Seòmar agus comataidhean

My point is that that is why we are having that level of engagement with health boards. We have previously written to all health boards about data, and we are collating and assessing what they have provided.

The important issue for me is ensuring that, in undertaking that work, we are utilising data that has already been generated, and any further data that has to be collected for the specific purpose of addressing need. That is the work that we are taking forward. I stress that I recognise the importance that has been placed on data and the variation that exists, which is why we are working with health boards to understand the data that they do hold and which can help inform any further action that we would want to take with regard to any national collection of data.

I have to operate within the constitutional and legislative framework that exists with regard to the autonomy of local authorities, of which, ultimately, Parliament is the custodian. Although it is entirely a matter for Parliament and individual committees to determine what topics and matters they wish to pursue, I recognise that committees such as this one—I say this as a former member of the committee—can play an extremely important role in the scrutiny of individual health boards and health and social care partnerships, for example.

My responsibility is ultimately one of collaboration, and the consensus that we are building through having national standards is ensuring that delivery on the ground. Where there are challenges, we are working collaboratively and in partnership with the relevant body to seek to remedy them. Does Stephen McLeod want to add anything?

I have two points to make. First, Gavin Gray touched on the service renewal framework. There is a particular focus on prevention, which will prompt detailed consideration of current funding arrangements and whether areas are prioritised to ensure that the focus on prevention is realised throughout the health and social care system.

I can give a specific example. I touched on the additional resource this year of £500,000 for supporting services, which was part of the package that I announced to Parliament at the end of June. I hope to be in a position shortly to set out further details on the utilisation of that funding. That is an example of what is taking place in-year. It builds on existing funding that was provided previously, as well as the funding that is provided through the autistic adult support fund.

There is a range of funding streams. Part of that involves the wider settlements that are available to health boards and local government for delivering on their statutory responsibilities, but there is also specific targeted funding. I recognise the importance of certainty and predictability of funding and the need to ensure that funding matches the preventative agenda that we are setting out.

As I tried to say in my opening statement, part of the answer has to be about moving away from that paradigm of the traditional NHS waiting list approach. I appreciate that the committee took evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland on the paper that it published at the start of the month on adult neurodevelopmental services. It made the point that the system in Scotland cannot meet the need and that, thinking about what would be needed to do so, no system in the world could meet the level of demand that there now is.

There has to be a focus on meeting need. In a stepped care approach that is consistent with what is in the national neurodevelopmental specification for children and young people and with GIRFEC, it is important to have that focus on meeting need. I recognise that, as part of meeting need, assessment and diagnosis can play an important role, but diagnosis is not and should not be a prerequisite for obtaining support. As Stephen McLeod touched on, there is a challenge at the moment in relation to implementation, which is why we established the cross-sector task force and why we are putting in the additional investment.

That is an important point. There is the risk not just of substance misuse but of poorer mental health. That speaks to the point about a needs-based approach and the earliest intervention. For children and young people, there is an opportunity for that to take place in an educational setting. With that needs-based approach, there can be a process of escalation of steps to ensure that those needs are met, and that can include assessment and diagnosis.

Having that integrated approach is essential, and having that early intervention is extremely important for prevention. That is fully recognised and reflected in the national specification.

I thank you for that important question, Ms Whitham, and for clarifying the distinction. I am conscious that, in the past, there might have been some conflation between CAMHS and ND. CAMHS is a specialist service for children, adolescents and young people with acute mental health conditions. Neurodevelopmental conditions, as we understand them, are not mental illnesses or mental health conditions.

When there is comorbidity with neurodevelopmental conditions and mental health conditions, if CAMHS is the clinically appropriate pathway, we would expect an individual to be included as part of the measurement, while also recognising that the majority of children and young people who engage with mental health services do so at the community level. That is an important point to make.

We have also touched on a degree of complexity in the interaction between the way in which assessment support can potentially be provided for children and young people who have a neurodevelopmental condition and the statutory responsibilities of education authorities to provide support, including additional support for learning, within the educational setting. That speaks to the point that Stephen McLeod made, which has been touched on a few times, about bringing to bear the data that already exists in the system so that we utilise it effectively to make sure that needs are being met.

Yes, they play a—

Absolutely—you make a very powerful and profound point, Ms Harper. We have to bear in mind the complexity and the need to respond to individual need. We speak of neurodevelopmental conditions as existing on a spectrum, and they will manifest and present in different ways. As such, the response to that will differ based on the individual circumstances. You also recognise the possible interaction with other conditions and the fact that, for people who have a neurodevelopmental condition, there can be elevated risks of other conditions. Those things reflect the need for an integrated approach and—I repeat—a needs-based approach. That is very much reflected in the national specification.

As I said in my opening statement, a traditional NHS waiting times approach is not sufficient. The Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland published a paper—it was specific to adult cases—at the start of the work. It spoke about the increase in demand that we have seen in recent years as being unprecedented and unforeseen, and it said that the mental health system in Scotland cannot cope with it. Indeed, no mental health system in the world can meet that level of demand, and this is a global phenomenon. We see it elsewhere in the United Kingdom and internationally.

We have to rethink our entire approach. It has to be a whole-system, whole-society and needs-based approach. I recognise the importance that is placed on assessment and diagnosis, and I recognise their clinical value, particularly with regard to access to medication in the case of ADHD. However, I also recognise—this is particularly important—that a stepped care approach that is needs based can ultimately be the most effective and most impactful way to ensure that people are supported and that their needs are met.

Given the level of demand and the increase that we have seen, even just in the past five years, the traditional waiting times approach, with that particular paradigm and model, will not be sufficient. That is why I have to be frank with the committee and echo the points that have been made by professional bodies about the need to rethink and have a whole-system and whole-society approach.

I come back to the point about the work of the task force and of the joint review. COSLA and the Scottish Government are working in partnership with local authorities on the review, and the task force is being jointly chaired by those in the health and education sectors. That is in recognition of the fact that the issue cannot be siloed. It cannot simply be that one particular department responds, nor can it simply be that the Scottish Government responds. There must be a whole-system response, with local government, local partners and health boards all having a vital role to play.

Mr Harvie mentioned the third sector. It has a profoundly positive impact, particularly when it comes to peer support and helping to tackle isolation and provide opportunities for engagement and socialising.

We recognise that a range of different partners can provide support. We need to work together in a co-ordinated fashion to ensure that needs are being met.