMA in a mental health setting, given the much softer and more gradual and intangible aspect to how it works?

Who would own the gathering of that data? Does that need to happen at every level at which the data is gathered? Central Government, local government, local health boards and so on often dispute who is responsible for gathering such information. Moreover, is it always appropriate for transparency—including, say, putting it in the public domain—to ensure accountability with regard to the data picture?

Okay. Thank you.

Are there, from a mental health perspective, risks in how you calculate cost avoidance, because you are trying to prove a negative that is, in some instances, hypothetical? Supporting people to stay in a home setting through giving them cooking and other lifestyle skills, companionship and so on might avoid addiction issues or entry into the justice system. However, it is very hard to say, hypothetically, that we have saved the country X thousands of pounds by investing a relatively small sum now in stabilising someone’s situation.

Anecdotally, when I was at HMP Barlinnie two weeks ago, the governor was telling me about a young man who was back in on a short sentence. He had been so humiliated at not knowing how to pay his rent that he ran away from his accommodation, took drugs and ended up back in prison. What if someone had been there to support that young man to deal with the stress of a setting that most citizens would be able to deal with? He just could not deal with it; because of how he had been brought up, he was not taught that stuff. How do you prove that sort of thing? It might be a situation particular to that individual, but it has created a spiral of costs for the country that could have been avoided. It is hard to put that into a spreadsheet.

I want to ask about the mental health implications of the plan, particularly the idea of time poverty as well as financial poverty. We know that there are significant class and gender-based variations in food and nutrition and in the role in food preparation in the community, and there has been a proposal for public diners and more communal dining spaces. What is your view on the potential for that to be rolled out in a more systemic way across Scotland?

I want to turn to the plan’s implications for mental health aspects. We have spoken about the potential social benefits of communal dining, but I also want to consider time poverty. Professor Jaacks mentioned that the time that is generally spent in the UK preparing and cooking food is broadly similar to the situation in France, for example. However, certainly in my experience, there are significant disparities in pressure, stress and childcare that might create variations with regard to class or gender-based roles in the community. Do you have any insights into whether, from a public health perspective, having communal dining or developing spaces such as local pantries and co-operatives might improve mental health in the community? The issue is not about individual behaviour as much as it is about creating more localised settings, even at a multiple family level, that could potentially improve social wellbeing and confidence. Does anyone want to give us their take on that?