Seòmar agus comataidhean

On playgrounds—apart from the fact that Mr Kerr seems to need an abacus rather than a playground—I commend the fact that £800,000 has already been allocated in the Borders, and £1 million in Midlothian. On a serious note, after Covid, when children were socially isolated for so long, it is excellent that they can now have fresh air and fun and be liberated to the safe space of a playground—not too safe, but safe enough.

To ask the Scottish Government what research has been undertaken into any impact of the Scottish child payment on food poverty. (S6O-04733)

Do you accept the point that I made in my speech that we should not park medication or assessments until a diagnosis is secured but consider interventions and alternatives early on in the educational process, from the very start, at nursery?

I, too, welcome the debate and recognise the commitment of the Liberal Democrats to the subject. Diagnosis and referral for adults or children who are suspected of having, for example, ADHD have become more of an issue post-Covid. I have a number of cases in my inbox relating to the situation that has resulted from the different protocols that are in place in different NHS board areas.

In this short debate, I intend to focus on early intervention pre-school and in early years. The preceding debate focused on education, as I will do, but I hope to keep within the scope of the motion and the amendments, because I do not think that coping with neurodevelopmental issues and supporting people with such issues and, indeed, their families is isolated to health.

I have brief comments on the Government’s amendment. We surely all agree that there is unmet need, that there has been a sharp rise in demand following Covid, that there are difficulties with the supply of medication and that there is concern about the widespread removal of shared care arrangements, although I worry that some parents can afford to obtain a private diagnosis for their child and others cannot. As I indicated, I have cases in which parents have been told that they cannot even—

I always find it unfortunate when money is able to put people nearer the front of the queue. I do not say that to in any way insult the people who do that—it is just a problem for me.

That said—this is not an alternative—ADHD and other neurodevelopmental conditions can be suspected and even identified without a diagnosis, and the support that a toddler or child requires might not include medication. That is not to dismiss medication and diagnosis, because they matter, but there might be appropriate temporary or permanent options. For example, early intervention at school or nursery might be preferable as a first step. That will also support other children, as it will avoid all the other children having to be decanted into the playground almost daily when one child disrupts a class or a nursery.

I say that in the context of recent constituency cases. I had a fruitful and focused conversation with the director of education, the principal educational psychologist and the chief education officer from Scottish Borders Council. The upshot is that, in three primary schools, tailored support has been provided to individual children under what the education team describes as a 12-week process. That appears to work in the interests of the class and of the individual child, and the situation of classes having been disrupted appears to be improving. I cannot say whether medication is involved for those individual children, but those interventions, with support, are certainly working. Diagnosis and medication matter, but other steps can be taken in place of or in addition to diagnosis and medication.

I stress that my submission about other interventions is not to sidestep, dismiss or minimise diagnosis and medication but simply to illustrate that those may be—I stress the words “may be”—unnecessary in whole or in part.

I congratulate Sharon Dowey on securing this debate. As the Parliament’s only—perhaps last—octogenarian MSP, I should perhaps declare an interest, because people of my age certainly become aware that their hearing is not in as sharp shape as it was in their youth. It is a realisation, rather like needing glasses, that sneaks up on people. I had compensated for my short-sightedness by recognising people by their gait and the sound of their footfall. I can still do that. I did not realise until I could not read a notice board in a lecture room that there was more to it. Glasses, and now contact lenses, are a liberation.

Hearing loss follows a similar path. I began to notice that I preferred to sit in the middle of a group, because then I could more clearly hear the conversations. Ambient noise disrupts people’s hearing. Their whisper—my colleagues will identify with this—becomes more of a stage whisper. People say “Pardon?” or “Sorry?” far too often. The difference is that people do not find a reduction in someone’s vision funny, but hearing loss can certainly make someone the butt of a joke. It is time that that stopped. Loss of hearing—small or large—can have an impact on our wellbeing. We might keep apologising when we have absolutely nothing to apologise for.

At this point, I will slip in a point about the importance of earwax removal by a professional. Earwax might not be the sole source of reduced hearing, but it certainly does not help. However, not all general practitioners now provide that service and, at about £60 for private treatment, it is not an option for everyone.

As more of us, thankfully, grow older in Scotland, it is no surprise to find that, currently, just under a million adults have their hearing affected, and demand for services is expected to rise significantly as the population ages. Indeed, the number of over-60s is projected to increase by 50 per cent by 2033—I do not think that I will be around then.

However, all is not lost. Midlothian Council has developed a strong partnership with Deaf Action to support residents of all ages who are living with deafness or hearing impairment, through initiatives such as—this is just one example—outreach and home support, covering health, financial and social issues. Similarly, in the Scottish Borders, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People’s Near You service is a community-led success. In 2024, it supported 2,497 people through local drop-ins and phone and online support. It also engaged in more than 4,300 individual interventions, including 1,907 hearing aid support interventions, 2,347 information and advice sessions and 116 hearing checks.

However, as is the case everywhere, Midlothian and the Scottish Borders face funding pressures, and—for reasons that we all appreciate and I need not expand on—accessing services in rural areas is more expensive. Therefore, bringing audiology services into community settings, on a par with Scotland’s eye care model, would be most welcome. That early intervention could prevent more serious ear conditions from developing and help to tackle preventable mental health problems, cognitive decline and isolation, which can be linked directly to hearing loss. Frankly, and quite brutally, it would help the public purse. This is a well-worn mantra, but it is worth saying again: spend to save. I would like the Government to provide the same kind of access to audiology services that we have to free eye care and eye tests.

That point is one of the reasons why many people disguise the fact that they cannot hear what is going on, which makes it worse for them. They suppress it, because they know that it will be an amusement to many people.

I will, if the Deputy Presiding Officer will give me a little bit of time back.

I thank Patrick Harvie for raising the question, because it is important that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, for whom I speak, has the opportunity to set out the rationale for this collective and cross-party decision and to provide assurance that it is committed to offering an inclusive experience for all those who work at and visit Holyrood.

Although we have been made aware of the open letter’s existence via media reports, we have, in fact, only just received it this afternoon, so the SPCB has not yet had a chance to consider it. We will, of course, consider the letter and will be happy to provide a response. In the meantime, our having considered this sensitive issue, I would like to make the following general points on the SPCB’s behalf, if I may, in response to Mr Harvie’s question.

The SPCB remains deeply committed to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all those who work at and visit Holyrood. That includes people in the trans and non-binary community, as well as those with other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. In fulfilling its various roles and responsibilities, the SPCB must balance the needs and requirements of all those with a range of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and must also take all necessary steps to ensure that Parliament complies with its legal responsibilities in a timely manner.

As stated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the law, as set out by the Supreme Court, is “effective immediately” and those who have duties under the Equality Act 2010 should be following the law and looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices. The SPCB has, for many years, provided a wide range of inclusive facilities at Holyrood, including gender-neutral facilities.

In the light of the Supreme Court ruling, our advisers have considered an interim stance—and I emphasise the term “interim”—that supports the SPCB in continuing to meet its legal responsibilities and to do so in a way that provides clarity and is inclusive for all those using our facilities. A detailed equality impact assessment was undertaken to assess the impact on people with each of the protected characteristics, and that was published, together with the SPCB paper, as part of the interim stance. That shows how we are balancing requirements across all groups, based on the facilities currently available at Holyrood, to create the optimal range of facilities for all users, again balancing the different protected characteristics.

Members will be aware that the next phase of work, which will look at changes in the medium to long term, includes a wide consultation with staff, members, members’ staff and other stakeholders. That will include consultation with external groups and organisations that work regularly and closely with people with all the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010. That will include stakeholders with insight into, and experience of, gender reassignment as well as other groups with protected characteristics, because the SPCB is required to balance the rights of all those with a protected characteristic.

I am just about to come to the end of my answer, Deputy Presiding Officer.

That further phase will also enable us to take account of the new EHRC code of practice when that is published, later this year.

I hope that that is helpful.

I thank Patrick Harvie for raising the question, because it is important that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, for whom I speak, has the opportunity to set out the rationale for this collective and cross-party decision and to provide assurance that it is committed to offering an inclusive experience for all those who work at and visit Holyrood.

Although we have been made aware of the open letter’s existence via media reports, we have, in fact, only just received it this afternoon, so the SPCB has not yet had a chance to consider it. We will, of course, consider the letter and will be happy to provide a response. In the meantime, our having considered this sensitive issue, I would like to make the following general points on the SPCB’s behalf, if I may, in response to Mr Harvie’s question.

The SPCB remains deeply committed to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all those who work at and visit Holyrood. That includes people in the trans and non-binary community, as well as those with other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. In fulfilling its various roles and responsibilities, the SPCB must balance the needs and requirements of all those with a range of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and must also take all necessary steps to ensure that Parliament complies with its legal responsibilities in a timely manner.

As stated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the law, as set out by the Supreme Court, is “effective immediately” and those who have duties under the Equality Act 2010 should be following the law and looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices. The SPCB has, for many years, provided a wide range of inclusive facilities at Holyrood, including gender-neutral facilities.

In the light of the Supreme Court ruling, our advisers have considered an interim stance—and I emphasise the term “interim”—that supports the SPCB in continuing to meet its legal responsibilities and to do so in a way that provides clarity and is inclusive for all those using our facilities. A detailed equality impact assessment was undertaken to assess the impact on people with each of the protected characteristics, and that was published, together with the SPCB paper, as part of the interim stance. That shows how we are balancing requirements across all groups, based on the facilities currently available at Holyrood, to create the optimal range of facilities for all users, again balancing the different protected characteristics.

Members will be aware that the next phase of work, which will look at changes in the medium to long term, includes a wide consultation with staff, members, members’ staff and other stakeholders. That will include consultation with external groups and organisations that work regularly and closely with people with all the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010. That will include stakeholders with insight into, and experience of, gender reassignment as well as other groups with protected characteristics, because the SPCB is required to balance the rights of all those with a protected characteristic.

I am just about to come to the end of my answer, Deputy Presiding Officer.

That further phase will also enable us to take account of the new EHRC code of practice when that is published, later this year.

I hope that that is helpful.