Seòmar agus comataidhean

Your question raises an important point, convener. At the outset, I stress that I fully recognise the importance of assessment and diagnosis, not only for individuals but for families, in order to understand need and for reasons of identity and validation; in some circumstances, assessment and diagnosis are important with particular reference to medication in relation to ADHD. We want to provide a needs-led approach, recognising that, consistent with our national specification for children and young people, a diagnosis is not a prerequisite for accessing support—and nor should it be. As the committee has been told in evidence, particularly from professional organisations, although we have a needs-based approach on paper, the understanding, perception and experience are that a diagnosis is required to access support. That should not be the case.

We set out the national specification back in 2021 and undertook a joint review with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I updated Parliament just prior to summer recess, when I announced the establishment of a joint task force, bringing together health and education and backed up by an additional £0.5 million of investment in this financial year. As I touched on in my opening statement, the task force is to take forward an approach that is consistent with GIRFEC and recognises that support should be available without a diagnosis. That approach also recognises the circumstances in which a neurodevelopmental condition can present itself and the needs that have to be met in those circumstances—for example in an educational setting—and that small adjustments are often all that are required to significantly improve an individual’s circumstances. That is part of the work that we are doing.

As I said, it needs to be recognised that the level of demand, not only for children and young people but for adults, is such that the conventional NHS waiting list approach is not sufficient. The absolute priority is an approach that responds to need. Notwithstanding that, we continue to invest in our health and social care services, and we do so with the intention of ensuring that a diagnosis can be provided, where required, as part of a needs-based response.

We have the national specification for children and young people. We conducted the implementation review jointly with COSLA and updated the Parliament in June about that. The cross-sector task force has been established; it met for the first time earlier this month. There will be an additional £500,000 of investment this year, and, as Stephen McLeod has set out, the task force will have short-term, medium-term and long-term actions that aim to improve the experience of children and young people.

With regard to adults, we previously accepted the recommendations of the pathways report that was conducted by the National Autism Implementation Team, and we are working with health boards and partners to ensure that those are delivered.

On being able to have a clearer understanding of the picture, on-going engagement about data is taking place with health boards and local authorities. I appreciate that the convener said that we will touch on that later.

I know that this is not your intention at all, Mr Harvie, but the term “treatment” is almost suggestive of the fact that something is to be cured or remedied. I know that that is not—

The review set out a range of actions in the short, medium and long term that will provide a means of assessing progress, and the task force is taking forward that work.

On the additional resource that was committed to, I hope to be in a position relatively soon to set out how that will be deployed. I undertake to keep the Parliament informed of the progress that is made.

As I said earlier, the task force met for the first time earlier this month. I am happy to continue to engage with the Parliament to ensure that it is kept up to date as and when outputs are articulated.

That is such an important point. As the committee will be aware from the work that it has undertaken, there is a significant increase in demand among adults, which could be for a multitude of reasons. Perhaps their child was assessed, prompting thought and reflection about their own circumstances in life, which ultimately led them to take a decision to seek assessment and diagnosis.

From engagement, encounters, conversations and reading testimony, I have found that, when someone has such reflections later in life—perhaps in their 40s—the evidence speaks very powerfully about what the difference would have been if they had had an intervention, a diagnosis or more awareness at a much earlier age. As I say, that is powerful, and it speaks to the importance of children and young people in the approach that we have set out in the national neurodevelopmental specification and in being consistent with GIRFEC.

We are taking every opportunity to identify need at the earliest stage. As you have said very clearly, you are a passionate advocate for prevention, and we know that recognising need and responding to it at the earliest stage is of vital importance. That is reflected in GIRFEC and in the national specification. The point that Stephen McLeod set out earlier on how we can more effectively use the data that is already in the system is important. That will be reflected in the work of the task force in addressing the implementation challenges that we have seen. Perhaps Stephen has something to add.

The committee has heard evidence about using multidisciplinary teams and taking a partnership approach. I come back to the important point that Stephen McLeod made about using the data that we already have in the system and the range of opportunities to develop an understanding of an individual’s needs. We need to utilise that more fully, particularly in the context of children and young people.

On international examples, I come back to the comments contained in the paper from the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland, which recognised that this is an international phenomenon, with a significant increase in demand. If I recall correctly, in the RCPS’s words, no system in the world could realistically respond to the level of demand.

We are certainly open to examples of good practice, but the work of the National Autism Implementation Team and the national specification take the correct approach that policy in Scotland should have a needs-based focus. The issue now is implementation. In looking for other approaches that we can add to that, as I touched on earlier, we very much welcome the paper from the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland and will give careful and detailed consideration to its proposals.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, they play a—