Hansard

Like other members, I congratulate Daniel Johnson on securing this important debate. In his opening speech, he was extremely modest in saying that there was no such thing as his bravery and courage in speaking out. I say as his friend that he does not often do modesty, and he should not do it on this subject. It is extremely brave and courageous of him to speak out, particularly about his circumstances.

I know Daniel Johnson as a friend and a colleague and I have seen him acting as a parent, and I think that he is a first-class human being in all three of those aspects. He is a fantastic and diligent member of the Parliament—not an ineffective or hyperactive one. He is a first-class parent and he is always a pleasure and a joy to be around.

Daniel Johnson has not only initiated this important debate but, by speaking about his circumstances, done so in a manner that will effect change. I hope that that will give the confidence to speak out to other people—not just parliamentarians and others who are involved in politics but the wider public, who I hope will have confidence to seek access to services and speak openly about their circumstances with their friends, families, loved ones and healthcare professionals. I hope that we will send a unified message against what the Netflix documentary portrayed and instead open a dialogue about positive treatment.

I will focus on a few areas, including the destigmatisation of ADHD, which is no different from any other physical or mental condition. We should be clear that there is no shame in having ADHD or in taking medication such as pills for ADHD or any other condition.

It is important to recognise that, although ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition, people who have it access mental health services, so the pressures on our CAMHS and adult mental health services have an impact on patients and families who are affected by ADHD. It is extremely important to address how we have an effective CAMHS and adult mental health system.

In a survey, 80 per cent of parents said that it took too long for their child to be diagnosed with ADHD. That is not good enough and we must look into achieving quicker diagnosis.

We must recognise the huge variation in access to courses of treatment. Mr Johnson said that 5 per cent of the population have ADHD and that it affects 20 per cent of the prison population. The average treatment rate across the country is 1 per cent, but the figures vary so much and can be much higher—for example, 2 per cent of the population who are aged between five and 19 take ADHD medication in the Borders, in comparison with a rate of only 0.4 per cent in Lanarkshire. That shows the huge variation in how ADHD is diagnosed and treated in different parts of the country, which needs to be addressed more seriously and openly.

Mr Briggs and Mr Johnson mentioned pills, and it is important to end the stigma about using medication. I make it clear that it is important to have access to counselling and support services, particularly in our schools and in primary and community care, so that we not only medicate individuals but empower them to make interventions in their lives that will help them to deal with ADHD better. That will have a positive impact not only on their life circumstances but on those of their colleagues, their friends, their families and their children.

I hope that, as a result of the debate, there is a more open and honest conversation about ADHD; a challenging of the stigma about ADHD and using pills for it; an improvement in the diagnosis of ADHD and in the referral pathway for it; and a look at a more holistic approach, so that ADHD is recognised as a genuine condition alongside other conditions and so that people feel that they have someone to turn to and that they will not be written off by society. I thank Daniel Johnson again for bringing forward this important debate.