The point is that this person is in the community and the argument is whether this is the correct decision. The cost of keeping the person in the community is very high. A number of years ago, that person would have been kept for a substantial period in more permanent care but that seems to have totally changed. The argument put to me is the person in question is not suitable to be in the community. Members of that person's family have suffered injury after being assaulted, as have care workers. There is a concern as to whether this was the right decision.

There seems to be a reluctance to keep a person in more clearly defined care. Referral into the community is the preferred option, but the appropriate support services may not be available. Even where they are, there can be a difficulty in finding staff and then with the cost of staffing.

Returning to the CAMHS issue and the geographical divide, I still do not accept that because there is a boundary half a mile up the road from a person's house he or she should have to wait ad infinitum.

My other question is about the definition of "urgent care". I think a 16 year old teenager who is borderline in respect of self-harm, or whatever the issue might be, requires urgent care. However, the system seems to be telling parents that it is necessary to go on a waiting list to see a consultant and that CAMHS cannot become involved until a full assessment has been made. Something has to change. Geographical boundaries should not apply. If one consultant is not available, some process should be set up immediately to ensure no one will be left in limbo. The family to whom I am referring were left in such a situation. Other families in the same area are caught in the same dilemma. No assistance was being offered for a long time. That issue has to be dealt with.