Seòmar agus comataidhean

To answer the question in the spirit in which it was asked, I will say yes. However, I caveat that with what I said in my opening statement about conceiving of this in a traditional NHS waiting times paradigm. To ensure that there is broader consistency across Scotland and in people’s experiences, we need to continue to work towards achieving a clear picture of the national baseline. I know that the committee has heard of examples of good practice. The challenge is to ensure that that good practice travels better than it perhaps does at the moment.

I recognise the importance being placed on the proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill. I will not reiterate the points that my predecessor made with regard to the rationale for the decision that was taken, but I assure the committee that it is commanding my full attention and that I am engaging closely with officials on it. I cannot commit to any specific time, but the undertaking given by my predecessor to publish draft provisions still holds and is one that I will honour.

Yes, I will undertake specific engagement with the panels that were established, but this is also a feature of my wider engagement with a range of organisations representing all the interests that would be affected by the bill. It has featured as a matter for discussion very frequently, and I want to assure the committee that I am actively engaging with people with lived experience on this as part of wider conversations pertaining to my portfolio. Moreover, further specific engagement is planned ahead of the publication of any draft provisions.

Good morning. I welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee and to contribute to its important inquiry.

Across the United Kingdom and globally, we are witnessing a significant and growing demand for neurodevelopmental support and diagnosis. That is not unique to Scotland—it is an emerging issue in many parts of the world. Increasing pressure is being placed on systems that were not designed to manage such a scale of demand.

The issue is complex. Neurodevelopmental needs span health, education and social care, and they are shaped by a wide range of factors. A traditional national health service waiting list approach is not sufficient. What is needed is a co-ordinated multi-agency response that focuses on timely, needs-based support and reflects the evolving nature of neurodevelopmental needs and the diversity of individual experiences. The Scottish Government is committed to improving access to timely, needs-based support for neurodivergent people.

For children and young people, our work is guided by the national neurodevelopmental specification, which promotes the provision of early, needs-led support through the getting it right for every child principles. However, rising demand has made implementation challenging. We have invested in pilots, digital tools and family support, and in our work to take forward recommendations to improve implementation, we are being supported by a newly established cross-sector task force.

For adults, we have accepted recommendations from the adult neurodevelopmental pathways pilot, and we continue to invest in support. Our autistic adult support fund and the work of the National Autism Implementation Team are helping to reshape services and improve outcomes.

We also recognise the need for better data to inform planning and improvement. Work is under way with health boards and local authorities to get a clearer understanding of service demand and provision.

Finally, I want to stress the importance of finding consensus on the way forward. The committee’s inquiry is a vital opportunity to do that, and I thank all the families, professionals and organisations that have shared their experiences and insights. I very much look forward to considering the recommendations that the committee makes as part of the outcome of the inquiry.

I recognise the importance that many people will place on the independent sector. Those who have the means to do so may choose to exercise their right to utilise it.

When it comes to the interaction with the NHS, those decisions are ultimately clinical decisions to be taken by the clinician who is in charge of the patient’s care. That is a well-established and well-understood principle. However, where there can be variation with regard to, as we have described, the shared care arrangements in different parts of Scotland, we are engaging with the Royal College of General Practitioners to deepen understanding of the issue and consider potential options or responses to the situation. I stress that I recognise the primacy of the decision making of the relevant clinician.

If we consider the statutory framework that our education authorities operate under, we see that an inclusive approach in which needs are assessed and support is provided based on those needs is already in statute. There are requirements for that in the way in which our education system operates. The challenge has been implementation, and that is at the forefront of my mind. It is important to have statutory obligations, but what matters is what the experience of the individual is when they interact with a particular service, which, in the case that you described, is an educational setting. That is why we are doing the work on the implementation review and the joint task force.

That reflects the need to address the points that you made, Mr Whittle, but I also recognise that we cannot look at support for people who are seeking assessment or support for a new developmental condition in isolation from wider society. The impact of the pandemic has been profound and it has affected people in different ways. However, significant cultural shifts are taking place in society, too.

I know that the committee will have given consideration to our changing mobile phone and social media habits in its broader deliberations on mental health. I know that that is just one factor, but it is having a profound impact on society, particularly on people with neurodevelopmental conditions. Some of that impact will be positive—those aspects can be used to create awareness and prompt people to seek more information and support. However, some of it might be less positive. I realise that those dynamics apply across a range of aspects of society.

I take the point that, when considering our approach, we should not just take a whole-system approach to neurodevelopmental needs; we have to see things in the round, at a population health level. We are taking specific steps to improve implementation of the existing standards, and we recognise the broader population health aspects, too.

That is it in a nutshell—we are working to assess and understand the level of need and to ensure that we meet it. With the exception of situations where there is a comorbidity, CAMHS is not the appropriate pathway for a neurodevelopmental condition.

So that there is no doubt, I reiterate that I fully recognise the importance that is placed on assessment and diagnosis for a range of reasons, but there is a real opportunity for need to be met without diagnosis. Diagnosis should not be a requirement for needs being met, notwithstanding the points that the committee has taken in evidence and raised today about concerns that diagnosis has been used by authorities as a gate-keeping tool. That should not be the case. Needs should be met.

The point about the exercise that has been undertaken with health boards and local government is for us to utilise the data that is available so that we have a fuller picture of need. That can help us to ensure that the national specification is implemented and that need is met.

Yes, but, again, in the development of our understanding, it has become very clear that there is a clear distinction between a mental health condition and a neurodevelopmental condition. They are distinct. A neurodevelopmental condition is not a mental illness or a mental health condition, but someone who has a neurodevelopmental condition, who also has a mental health condition, should be able to access mental health support in the way that anyone else would be able to. It is important that there is that point of clarity. As I touched on in my earlier remarks, there has been some conflict in the past, and that probably reflects the fact that there is evolving and developing knowledge and understanding as well.

When it comes to the work that we are taking forward on understanding data, I want to consider the opportunities for presenting it. I should caveat that with my previous points about the paradigm in this respect and thinking of CAMHS referrals in a traditional NHS waiting list context. Given the complexities and the range of interactions involved, that is probably not appropriate. Therefore, I do not want to make a commitment to the committee with regard to a particular mode or form of presenting data.

That said, I certainly recognise the strong parliamentary and public interest in ensuring the fullest availability of the information that is held, and I appreciate the work that the committee has undertaken and its engagement with health boards ahead of this inquiry in order to present figures that I think are important and which illustrate the scale of existing demand. Therefore, without committing to a specific form or mode of presentation, I want to assure the committee that, in respect of the work that is being undertaken, I am giving full consideration to how more robust, reflective and clear data can be presented and shared and ultimately, deployed and utilised to ensure that need is met.

I am conscious of the points that have been raised and the comprehensive briefing that was provided by the Scottish Parliament information centre just before the inquiry was launched. Ultimately, health boards are responsible for such operational matters in their day-to-day work, but this speaks fundamentally to my point about the challenges that we have right now with data. Of course, this is not just an issue that we are considering in health boards; it is also an issue in local authorities and educational settings, and it speaks to the level of complexity that we are talking about and why a traditional NHS waiting times approach to publishing lists would not—