'Extremely alarming': 164 children waiting over a year for mental health care
An additional 253 young people have been waiting between nine months and a year for treatment with NHS Scotland's Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).
The Scottish Children's Services Coalition (SCSC), an alliance of leading providers, called the figures 'extremely alarming'.
'Each one of these statistics is an individual, and we would urge the Scottish Government to ensure the adequate resourcing of mental health services for our children and young people so that they can get the care and support they need, without lengthy waits,' a spokesperson for the SCSC said.
'We are facing a mental health emergency, and many of our children and young people are at breaking point, with stress and anxiety reaching alarming levels as they battle with the long shadow of lockdown and the rising cost of living.
'This is also having a negative impact on classroom behaviour, affecting the young people concerned, their fellow pupils and staff.'
Although Public Health Scotland has insisted that the number of children starting treatment within 18 weeks of referral is improving, the number of people waiting for over 18 weeks has increased across the board since December 2024.
From December 2024 to March 2025, the number of children waiting over a year has increased from 145 to 164. Since March 2024, that figure has risen from 137.
The number of children waiting between five and nine months has also increased since December from 424 to 499.
The only category that's fallen is the number of children waiting between nine months and a year – from 283 to 253.
Most of the children who have been waiting for more than 12 months are in the NHS Lothian district.
NHS Lothian has the highest number of children on the CAMHS waitlist of any other health board, and it accounts for 88% of the children waiting more than a year for treatment.
NHS Lothian has been contacted for comment.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
23 minutes ago
- The National
Scottish hospital car park savings revealed for patients
The SNP said the savings meant keeping money 'in the pockets of NHS staff as well as patients and families at some of the most difficult times in their lives'. The figure was revealed in an answer to a written question tabled in Holyrood by Emma Harper on what savings had been made since the policy was scrapped during the SNP's first term in power. READ MORE: Pro-Palestine protesters drive van through fence of arms firm factory in Edinburgh Health Secretary Neil Gray said: 'The estimated saving for patients, visitors and staff who used NHS car parks that previously charged for car parking is over £90m.' Most Scottish hospitals have not charged for parking since 2008 however the Scottish Government was forced to buy out the private finance initiative (PFI) car parks at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary and Ninewells Hospital in Dundee in 2021 for £26.3m and £9m, respectively. (Image: Web) At that time, it was reported that talks with the PFI operator of the car park at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh were 'progressing' and NHS Lothian says that charges are currently suspended. While car parking fees can be a cash cow for the NHS, with trusts in England ploughing the money back into the health service, the SNP have long complained that visitors and staff were being charged to fund private companies leasing out car parks. READ MORE: UK set up secret Afghan migration scheme after massive data leak and media gagged SNP MSP Clare Haughey said: 'This is exactly the kind of action people expect from a government that puts public services first. 'By scrapping these unfair and unnecessary car parking charges, the SNP have saved people across Scotland more than £90m, money that stays in the pockets of NHS staff as well as patients and families at some of the most difficult times in their lives. 'While Westminster governments have allowed these charges to continue in parts of England, the SNP have delivered meaningful change that puts fairness and wellbeing first.'
Daily Record
25 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Unite boss slams Labour's handling of Grangemouth after removing Rayner's membership
Sharon Graham said the way the party had handled industrial issues had left members considering their relationship with Labour. The boss of one of the UK's largest unions has said Labour's handling of Grangemouth has added to members feeling disenfranchised with the party. Sharon Graham, general secretary of the Unite union, was defending the decision to remove Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner as a member over the lack of progress on the Birmingham bin worker dispute. Scottish delegates were among more than 800 members who voted to remove Rayner's membership and to reconsider its affiliation with Labour. Graham said: 'I have real difficulty with what they're doing about Grangemouth and the Lindsey oil refinery, and about oil and gas workers. 'Unite members are a microcosm of society and if you have people in Wales, in Scotland, all of our sectors effectively turning away from Labour, if I were Labour I wouldn't be trying to put up paltry defences to that, I'd be saying, 'What are we getting wrong?'.' The union leader said the process of disaffiliating with Labour had already started after members called for a review of the relationship, which saw their subs contribute more than £500,000 to the party last year. Seven Scottish Labour MPs have benefitted from Unite cash, receiving a total of £37,500 last year to help with their general election push. They are Glenrothes's Richard Baker, Glasgow North East MP Maureen Burke, Irene Campbell, MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, Edinburgh North MP Tracy Gilbert, Grangemouth MP Brian Leishman, Frank McNally of Coatbridge and Bellshill and Martin Rhodes, MP for Glasgow North. On BBC Radio 4's Today Graham said: 'This was a vote of members at the parliament of our union that were saying, 'We don't believe Labour defends workers in the way that we thought they would, we believe they are making the wrong decisions.' I would be concerned about that. "The disaffiliation part, the beginning, has started because the policy conference has said they want an examination of our relationship. Our members reflect society, what everyday people are saying. At a rules conference if our members vote to disaffiliate then yes [we will]. I'm under pressure to have an emergency rules conference which would mean we would disaffiliate.' In response to sources briefing that Rayner gave up membership in April, Graham said: 'If I was Angela Rayner I wouldn't be trying to do a Houdini act on whether technically she was or wasn't at this juncture [a member]. She's been a member for years.' A Scottish Labour spokeswoman said 'For over a decade Scotland's SNP and Tory governments ignored the mounting challenges at Grangemouth, but Labour stepped up and took action within a matter of months. 'This Labour Government has pledged £200 million to secure an industrial future for Grangemouth and ensure it is home to the jobs of the future.' Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
The National
36 minutes ago
- The National
Media expert raises fears over BBC Gaza documentary review
The BBC was found to have breached one of its editorial guidelines on accuracy after it failed to disclose that the narrator in the axed documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone was the son of a Hamas official. However, the review crucially stated on page one there was nothing 'in the narrator's scripted contribution to the programme that breached the BBC's standards on due impartiality' while it added there was no evidence 'to support a suggestion that the narrator's father or family influenced the content of the programme'. Professor Des Freedman, who works in the media department at Goldsmiths, University of London, said these points have not been widely focused on by the mainstream media, with most headlines homing in on the single accuracy breach. READ MORE: Angus Robertson hits out as Labour 'keep UK veto on Scottish laws' And he fears the review and the way in which the breach has been reported on will now give the BBC "cover" to make more 'cowardly decisions' on Gaza coverage. 'I think it provides BBC executives, who have already made some cowardly decisions such as decided to drop the Doctors Under Attack documentary, with cover to say that actually doing this kind of work in Gaza is too complicated,' he told The National. 'They will do this in the light of the fact they know there will be pressure placed on them. 'The best way of responding to that pressure is not to give in, because that pressure will still come. It's actually to make sure you commission serious, high-quality current affairs programmes and documentaries that assess what's going on. 'My worry is they are going to interpret this as yet another reason to steer clear [of investigative Gaza coverage].' Freedman (below) added he has concerns over the review branding the documentary a 'higher-risk project' which might require more intense oversight, such as 'embedding a BBC executive into the independent production company'. (Image: Goldsmiths) He added: 'Why should a documentary about the most appalling war crimes taking place be seen as higher risk? 'Surely the risk would be not to report it. 'I find it worrying it's put into that category of higher risk with more editorial intervention by people who have already demonstrated that they are not willing to sanction impartial reporting of the attacks on Gaza.' While the review was going on, the BBC axed the Basement Films documentary Gaza: Doctors Under Attack following concerns that it would 'not meet the high standards' of impartiality – a move that was widely criticised especially after it was broadcast by Channel 4 with no formal concerns raised. Ofcom boss Melanie Dawes said at the weekend that failings on Israel-Palestine coverage present a "real risk" for the BBC. She said it had been guilty of 'own goals' in its reporting and declined to give executives her support. Upon discovering the Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone narrator, Abdullah, was the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who has worked as deputy minister of agriculture in Gaza's government, the BBC removed the documentary from iPlayer. In an email to staff – shared on social media by Basement Films – BBC News CEO Deborah Turness said the BBC would not reinstate the documentary in full but would explore re-editing some of the material. READ MORE: Everything to know about the BBC's Gaza, Glastonbury and Gregg Wallace crises Freedman insisted the documentary must be reinstated in full as he warned that 'breaking it up into morsels' could create even more problems for the BBC. 'They should reinstate the programme onto iPlayer as soon as possible in full, making clear what has happened and allow viewers to make their own minds up,' he said. 'A breach of accuracy does not mean in itself that that programme cannot continue on iPlayer. 'I think the BBC have acknowledged this because Deborah Turness has suggested that the programme could in parts be reintroduced to iPlayer. That's such a typically cowardly way of doing things. 'There is an appetite for this type of content, a comprehensive report has found in terms of programme content, it was pretty much flawless […] so there is no objective reason why the programme shouldn't be put back up there.' He added: 'The idea you can break this up into morsels is exactly what we don't need. We need proper investigative reporting of what's been going on [in Gaza]." Ex-BBC journalist Karishma Patel also said there was "no editorial reason" for the BBC not to put the programme back on iPlayer with details of the narrator's background outlined. She said: "The one breach of BBC editorial policy can easily be resolved by signposting the relevant context in the film, alongside a proper explanation of how ministerial roles operate in Gaza. "I see no editorial reason why the BBC should not air and upload this amended version of the film - an important piece of public service journalism - to BBC iPlayer. "But there is a broader conversation to be had here – if the BBC is serious about signposting the relevant connections of every contributor, why not tell us when an interviewee has served in the Israeli military? "If the BBC is serious about including all relevant context in its news coverage, why not highlight the ICC arrest warrant out for Benjamin Netanyahu whenever he's mentioned? "The inconsistency in how these rules are applied, especially around Gaza, is distorting reality and misleading audiences." When approached for comment, the BBC directed The National to a statement from Turness which said: 'At the heart of this programme were powerful and important stories that need to be told. But it's clear that in this programme we made a significant mistake. "This is why we have drawn up a robust action plan to make sure all of Peter Johnston's recommendations are implemented. "Our audiences deserve the highest possible standards of accuracy from the BBC, and we are strengthening our editorial oversight to ensure that we deliver this for them. "We remain committed to reporting from Gaza, despite the fact that international journalists are not allowed in."
