Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

The whole-system approach is why the task force is jointly chaired with representation from those in health and education. However, in certain respects, it goes beyond only a whole-system approach to a whole-society approach.

Cultural change is difficult, but having to move to a more accepting and neuro-affirmative culture in society is going to be important as well, and certainly a lot of progress has been made. There were a number of drivers behind the significant increase in demand, including a widening of the diagnostic criteria, which reflects a more developed and nuanced understanding of neurodevelopmental conditions. There has also been a tremendous amount of work to raise awareness and tackle stigma. That, again, has made an environment in which people are much more willing to come forward with regard to themselves and their children. That is positive, and it reflects the societal shift that is taking place.

The specific point about the system, which comes back to the point that Stephen McLeod set out, is about how we utilise our existing resources more effectively. When we think about all the ways in which children and young people are interacting with the state, whether that is in an educational setting or a healthcare setting, it is about ensuring that that work is coherent and holistically centred around the needs of the individual. That is reflected in the national specification and it is reflected in GIRFEC.

I came back to that point to reiterate why there is dual representation from health and education in the work on implementation and in the joint task force.

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.

On the workforce, I spoke to the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland and I heard that a lot of the burden is falling on psychiatrists, even though it should not. They are not the ideal people to diagnose neurodivergence, but the burden is falling on them. The college says that the number of psychiatrists is on the decline. That will obviously add even more pressure on the system and on psychiatry. How are we developing a system in which, first, the burden does not fall on psychiatrists and, secondly, there is enough employment to deal with the increase in pressure?

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.

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.

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.

The committee has heard about the variation throughout Scotland. In our engagement with health boards and local authorities, we are undertaking work to understand the data that they hold and get a clearer picture of where variation exists. That will help to inform our response. There is substantive investment to support the workforce, in relation to not only head count but training and professional development.

The point that I come back to is that although we are working to provide greater clarity and get a better sense of what data is available, we recognise that the level of demand is such that we must not lose sight of the needs-based approach.

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?

In response to a question from Emma Harper, we referred to the resources that are available. If I recall correctly, NAIT participated in the development of those resources, which operate at three levels.

Resource is in place. I committed to consider further Emma Harper’s point, which was about the utilisation of resources and our ability to assess the impact that they are having. It is a valid point, and I will be keen to see whether it features in the committee’s report. Does anyone want to add anything about workforce development?