Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener. I am very grateful to be able to speak today in support of PE2156, lodged by my constituent Terence Lloyd, and which seeks improved and equitable access to ADHD diagnosis and treatment in Scotland.

Failure to diagnose and support ADHD early in life is not a neutral act. It causes lasting harm. When children and young people with ADHD are not recognised and supported, they are often labelled as disruptive, difficult, defiant or clumsy daydreamers. Without understanding the internalised shame and difference as they grow into adulthood, the consequences of that early neglect are compounded. We see individuals who are undiagnosed and unsupported fall through the cracks into systems that were never built to care for them: into substance use as a way of self-regulating; into the criminal justice system due to impulsivity or misunderstood behaviour; into cycles of poverty, debt, unstable housing and often homelessness. I have worked directly with people who have lived this reality. I know what it means to come to a diagnosis in your 30s, 40s or even 50s, after years of feeling broken, when in fact the system has failed you.

I personally know what it is like to be 50 and come to the realisation that I have lived my whole life with a neurodevelopmental difference, most likely ADHD, and I can look back on so much and understand it so much better.

This is a public health issue, this is a mental health issue, but above all, it is a social justice issue. ADHD is recognised as a neurodevelopmental condition that affects people from all walks of life, yet access to assessment and support remains deeply unequal. I have heard from far too many individuals who are left struggling for years without recognition, without treatment and without understanding.

In my area, there is no adult pathway to an ADHD diagnosis without a co-occurring severe and enduring mental health issue, and it is wholly unacceptable that people must become acutely unwell to have their ADHD recognised and treated. We must ask ourselves what kind of system allows someone to wait years for a diagnosis whilst their education, career, mental health and relationships suffer.

That is not a system built on fairness; it is not a system that reflects our shared commitment to health equity. Mr Lloyd’s petition brings into sharp focus the urgent need for reform. The postcode lottery in diagnostic services, the lack of specialised training for clinicians and the gaps in support post-diagnosis are all issues that we can and must address. By supporting the asks of this petition, we could affirm a fundamental truth: that every person in Scotland deserves access to timeous, compassionate and appropriate care, regardless of where they live and what their circumstances are.

There is a lot of work happening across the country as we sit here today, as the Government outlined, but in most places change is not being felt on the ground. We must collectively put our shoulders to the wheel on this issue. Thank you, convener.

I apologise to everybody. I will need to nip out to another committee shortly, but I will come back.

I want to understand the level of investment that your sector, or your members, have made in supply chain infrastructure and technology, and how that has helped to reduce barriers to trade in the past few years. I am also interested in the impact that an SPS agreement might have on what your sector, or your members, plan to do in that investment space.

I grew up in Canada, and what you describe reflects the hockey system there. It is very seductive for young people to get that kind of recognition at a young age, but the long-term impact is significant. I am not suggesting for one moment that that should never happen, because we want to recognise when somebody has talent. We want to nurture that, because we want to get those players into our teams, including, we hope, our national teams, so that we have strong players in Scotland.

It would have been really good to hear directly from young people. I know that you are here representing their voices, but I am glad to see that there are some young people in the gallery. Those are really uncomfy benches to sit on, so I am amazed that you are not wiggling about more and that we are not getting more noise over here. It would have been fantastic to hear from them.

I would also like to explore the CAS programme’s responsibility to protect children from overenthusiastic parental influence. Parents want the best for their children, but it is easy not only for young people but for their parents to get excited about the prospects of what might happen. Should there be an additional layer of safeguarding in the academy settings so that clubs are alive to the possibility of pressure being put on those young people by their families?

My questions were designed to provoke such a response. I have looked at the documents that you sent to the committee, and they are rather complicated. We are all guilty of clicking through things, never mind articles of association, and not reading everything—we are not very good at that. To sign on behalf of a young person who is at such a young age or to get them to sign the documents themselves without fully understanding what that could mean for them is a huge issue with regard to safeguarding and protecting their wellbeing.

In asking my final question, I want to understand what the new player journey is supposed to look like, versus the player pathway that was in place before it. The player journey has been badged as something that will ensure that young people enjoy the game, because they will be able to participate without the extra pressure. It is supposed to take into account some of the things that we have been talking about. Do you think that that will be the case? Is that what the new player journey has demonstrated so far?

The way that you have set that out is very helpful.

Good morning. I want to spend some time focusing on the youngest players. I am going right back to that early age and thinking about my own son when he was a wee mini-kicker. He decided that he did not really like football, but some of his friends liked it and went on to play for local youth teams in Ayrshire, where I live. I am thinking about those kids and about the fact that some of them were being recruited to development centres as a precursor to the academies when they were as young as five. I can understand how seductive and exciting it would be for a family to have a scout come down to see a young player and decide that that person might be good for the club and that they want to sign them up to a development centre.

What do the panel members think about children as young as five becoming involved? If that is when they set out, they might end up in a system in which the club that takes them on when they are five or six signs them up to the CAS programme when they are 10 or so and have never experienced the ability to play anywhere else. They might not play for their school or local team during that time, but they are very young. I am interested in what you think about that, starting with Nick Hobbs, who can speak from the perspective of the children’s commissioner.

Are you confident that those development centres have enough protections and support in place for youngsters? Is their wellbeing protected and looked after enough?

Some of my questions have been touched on by the convener.

I will say from the get-go that I first heard about the Galloway national park back in 2016, nine years ago. I was a local councillor in East Ayrshire in 2018, when that council took what I viewed as a positive decision to support the national park after doing extensive public consultation on the back of what the Galloway National Park Association was doing.

The idea of the park did end up feeling like a bolt out of the blue for some sectors, including farming, forestry and renewables. We seemed to get to a point where those sectors became galvanised after suddenly realising that the park might have an impact on them and feeling that their voices had not been heard in the mix. I do not think that anyone can apportion the blame for that to the people from the Galloway National Park Association, because they set out their vision and took it out to people and they consulted quite extensively from 2016 onwards.

Having listened to the other members around the table and yourself, I am wondering how we can ensure that sectoral issues and any further proposals that affect real people on the ground who are farming or who are part of forestry or renewables do not get to the stage where it feels as though people are getting entrenched. There was a groundswell of support, but all of a sudden it got to a crunch point where it felt as if there was not, and some sectors felt that they were not being heard. How do we deal with that? How do we overcome challenges from those sectors to get to a positive conclusion?

Should a requirement be put into the 2000 act for park authorities to consult a wider suite of public bodies on their plans? Right now, it feels like consultation is restricted to local authorities. Although I think that they all feed in in some way, should the duty be explicitly widened to include further public bodies?