Child mental health has never been more important

This forthcoming week marks children’s mental health week (6-12 February), shining a spotlight on the importance of children’s and young people’s mental health.

The rise in such problems over recent years has previously been labeled as a mental health crisis and one of the greatest public health challenges of our times. These problems are even more worrying when they concern the mental fitness of our younger generations, and how we are preparing them to face the growing challenges of entering adulthood.

Against this backdrop, our mental health services are however facing overwhelming and unprecedented pressures, which existed even before the pandemic and are becoming further exacerbated by the cost of living crisis.

Too many of our young people are waiting too long for treatment and the rapidly escalating number of those seeking support, faced with inadequate services, could potentially lead to a lost generation of vulnerable children and young people who are missing out on the support they vitally need.

Against the perfect storm of a mental health crisis combined with the long shadow of lockdown and the rising cost of living, we must not lose sight of the challenges that our children and young people are facing, renewing our efforts in a national crusade to ensure that they receive adequate mental health support.

The Scottish Children’s Services Coalition

Edinburgh

James Moore makes a great case for more and better SEND provisions.

However, provisions for SEND children do not come free and would mean we need yet more specialist-paid teachers in our schools.

If we want all children to thrive to the best of their ability, then every single one of them needs an individual education plan and appropriate support – if we think we can’t afford it, then we have to decide where to draw the line. That is always going to be painful.

Rachael Padman

Suffolk

Instead of forcing their way into vulnerable people’s homes or switching smart meters remotely without any consent, maybe the greedy and vastly profitable energy companies could make the cost of tariffs fairer?

Those with the least should be able to pay the cheapest rates, not the most expensive – after all, they are paying in advance, so the company already has their money to use before delivery.

Moreover, while they are at it, they can do away with or greatly reduce the “standing charge” which again penalises the lower users more.

Mike Margetts

Kilsby UK

I was interested to read the letter regarding “Why are multimillionaires so desperate to run our government?”.

This has now galvanised the working public to stand up and demand a decent standard of living. This country is and has always been rich enough to give the British people a good standard of living.

Yet the immense greed of those in power has held us back. We need to fight for better conditions, and the Labour leadership needs to step up to the mark and support the working men and women of our country.

Phil Jones

Address supplied

Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak have all, by personal choice, enjoyed periods in an ethics vacuum without appointing an adviser on breaches of the ministerial code.

Beyond that temporary intermission, there is a lack of oversight. The prime minister’s independent adviser on ministers’ interests can only, by definition, investigate a matter referred to them by the prime minister. Whatever the recommendation made the prime minister alone would then take a decision on whether or not to act.

There is, it seems to me, evidence enough in relation to Nadhim Zahawi, Dominic Raab, and Suella Braverman that the conduct of the PM himself could be worthy of scrutiny. However, in the matter of potential breaches of the ministerial code, the prime minister is an unwarranted exception.

Beyond the prime minister, there is no authority either inside or outside parliament that can initiate an appropriate inquiry by the ethics adviser should it appear necessary – or act on the result. The public must rely on the unlikely possibility of Sunak referring himself to Sir Laurie Magnus and, if necessary, acting against himself at his own discretion. In the absence of the scrutiny considered appropriate to other cabinet members, we can only reach an inconsequential conclusion for ourselves based on media reports and commentary.

David Nelmes   

Newport