|Darren Millar AM|
|John Griffiths AM|
|Julie Morgan AM|
|Llyr Gruffydd AM|
|Lynne Neagle AM||Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor|
|Michelle Brown AM|
|Derith Rhisiart||Rheolwr Gwasanaeth—Eiriolaeth mewn Lleoliadau Iechyd Meddwl, Gwasanaeth Eiriolaeth Ieuenctid Cenedlaethol Cymru|
|Service Manager—Advocacy in Mental Health Settings, National Youth Advocacy Services Cymru|
|Gareth Jacobs||Rheolwr Gweithredol—Darpariaeth Eiriolaeth ac Iechyd Meddwl, Gwasanaeth Eiriolaeth Ieuenctid Cenedlaethol Cymru|
|Operational Manger—Mental Health and Advocacy Provision, National Youth Advocacy Services Cymru|
|Gareth Rogers||Ail Glerc|
|1. Cyflwyniad, ymddiheuriadau, dirprwyon a datgan buddiannau||1. Introductions, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest|
|2. Ymchwiliad i Iechyd Emosiynol a Meddyliol Plant a Phobl Ifanc - Sesiwn dystiolaeth 16||2. Inquiry into the Emotional and Mental Health of Children and Young People - Evidence session 16|
|3. Papurau i’w nodi||3. Paper(s) to note|
Cofnodir y trafodion yn yr iaith y llefarwyd hwy ynddi yn y pwyllgor. Yn ogystal, cynhwysir trawsgrifiad o’r cyfieithu ar y pryd. Lle mae cyfranwyr wedi darparu cywiriadau i’w tystiolaeth, nodir y rheini yn y trawsgrifiad.
The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the transcript.
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:30.
The meeting began at 09:30.
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to today's meeting of the Children, Young People and Education Committee. We've received apologies for absence from Hefin David and Mark Reckless. Are there any declarations of interest for Members to make? No, okay. Thank you.
Item 2 this morning, then, is evidence session 16 on our inquiry into the emotional and mental health of children and young people. Our session is with the National Youth Advocacy Service Cymru. I'm very pleased to welcome Gareth Jacobs, who is operational manager, mental health and advocacy provision, and Derith Rhisiart, service manager, advocacy in mental health settings. So, thank you, both, for attending this morning. If you're happy, we'll go straight into questions from Members. The first questions are from Julie Morgan.
Thank you. Good morning. In your paper, you say that not all health boards are commissioning independent mental health advocacy services for all groups. So, how confident are you that children and young people in Wales are getting an active offer of independent mental health advocacy services?
Good morning. Thank you for welcoming NYAS to give oral evidence today. In terms of the active offer, that is with the national advocacy approach under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014—that comes under Part 10 and there's a particular code of practice that enables children and young people who are looked after, or those subject to safeguarding procedures, to have access to or to have that active offer. What we don't see is the same active offer approach under the Mental Health Act 2007, where young people have access to independent mental health advocates or generic mental health advocacy services if they're based in hospital settings. So, the two don't marry up well. So, I think there needs to be more work done to offer guidance—more prescriptive guidance—around the active offer for those young people who are receiving services within the mental health arena.
Right. So, they would get it under one bit of legislation, but not under the other.
Well, that all depends who the provider is. So, if it's the same provider, then maybe the active offer would follow through. But, as we're aware, because we work in these settings, there are many different providers across Wales who are providing the services, and the provision is not consistent. It's not the same elsewhere in Wales. So, we're not confident that young people are getting the active offer, and I think a lot more can be done to bring together the work that's been done with the social services and well-being Act and what's already existing within the Mental Health Act in order to enable people to access their rights and entitlements and to see an independent mental health advocate.
Right. Thank you. Healthcare Inspectorate Wales have identified some inequalities in access to independent mental health advocacy services across Wales. Do you have any information about which health boards are currently commissioning independent mental health advocacy provision and those that don't?
I think what we see—and again this is the kind of picture across Wales—is that they do commission, but the issue is bringing adults' and children's commissioning groups together to do that for all age groups. What you find is that some providers only work with young people over the age of 18, and others that don't or are not commissioned to work with under-17s. So, it's quite hit and miss, depending on where you are in Wales, whether you do get that service.
There is definitely an inconsistency in the approach as well. So, it doesn't feel, if you were in different areas, that you would get the same service. So, it can be quite patchy, and it can actually vary within the same local authority as well, which is—.
It's dependent on, as Gareth said, the provider as well. There are many factors that are covered in general around people's awareness of what an independent mental health advocate is. Even staff and professionals around that have difficulty sometimes seeing who is eligible or not. There are many factors that can contribute towards that.
Right. So, there's not a built-in knowledge, widely across Wales, about this.
There's an assumption that there is, but there isn't always that sort of knowledge around the Act, because it is—. For instance, the comparison between generic and IMHA—again, there are overlaps and grey areas, so people have difficulties in determining which should provide which support. So, even on that lower level, it can cause confusion.
One approach, definitely, that we've been discussing for quite a while is clarity around the role of an advocate. What we see quite often in our work is that it would be useful if the role of generic and IMHA was one. It would reduce confusion and there would be an understanding that they could offer that support for that young person, regardless of their needs, in order to ensure that their wishes and feelings are heard, rather than specifically around care or medication or specifically that IMHA role.
That would also reduce resources, by putting those two roles together, and it would also increase the quality of training within the workforce. Just going back a little bit to your question in terms of what could be done, I think that there's a reliance on advocacy providers when they're commissioned to do that awareness raising, and we're not always commissioned 100 per cent to deliver the service in the first place because of local government cutbacks. So, to be realistic, I think there needs to be more prescriptive guidance in terms of workforce development within not just the health service but within the wider children's sector.
I don't want to be drawn into the politics of whether—. I think it is resource led. That's definitely right. Yes, it's right to say that, since 2008, we have seen a massive reduction in resources, in particular to independent mental health advocacy, and advocacy across the board. The only difference that we see is in the national approach, in terms of children's statutory advocacy, where that has been cost-calculated and there have been lots of statistics and research done around that. But we haven't seen the same approach taken for children who want to receive or access an enhanced service in the community or in a hospital setting. We don't see the same systems or processes set up to resource IMHA as we have done, so, see, in children's statutory advocacy.
Right, thank you. We understand that a small number of children are placed outside Wales in in-patient settings. What access do they have to advocacy?
If you look at the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010, whether you're an informal or a detained patient, you should automatically have access to or you should be offered an independent advocate. Again, we can't say that that is consistently happening. For young people who are placed in England, the law is different in England because, since 2012, it's the local authority and the CCGs—the clinical commissioning groups—in England that have the responsibility for commissioning IMHA. What they should do in England, and what they're supposed to do in Wales, is to get their adults' and children's commissioning teams to come together to ensure that there's a network of advocacy for all age groups. So, in England, wherever they're placed, it's that local authority's responsibility to pick up and resource that IMHA provision.
So, it's not the responsibility of their home local authority, specifically.
No. It would be where they are resident—where they are receiving the service.
And do you have any knowledge about any lack in provision for these young people?
The position is the same in England. It's exactly the same. The adults' commissioning and the children's commissioning are not coming together to look at that in terms of their population needs, in terms of their needs assessments, or the demographics in terms of how many people are receiving mental health services, children or adults. So, you see the same inconsistent commissioning arrangements.
The same pattern.
Right. Thank you. The Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010 extended access to statutory mental health advocacy support to include those on emergency short-term sections. However, those detained in a place of safety under section 135 or 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 are not included. Can you explain why this is the case?
Well, I think it's a resource issue. It comes down to resources. It's as simple as that. Mark Collins, who's the chief constable of Dyfed-Powys Police, gave a speech at the policy forum on mental health in Cardiff last year and he talked about having a role to hear the voice of individuals in crisis situations, especially triaging whilst out with the triage teams. He said there's a void there for listening to patients, and that void could help reduce resources and burdens on the AMHPs—the approved mental health practitioners—police resources, and time.
We've also seen a change in the arrangements of sections 135 and 136 under the Policing and Crime Act 2017, where removal powers and detention powers—taking someone to a place of safety—have slightly changed. It would be a preventative measure and it would make sense to involve independent advocates in crisis situations in the community, because again it's a tool that can help reduce the burden on those other resources such as the police, and, as I've already said, the AMHP services.
So, having advocates involved in that process—how would that work? It would enable us to maybe use the skills of the advocate, through mediation and negotiation, to talk down and enable that person to stay at home—and that is a place of safety for them. So, it's about realistically using what's laid out in sections 135 and 136 to ensure that people who are being removed from their homes are done so with consultation and that they've been listened to and that their views have been taken into account.
Yes, because we've touched on the triage service previously in other evidence sessions and, just for me to understand more clearly—yes, just for clarity really. Because the triage service that we've been told about would be that you'd have a mental health practitioner in the police custody or centre or wherever, and that they then would offer help and advice. When you say 'an advocate', are you talking about somebody else again, or would that very same person step up to be an advocate as well?
Sorry, I didn't quite understand.
In the triage approach that we've had outlined to us, you'd have a mental health professional or practitioner working with the police so that you reduce numbers of admissions to A&E, et cetera. But, when you talk about having an advocate as well as part of that service, would that same person be the mental health practitioner? No. That's what I'm thinking. So, you're talking about another person as well as part of that team who'd be at the police's disposal, if you like, to respond in a crisis situation.
Yes, and they may be a first response to that situation and they would work with the police to, like I said, use their advocacy skills.
Yes, sure, that's what I was thinking, because that's another layer, then, to the service that the police were presenting to us a week ago.
That ensures that independence, as well, and their wishes and feelings. So, that person can quite often feel extremely lost, vulnerable, and thinking that everyone's against them. If they have someone that's clearly there to represent them and their wishes and feelings, it can quite often be seen as a protective measure in the sense of vulnerability and being able to de-escalate rather than escalate the situation.
The last question from me: do you think independent mental health advocacy should be extended to young people in the community receiving intensive help in the community? Because, obviously, the Welsh Government is trying to invest in work in the community.
Definitely. Again, this is something that can seem quite patchy, because when a person detained under the Mental Health Act has had that support and their voice heard and every professional aspect when detained, when released to the community and living independently, there's a vulnerability again, and a feeling that if they haven't got that confidence, they wouldn't be able to voice their concerns or their wishes and feelings. An independent mental health advocate would be able to know the legalities around that, and would be able to support appropriately and make that person feel safe and heard as well.
To what extent, then, do hospital and community health staff understand that young people have a statutory right to an IMHA? To what extent is that being routinely offered to young people?
Again, in principle that should be happening. Anecdotally, more than statistically, the experience that we've found is that it is very dependent on the person and the training. Again, the differences between generic and independent mental health advocates come in as well, because some provisions will have generic advocacy and an IMHA that goes in as well—both can work together with our patients. It's about clarifying different roles, and it's also clarifying what they can and can't do—the rights of the IMHA.
Also, what can often get confused when a staff member or professional does that referral is that, if it gets asked of the patient involved, 'Would you like to have an IMHA to come and see you?', they have every right as an individual to refuse that. Sometimes, that's pushed upon them when they don't want that. Again, as long as they're told time and time again that they have that service available to them, they can refuse it. So, there needs to be a lot of work around clarifying the role.
Again, as I mentioned previously, it's a bit of a grey area about what they are allowed and not allowed to do. We've been working quite hard in different settings to actually use the different roles to clarify what the role of the IMHA is to make sure that everyone's clear, and we do different sessions in English and Welsh to promote that.
The other issue is about having a functional active offer for those people in those settings. Like Derith has said, it's dependent on where you are—it's quite patchy and inconsistent. Again, it's a workforce development issue, in terms of educating the workforce on the differences between the roles, and that's not always clear.
You say it's patchy, so are there particular health board areas or local authority areas where there's a particular issue?
No, it tends to be around the training itself, whether it's the company or the provider, and down to individuals as well, even. The higher you go up the professional levels, the more understanding they tend to have. The people, sometimes, working with them on the ground—that's where the clarity of the rights of those individuals is not always clear.
Yes. So, it's not specific to an area or a lack of anything—funds or anything. It's down to either training or awareness, as you said.
I think the difference with the active offer under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 is that they get that active offer more than once, whereas when you're confused, when you're having a psychotic episode, you're not instantly thinking, 'Oh, I need an advocate.' Someone's trying to offer you something when you're so confused you can't—
You know, you don't have the capacity to understand what's being offered, and then no-one's offering it again. I think there's no systematic way—there needs to be some systematic recording of the opportunities for people to access an IMHA. I don't think the health systems that we have in place do that—they don't monitor who's collecting that data and who's looking at that.
So, the integrity of the offer is what you're talking about there, isn't it, really? You know, is it acceptable to allow a young person who's confused and in a state of distress to refuse an advocate at that point, and then not have the opportunity to take one up later—yes?
I think this is where the clarity, as well, of the IMHA role is—. Quite often if there's a generic service there as well, that generic advocate will have a different approach, in the sense that they will visit weekly, for instance, in order to build that rapport and trust. Where you have a referral for an IMHA, they'll come in, do that piece of work with that individual, and then go. So, it's harder, then, for that young person, who's probably quite often gone through quite difficult times with professionals to build that trust and think, 'What can this person do for me?' So, they don't always get the best out of the service that is there, and again it's, I'm sure, quite a massive piece of work to actually enable that, but that's one of the things that would help a lot.
In terms of community, if young people are in cluster situations, having been introduced to advocacy in the community, it's more likely that person will be consistent and follow it through the system. Because we know that we don't—. In NYAS, one of our values is to be consistent, so we don't change advocates. Once a young person has an advocate, they develop that advocacy relationship, and then we try our very best not to change that advocate. So, they have that same consistent person, they see that same consistent face through their journey, through their recovery. You don't always see that. For looked-after children or children receiving CAMHS services, they may have nine or 10 different social workers during their pathway through the care system, and then, as an adult or on the cusp of reaching adulthood, they may then be in need of adult mental health services or continuing healthcare services. So, it's about having that same consistency you don't always see in terms of the professionals that are working with them, whereas advocates are normally consistent throughout that process.
So, just to clarify, then, it's not just a question of young people not accepting the IMHA and then having it re-offered. You're also saying that there's no monitoring of whether the IMHA is being consistently offered, yes?
It's acknowledged that children and young people who are looked after, including those who are in secure accommodation, are more likely to experience mental health issues. How is advocacy provided for those children and young people across Wales?
Sorry, can you just repeat the first part of the question?
It wasn't really a question. It was really just an introduction. We know that children and young people who are looked after by the state, and those in secure accommodation, are more likely to experience mental health issues, so there's obviously more of a need in those situations. Do you know how those needs are catered for?
Well, for young people who are in secure accommodation under the Children Act 1989, which would be section 25, they would automatically get advocacy because they're in a secure setting. It's there; it's very visible. Whereas, for young people who may be detained in a hospital setting, that's very different, because there are many professionals around them—there's a multidisciplinary team. So, it's very difficult to distinguish, from the two, what you're actually asking. I'm not quite clear, I don't think.
All I'm asking is: how, in your experience, is advocacy provided for children and young people with mental health issues, who are looked after? How is that provided?
Well, they would already be in contact with advocacy services through children's services departments, because they commission advocacy services for looked-after children—for those who are looked after. So, they would automatically, through their social worker, be offered that service. I'm still not quite sure—.
I think, yes, they are more likely to have that support from an advocate, because it's more of a pattern of the pathway that they have. The difficulty is the young people who are in the community and then go into psychiatric intensive care unit settings or secure mental health settings. That's where it's not guaranteed, because it's really down to the staff at that time whether they—. Although they should be provided with, in their notes when they first come in, 'Do you want an advocate?' and they should be reinforced constantly to do that, but the awareness of what the advocate can do for that young person is not always clear among the staff—like you previously said—so, it doesn't always mean that they can work out if that's useful for them or not. Again, it's patchy, but not for looked-after children.
I think it depends. The answer to your question is that it depends on what your legal status is as a child. If you're looked after, that's your legal status, so you would be offered advocacy through children's services who commission advocacy for looked-after children. It wouldn't be until they came into mental health services—whatever tier of service they were receiving—that they would come into contact with generic mental health advocates. And then, if they're receiving tier 3 or 4 services, they may see, or be offered, an IMHA.
Do you have any comments about whether advocacy services and children's social care services could be better integrated?
I think one of the things we've seen is, not a lack of collaboration, but it could be enhanced and it could actually enforce and reinforce the good work that people do in different pockets, and work together a bit more in order to ensure that young people are actually supported adequately. For instance, if you could then add on to that counselling services, you'd have a very robust model where, again, we see there isn't enough counselling support given to young people, and that, again, would reduce the possibility of the child going into the system. So, if you had more of a robust 'working together' format, I think that would work really well.
I was going to ask about primary care services, really. When children and young people are waiting to access primary care services, do they have the access to specialist mental health advocates that's necessary? Are there issues there, or is that provision adequate?
Again, I think from—not statistically, but anecdotally—the reflections of people working in the sector, it tends to be underfunded. With all the will in the world, I think everyone's aware of the situation and the need for all this to happen, but, again, making it happen or cutting down waiting lists would be useful as well. By actually minimising that waiting list, you're possibly saving the child from going through even tougher times—or more of a mental breakdown—and helping them to be supported in the community. So, if you had that service there already when a person is in crisis, if you had the counselling—. I know there are in some schools, but, again, in different areas, it's quite patchy. If you had that understanding, then an IMHA or a generic advocate would come in and work with that child as well, to ensure wishes and feelings. It does happen, but it's not consistent across the board.
In terms of that patchiness, would you be able to say which areas of Wales are particularly struggling in that regard?
I think in general, it's—. Not specifically, no, because in general, it's as patchy as—. There's not even a consistency in which areas are good or not; it's down to the provider and the area as well. So, it could happen within the same area. It's not that clear-cut either.
There could be a piece of work done in terms of looking at what is being commissioned, what resources are being made available for that, what local authorities are jointly commissioning—regionally recommissioning—services. How does that fit in to the national approach for children's advocacy? Because it doesn't quite fit; there needs to be more integrational dovetailing between the two to have a consistent service, or approach, going forward. But, again, I think it'd be good to do an exercise like they've already done with the children's sector. It's to do that cost calculation: are local government and local health boards spending enough?
A gaf i ofyn ynglŷn â'r gwasanaeth ieuenctid? Achos rydym ni wedi gweld—rydych chi'n sôn yn y papur—bod y dirywiad yn y gwasanaeth ieuenctid wedi cael effaith, wrth gwrs. Felly, sut fuasech chi'n licio gweld yr arbenigedd o fewn y gwasanaeth ieuenctid yn cael ei ddefnyddio i ddatblygu gwasanaethau mwy ataliol o safbwynt iechyd meddwl, ac hefyd o ran hyrwyddo resilience a llesiant o ran iechyd meddwl pobl ifanc? Achos mae yna beryg bod y ffocws yn ormodol ar wasanaethau mewn ysgolion, rydw i'n meddwl. A wedyn buaswn i jest yn licio clywed pa gyfleoedd sydd yna o fewn yr hinsawdd economaidd ac yng nghyd-destun gwasanaeth sydd, yn anffodus, yn crebachu.
May I ask about the youth service? Because you have talked about—in the paper—that there's been a decline in the youth sector. So, how would you like to see the expertise in the youth service being used to develop services that are more preventative with regard to mental health and in terms of promoting resilience and well-being with regard to young people's mental health? Because there is a danger that there is too much focus on school-based services. So, I'd just like to hear what opportunities there are within the current economic climate and in the context of a service that is, unfortunately, shrinking.
Rydw i'n meddwl mai un o'r ffactorau pwysicaf, mewn ffordd, fyddai sicrhau bod mwy o gefnogaeth yn y gymuned, gan gynnwys yr ysgol. Rydw i'n gwybod bod yna ambell elusen sydd yn rhoi'r pwysau nid yn unig yn yr ysgol, ond mannau y tu allan i'r ysgol—mae yna brofiad i gael cwnsela. Ond o ran sicrhau nad yw pethau'n dirywio, mae angen mwy o waith efo gweithwyr ieuenctid, ac eto, fel rydym ni wedi dweud drwy hyn bore yma, sicrhau bod pobl yn gweithio efo'i gilydd. Mae'n ddigon hawdd trio sortio rhywbeth—nid ydw i'n mynd i orffen y dywediad, ond mae'n hawdd codi pais; pan mae rhywbeth yn digwydd reit pan mae o'n rhy hwyr. Mae yna fodd i leihau cost. Fel y dywedodd Gareth, rhaid edrych ar y darlun yn gyflawn a gweld pwy all weithio efo'i gilydd i sicrhau bod plant, cyn belled ag y gallan nhw, yn cael y gefnogaeth maen nhw ei angen yn y cartref efo'i rhieni ac wedyn yn sicrhau bod hynny'n cael ei ddatblygu ymhellach.
I think one of the most important factors, in a way, would be to ensure that there is more support available in the community, including the schools. I do know that there are a few charities who do provide services not only in schools but also outwith the schools—there is some counselling available. But in terms of ensuring that there isn't further decline, then more work needs to be done with youth workers, and again, as we have said consistently through this session this morning, we need to ensure that people work together. It's relatively easy to actually sort things out—but to close the stable door once the horse has bolted, that's too late. We do need to reduce costs, as Gareth said. We need to look at the holistic picture and identify who can collaborate to ensure that children, wherever possible, receive the support they need in the home with their parents and then also ensure that that is further developed.
Beth sy'n gyrru'r cydweithio yna? Achos os nad yw e'n digwydd ar hyn o bryd, a oes angen, hynny yw, rhywbeth statudol i orfodi hynny i ddigwydd? Achos mae e'n newid diwylliannol yn fwy na dim byd arall, buaswn i'n meddwl.
So what drives that collaboration? If it's not happening at present, do we need something statutory based to ensure that it happens? Because it's about a cultural change, isn't it?
Rydw i'n meddwl, achos nad oes arweiniad o un safbwynt o'r ochr statudol, o bosib byddai hynny'n syniad da, achos mae pawb yn trio gwneud eu rhan nhw o fewn—. Ond maen nhw i gyd—. Nid oes cysylltiad o un pwynt i'r llall. So, mae angen arweiniad ac ychydig bach mwy o fod yn gliriach am beth ydy'r angen a phwy sydd i wneud beth, rydw i'n meddwl.
Because there isn't a statutory lead on this, then that might be a solution because everyone is trying to do their bit, but it's all patchy and there's no connections made, perhaps, or not enough connections are made. Some guidance and a little more clarity in terms of what the needs are and who's responsible for what would be useful.
A oes yna arlliw bod hynny'n cychwyn digwydd o gwbl? Oherwydd rydw i jest yn meddwl am Ddeddf llesiant cenedlaethau'r dyfodol—
Is there a sign that that's starting to happen at all? Because I'm just thinking about the well-being of future generations Act—
—a'r pwyslais ar gydweithio a chydgynhyrchu, neu beth bynnag yw'r term yn Gymraeg. Byddai rhywun yn gobeithio, gyda'r byrddau gwasanaethau cyhoeddus hefyd, wrth gwrs, bod rhyw fodel fel yna'n dechrau amlygu ei hun.
—and the emphasis on joint working and co-production. One would hope, with the public services boards, that there is that kind of model emerging.
Yn sicr. Rydym ni'n gweld hynny o gwmpas Cymru i gyd. Mae pawb sydd yn y busnes yma o edrych ar ôl plant a phobl ifanc yn teimlo'n gryf bod hynny'n beth da i wneud, ac mae yna lot o gydweithio efo'i gilydd, ond rydw i'n meddwl, o'r ochr statudol, byddai'n dda i gael arweiniad pendant a sicrhau bod yr holl bethau yma sydd yn datblygu yn dod at ei gilydd.
Certainly. We do see that around Wales. Everyone involved with looking after the interests of children and young people feels strongly that that is a positive thing to do, and there is a great deal of collaboration happening, but I think from a statutory side, it would be good to have clear guidance in order to ensure that all of these things that are developed are co-ordinated.
Ie. Bod eisiau iddyn nhw fod yn fwy systematig.
Yes. And that they need to be more systematic.
Ie. A bod yna batrwm, a bod yna, hwyrach—eto, yn costio—darn o waith yn cael ei wneud i weld lle mae'r angen, hyd yn oed os ydy o rhwng gwahanol elusennau'n dod at ei gilydd yn gwneud holiaduron. Mae yna wahanol foddau o wneud hynny.
Yes. And that there's a pattern in place, perhaps—again, this may cost money—but a piece of work needs to be done to identify where the needs are, even if it's different charities coming together with surveys and so on. There are different ways of achieving that.
Thank you. Well, we've come to the end of our time, so can I thank you both very much for attending and for answering our questions? It's been a very useful session. You will be sent a transcript to check for accuracy following the meeting, but thank you both again for your time this morning.
Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Thank you very much.
Item 3 is papers to note. Paper to note 1 is a letter to me from Action for Children clarifying some issues raised at the meeting on 14 December. Paper to note 2 is further information from the Samaritans following the meeting on 10 January. Paper to note 3 is further information from the Samaritans following said meeting. And paper to note 4 is a letter from the committee to the Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning on our follow-up work on the youth work inquiry. Are Members happy to note those? Okay.
Just to remind Members that the next meeting will be on Thursday 1 February, when we'll be going on visits as part of our inquiry into targeted funding to improve educational outcomes. There's going to be one group going out in the north, to Ysgol Clywedog and Ysgol Treffynnon, and the other in the south to Bedwas High and Eastern High. The clerking team will send further details next week, and if Members haven't already done so, it would be helpful if you could specify which one you'd prefer to attend, and if you need transport. Also to remind Members that there's the visit to Newport Mind's young people's group on Monday 29 January, from 09:00 until 20:30. You should have had an e-mail about that. If Members would like to come, if you could let the team know. All that remains, then, is for me to thank you for attending and to close the meeting. Thank you.
Daeth y cyfarfod i ben am 10:06.
The meeting ended at 10:06.