Seòmar agus comataidhean

For the SNP, we have always prioritised hearing from those with lived experience. It is vital to hear how policy affects those on the ground or on the front line. In committee, I have seen examples of that, such as when we were doing our human rights budgeting. People from various backgrounds came in and fed back on what the budget meant to them, what they knew about it, the transparency around it and whether they thought that they could scrutinise it. It was really valuable work.

Disabled people with lived experience gave evidence on the Disability Commissioner (Scotland) Bill, and autism groups came in to discuss the learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill. It was really important to hear about that lived experience.

Conveners are already elected—they are elected to this place by a fair, democratic process. I do not think that the election of a convener would change the effectiveness of that position or that person at all. In fact, it might cause more party politics to come into play.

It is a reasonable discussion and a good debate to have, though. I think—

We are encouraged to ensure that, when we are scrutinising at committee, we are doing so objectively. However, the point is that we are here and that we align with our party political values. There are many times when we will agree with what is being said by those who are in the same political party as us. However, it is important to impress upon members that important scrutiny is undermined when there is opposition for opposition’s sake; that is the flipside to having agreeableness for agreeableness’s sake.

We are encouraged to go in there as members and cast a critical eye, because robust scrutiny is important to making the best law possible for the people of Scotland. As I said at the beginning, robust scrutiny means that we have a robust Government, so it is encouraged.

The academy does not have a school bell, which has made a massive impact. There is no jarring noise and no sudden movement, and it helps people to take responsibility—

My apologies, Presiding Officer.

Will the member take an intervention?

I really welcome this debate, and I thank colleagues across the chamber for bringing attention to such an important issue. Additional support for learning and the implementation of mainstreaming are a vital issue that we should keep front and centre. I have had conversations with the Government, the cabinet secretary and the minister, and I believe that it is a conversation that they do not shy away from.

I will speak specifically about neurodivergence. In my time as a councillor and, now, as an MSP, it has been the number 1 issue that constituents have raised with me. Week in, week out, families have contacted me, exhausted and frustrated and often feeling powerless. That is not just because of the day-to-day challenges of parenting neurodivergent children, but because they are constantly having to fight to be understood. It is that understanding that I really want to focus on.

Families need to be listened to and they need to be able to access support systems, which are there but are often gatekept by people who do not understand. I have been open about my lived experience. I could stand here and say that I have a child who waited about eight years for an ADHD diagnosis, but that time was not spent on a waiting list, and that is what we need to be specific about. It was eight years of me asking teachers to see what I saw in my child, but they did not, so that diagnostic pathway was blocked and gatekept several times. When they finally—after I begged them—got him on the diagnostic pathway, it took a matter of months and he was helped and supported. I was told that his was probably one of the strongest-presenting ADHD cases they had seen, so what was the issue? The issue was not that the waiting list was eight years long; the issue was that the people on the ground who could give my child access to that pathway did not understand how neurodivergence could present.

I understand that it is not financially viable to offer one-to-one support to every single neurodivergent child, and I agree that trauma-informed practice is really important, but understanding is needed. Neurodivergent children have a strong sense of justice and fairness, and people can often add negative connotations to that and say that they come across as obstinate, which can be time consuming in some busy classrooms. However, that is where understanding matters, and those qualities can actually be nurtured and become great transferable skills in the real world—she says, standing here with a strong sense of social justice.

I warmly welcome the Scottish Government’s significant investment in ASL provision. I know that it has been listening and that it is working hard to find solutions, but money and policy alone are not enough. Those who are delivering the services on the ground must have an understanding of how neurodivergence presents and what these children need. I have had a child placed on a reduced timetable—I get it. I have been there when the anxiety kicks in when the phone rings, and I have been unable to work in traditional ways for many years because I have had to go to the school to ask my child to climb down from the shed after he has emptied all the gym equipment out. I get it.

However, too often, the relationship between parents and schools can become adversarial. We need to replace that tension with trust and with honest and open communication. We must stop the blame game for everyone and come up with constructive solutions to move forward and see what is best for everyone inside and outside the classroom.

I will have to skip quite a bit of my speech, but I want to give a shout-out to Banff academy, which has an excellent example of a really small action making a big impact. I went to the school and wondered why it was so calm and peaceful—

—for their timekeeping—she said, ironically.

Thank you. We will move on to questions from Paul O’Kane, please.

Tess White has indicated that she would like to ask a supplementary question.