Seòmar agus comataidhean

You might get it from a mental health perspective and perhaps a bit of a history perspective and a planning perspective as well.

Ms Callaghan has asked an important question. It is one of the reasons why 20-minute neighbourhoods featured in the SNP manifesto and in the manifestos of the Scottish Greens as well, if I remember rightly—Ms Mackay may correct me there. It is important that, as we plan our neighbourhoods we get it right. In terms of our net zero ambitions and our ambitions for vibrant communities, that is the right way forward.

I know that, in some local authorities, there is much more advancement in this kind of work. There should be more of it, as far as I am concerned. I know from my own experience in local government that initiatives such as planning for real exercises, which involve communities and individuals, are a good way of getting that balance right. Not everybody gets what they want—that is the reality—but, if you set down the parameters, that is helpful in shaping the future of communities.

This is an important issue. I think that we now have the right planning regime in place to allow that to go forward, including the opportunity for neighbourhoods and communities to be involved in local place planning. In order to do that—I apologise to those folks who have heard me say this before, because it is a point that I make all the time—we need to bring community planning and spatial planning together and not see them as separate. We know that achieving that will bring about results that can be good for folks’ physical health and their mental wellbeing.

There is a lot of work to be done. Many areas are embarking on it, and some are further on in that journey. However, this is good stuff as far as I am concerned and it is the right thing to do as we move forward.

I think that, in many places, they are. Again, I think that we do very well in those places where services listen to young folks with lived experience, where there is that communication, collaboration and co-operation. That does not work so well for others, I have to say. That is one of the reasons why we have put in place the child and adolescent mental health service standards that we have. There is work to do there, without a doubt, and we need to have young folk at the very heart of shaping those services in the future.

I have talked to a lot of young folk over the past number of months and I will be honest with the committee and say that some of the issues that have been raised with me are ones that I would not necessarily have thought of. I think that we need to make sure that we are capturing all of the difficulties that young folk face.

Let me give some examples. The school counselling service is an important move forward in terms of mental health service delivery. We are beginning to get data from those counselling services on what the main challenges are that young people are coming to those counsellors about, and LGBT+ issues are up there. We have to take cognisance of that and ensure that we are shaping the right services for the future to do right by folk.

We only have to look at news reports from yesterday to see the impact that it can have on young women. Day and daily, this is difficult for young women, so we have to get this right as we move forward and we are committed to doing that.

I will not stray into talking about education and early years, although it is tempting, because I know that the committee will hear from Shona Robison and Clare Haughey next week.

The investment that we have made in perinatal and infant mental health support can also make a big difference. I know that the committee has been discussing that subject and that you will report on it very soon. The four-year investment makes a substantial contribution to improving and supporting the mental health and wellbeing of women and infants, which can have a huge long-term impact. We await your report and recommendations with anticipation.

We are still analysing the responses to the consultation, and we know that we have more work to do to consult with stakeholders about our proposals before final decisions are taken by the Cabinet.

In all of the work that we do on the national care service, and whether services are in or out of it, we have to take a joined-up approach. We know all too well from stakeholders that transition periods can sometimes be some of the most difficult times for people, and that there does not seem to be the link that should be there when people move from one service to another. Legislation on that has changed recently, but there is a question about when is the right time for change and whether that change is the right thing to do. More joined-up approaches are required.

I can give an example—it is the starkest one that I have—of where we sometimes do not get it right and can confuse people and do too much rather than have a systematic right approach for folks. The other week, one of my officials was talking to a young person, who has a lot of things going on in their life and is involved with 15 different agencies. The question that that young person asked was, “Who do I listen to in all of this?” Often, what that person was being told was contradictory, according to them. I think that we can all agree that that is not the right approach for a young person, so we have to ensure that, in the future, we do not have those kinds of examples and that everything that we do is person centred.

The message that I get from a lot of young folk is, “I want somebody I can trust to deal with me.” There is absolutely no reason why the good practice of having a lead person, which is happening in many places, cannot be followed across the board.

Whether children’s services are in or out of the national care service—the initial responses to the consultation show that the majority are in favour of them being in it—we have to make sure that the linkages are right and that we take a person-centred approach, as opposed to the current situation in which, in some cases, we have a bit of a postcode lottery. No matter what, we want a national quality standard so that folks know the service that they can expect.

Beyond that, again no matter what, we have to listen to the voices of lived experience. The places where services are working well are the ones where young folk are at the heart of helping to shape services and where there is the maximum amount of communication, collaboration and co-operation. No matter what, that is what we need to see across the board.

We will write to the committee about that, too.

Holistic whole-family support and the whole family wellbeing fund are absolutely vital in getting this right as we move forward. You will hear from our other colleagues that, in terms of the work that needs to be done, along with the multidisciplinary and multi-agency approach that is being taken, we are taking a cross-cutting approach in Government in order to get this absolutely right for families across the country.

We have real ambition on this issue. The work is largely being led by other ministerial colleagues, but we are all involved in the overview of the matter in the group that is chaired by the Deputy First Minister. This is an important issue. This is one of the main policy planks that will help us to move beyond just getting it right for every child to getting it right for everyone.

Again, that involves work that we are doing at the moment. A huge amount of my time since I got this role last May has involved talking to stakeholders—I talked earlier about the young man with those 15 interventions. Sometimes, we have situations where families have a huge amount of interventions but there is not that holistic approach. The national care service and new standards can make a real difference there. However, we also need to change the culture around how we support families, because we know that where there are too many interventions, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes the trust factor is not there and you do not get the positive results that we want.

As well as the multidisciplinary approach and the multi-agency approach, we need to ensure that, in order to get this right, we have folk in play that families can trust. That will make a real difference. That is why I and other colleagues are quite excited about the way that we can approach this issue in order to improve and modernise the situation for families across the country.

I will be very brief, convener. Local authorities also have the ability to use the children and young people’s mental health services money for sporting activities that support children’s wellbeing. Ms Mochan will be well aware, I am sure, of the various projects that are going on in East Ayrshire, but one of the investments that East Ayrshire Council has made is in its vibrant communities project, which includes multidisciplinary community sport support, including sports coaches, for example. There is flexibility in that resource.

Of course, although we have invested £50 million over this year and next year, our ambition, as part of the Bute house agreement between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Greens, is to double that investment over the course of this parliamentary session. Flexibility exists for local authorities to use that money for mental wellbeing, because we know that sport has a vital role to play in that.

The perinatal mental health clinical network has set out a series of five national pathways, which cover pre-conception advice, psychological support for mild to moderate concerns, specialist assessment for severe and complex needs, emergency assessment for MBU admission, and specialist assessment and intervention for parent-infant relationship difficulties.

We are developing animations to increase the accessibility and awareness of those pathways. Four health boards have fully developed local pathways for perinatal mental health, and a further seven boards have pathways in development. Boards are also developing specific pathways on birth trauma, neonatal loss, anxiety and needle phobia.