 The next item of business is a debate on motion 15607, in the name of Liz Smith, on presumption to mainstream. Can the members who wish to take part in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now, and I call on Liz Smith to speak to and move the motion, Ms Smith, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I open this debate with a recognition of and agreement with the OECD's comments in 2012, which stated unequivocally that The principle of inclusion is one of the great strengths of Scottish education. May I also say that Scottish Conservatives believe that the presumption to mainstream is part of that inclusive approach. That, for the majority of young people in Scottish schools and their teachers, has brought rich reward in their educational and social experience. Participation in school is not just about what goes on in the classroom. There are very powerful arguments about why a young person's presence in mainstream provision can be enriched in terms of the development of friendships, the development of wider skills and in terms of participation in extracurricular activity. Inclusion, however, must never be taken to mean exactly the same thing as mainstreaming. A young person attending a special school in some cases away from home may find himself or herself in a very inclusive setting, much better able to meet their potential than they would have done in a mainstream school. The reverse is true. As the Education and Skills Committee report of 2017 found, there are many young people within mainstream schools who do not feel particularly well included, so we need to be very careful about the language that we employ. There is no denying the fact that there is a growing number of young people for whom mainstream schooling is not appropriate because it is not delivering for their best educational and social needs. That was something that the Scottish Government acknowledged when it commissioned the Doran review, which was published in 2012. A report that was in part very critical of the standard of education for some young people with additional support needs, mainly because it was felt that there was a lack of training for teachers to be able to understand and cater for the needs of young people requiring that additional support. Of course, one of the great successes of the 2009 ASN legislation was the significant improvement in the identification of additional support pupils. However, thanks to that better identification, the number of ASN young people has doubled since 2011, yet at the same time the number of special schools has declined by 31 per cent since 2008, and the number of specialist teachers, including psychologists and psychiatrists, has declined by 9 per cent. Twenty-four per cent of all primary children are now identified with some form of additional support, and the figure for secondary is 29 per cent. Although the majority of those young people can flourish in mainstream schools, that is not the case for a significant minority. 60 per cent of teachers are now telling us that young people are frequently being educated in mainstream schools when alternative provision would suit their educational needs much better. In other words, we have seen a very significant rise in the level of demand for specialist education, but, as things stand just now, that demand cannot be fully met. For us on these benches, we believe that that is one of the greatest challenges that we face in Scottish education, one that is very high on the list of teachers' present concerns in both the primary and the secondary sectors, and one about which many parents and charitable foundations are deeply concerned. It is for exactly those reasons that we wanted to debate the issue this afternoon, because we think that it is vitally important to pay attention to what teachers are saying. Many are very clear indeed that the current situation is in ways inhibiting their ability to deliver top-quality teaching and pastoral care, not only to many young people with the additional support need, but also to many other young people who are in classes where, despite the best intentions of the teacher, they are not receiving the same amount of time as before. Of course, in some cases, there is the accompanying discipline issue, and that is something that naturally both parents and teachers and young people find for themselves is a huge worry. That was partly why the Education and Skills Committee report of 2017 made clear that there are many young people who actually feel more excluded in mainstream schooling than they would do in special schooling, which, of course, runs slightly counter to what the ASN Act of 29 said. However, we should not forget that the first quasi-legal criterion, which permits exemption for mainstream schooling, is that it would not be suited to the ability or aptitude of the child. What do we have to do? Let us be very aware that the current financial circumstances make it extremely difficult to find new additional resources. I am sure that we can all agree that it would be very nice to add perhaps another 1,000 specialist teachers to the workforce, but we have to accept for the time being that that is not practical. Local authority budgets are so tight, and we know that the SNP's cut to teacher numbers over many years has also involved a number of classroom assistants who were previously assisting with the support for our most vulnerable children. However, let us also be clear that there are some additional resources already in the system. The cabinet secretary said just two weeks ago at committee when he admitted that there is an underspend on the attainment fund, with money sitting waiting for schools to use. We know from the early experience of PEF, which we all support across this chamber, that many head teachers are very keen to do more if they can employ additional teachers in that area. We know, too, that there are special schools and some specialist units that have available places. We know in Edinburgh, for example, that the Royal Blind School feels that its specialist resources are underused. We know that the Donaldson School feels the same, and I certainly have knowledge of another couple of special schools that would be able to take more young people. May I say something at this stage about the importance of ensuring that there is maximum access to staff who have expertise in ASN work? In doing so, can I just pick up a comment from the residential childcare qualification report of 2012, in which the importance of professional qualifications was discussed? All very important in terms of ensuring that there is additional quality within staffing. There is widespread recognition of the need for a qualification-based profession, but there is also very real concern that the narrow focus of the level 9 degree award is putting in place some restrictions, which are first causing potential excellent recruits to the profession to be excluded, and secondly, placing considerable financial burdens on retraining existing staff. That is an issue that we know has risen in nursery and childcare, but it is also an issue in some of the smaller specialist schools, and it is threatening the viability of some of those institutions. The approach of local authorities is, of course, key to this debate. It is easy to understand why, as a result of financial pressures, they are reluctant to place a young person in a special school, even if they believe that that young person would benefit hugely from being there. I can certainly cite—I am sure that every member in this chamber can cite several examples from casework whereby a local authority has sought to continue mainstreaming a young person when the parents and specialist advice has been otherwise. Specialist care means the provision of specialist services, and if it is not always possible to ensure that those services can be provided in a single local authority, we must ensure that those accessible facilities are elsewhere. Part of that equation, of course, is teacher training. It is not long ago when the education committee took evidence from trainee and probationary teachers that we got exactly the same message that much more has to be done within teacher training courses to assist all teachers to better understand their responsibilities when it comes to young people and their special needs. That is something about which I hope the GTCS and the teacher training schools can be helpful. No-one pretends that it is an easy issue, but we do not believe that the current situation can continue if we are to serve the best interests of every child. I move the motion in my name. Thank you very much. I now call on John Swinney to speak to a move amendment 15657.2. Cabinet Secretary, please. Presiding Officer, I move the amendment in my name and recognise that this is a welcome debate to reaffirm for the Government's part. I am glad to hear it reaffirmed by the Conservative party as well that all children and young people must receive the support that they need to enable them to achieve their full potential. We are clear that all children and young people should learn in the environment that best suits their needs, whether that is a mainstream school or a special school setting. The judgment about what is appropriate as a learning environment for each individual should be taken based on their needs and their circumstances, and that is the foundation of statute in this area. The defining mission of this Government is delivering excellence and equity in Scottish education. Equity for all can only be achieved through an inclusive education system. Scotland's inclusive approach celebrates diversity and allows children and young people to develop an understanding and a recognition of differences. That contributes to the development of an increasingly inclusive, compassionate and equal society. That inclusive approach is recognised as a key strength of our education system. In the OECD report, Quality and Equity of Schooling in Scotland 2007, the OEC recognised that Scotland has one of the most equitable school systems in the OECD countries. We are clear in our expectations that all children and young people should reach their full potential within this environment. That is achieved through a framework of legislation and policy that sets the expectation of excellence and equity for all. We have a system that focuses on overcoming barriers to learning, and that is the approach that makes Scotland stand out. The approach is well regarded across Europe and has been adopted by a number of other countries. A cornerstone of our inclusive approach is the presumption of mainstreaming for those with additional support needs, and that approach is reaffirmed in the terms of the amendment that I have just moved. We know that significant numbers of children and young people and their families have benefited from that inclusive approach. There are more than 192,240 pupils who are benefiting from spending some or all of their time in mainstream education. Inclusion is a fundamental aspect of Scottish education and ensures that all children and young people can recognise and appreciate diversity as part of everyday life. Our approach recognises that a child or young person's ability to learn effectively may be impacted in many different ways from disability or health needs to family circumstances, the learning environment or social and emotional factors. Our focus is that children and young people should receive the support that they need and when they need it. The explanation of the range of factors that may affect a young person's ability to learn must be reflected in the educational support that is delivered for each individual young person based on the assessment of their needs. We have made extensive policy and legislative changes over the past 15 years to enable those with additional support needs to thrive as part of their class, their school and their wider community. We must continue to make sure that all of our children and young people feel included and can participate and achieve their full potential. Liz Smith, I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. I couldn't agree more, but I think that the Scottish Government has done quite a lot. Given that we have got additional capacity within many of the special schools and special units, what else can the Scottish Government do to encourage local authorities to take up those places? Before you respond, cabinet secretary, I just say that there is time for intervention, so intervention will make up time. Liz Smith makes a fair point, because the judgment about whether to utilise capacity in any special school environment must be driven by the assessment of the needs of an individual young person, and that is, by statute, a matter for a local authority to take forward. The point that I would make in relation to the statutory framework is that that framework is there. The question that individual local authorities must wrestle with in dialogue with families is what is the most appropriate learning environment for an individual child. Of course, sometimes, when Liz Smith knows that I have familiarity with those concepts, sometimes that can be a matter of dispute between a local authority and a family, where families can consider that the local authority's propositions for the learning environment of a child are not appropriate. Ultimately, there are tribunal arrangements that can reconcile some of those differences, but I would encourage—and the Government policy encourages this—good, active, participative dialogue with families to try to make sure that the educational provision that is made available for young people is appropriate. Of course, in certain circumstances, that will involve a reference to a special school. I have spent quite a bit of time, since I became education secretary, visiting all the special schools in Scotland to see first hand, because of the implications of issues such as the door and review, just the precise nature and character of the services and support that they provide. I commend them for the work that they do, but fundamentally, the judgments rests with local authorities in dialogue with families as to what should be the appropriate educational environment for young people. We know that we have a system in Scotland that is much admired and that there is much to be proud about, but I would be the first to accept that no system is entirely perfect. I am very committed to ensuring that children receive the support that they need when they need it within our education system. We have appreciated and valued the input into this discussion from the Education and Skills Committee. We will continue to work to ensure that children and young people's needs are identified, that they are met and that we will do all that we can to make sure that those who provide support directly to children and young people have the skills and knowledge to enable them to do this in the most appropriate way. Of course, that includes the importance attached to initial teacher education into the bargain, which must reflect some of those challenges. There is still more that needs to be done to advance many of those questions and to assure ourselves within the context of reaffirming the principle of mainstreaming that all that needs to be done is being done. We are looking to further support implementation of additional support for learning and the programme for government sets out our commitment to work with local government towards improving consistency of support across Scotland through improved guidance by building further capacity to deliver effective additional support and improving career pathways and professional development, including new training resources for school staff on inclusive practices. I am very pleased to consider the question of a review of the implementation of additional support for learning, including where children learn. Taking a collaborative approach on working with local authorities and the third sector, I believe that we can create a Scotland where our education system can match up to our aspirations and ensure— At this very moment, the cabinet secretary is about to conclude. Oh, well, if I wasn't about to conclude— I'd put that really nicely. I certainly am now. I very happily give way to the member in my closing remarks. I know that the commitment to inclusive education is shared across the chamber and we must improve experiences for all, ensuring that we are getting it right for every child. I hope that the next steps that I have set out today will help us to take a further journey towards delivering inclusive education in practice for all children and young people in Scotland. I have some time in hand, but it is not an enormous amount. Can I call on Iain Gray now to speak to and move amendment 15607.1? Mr Gray, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I rise to move the amendment in my name. I have explained to the chamber before that I am committed to the presumption of mainstreaming, not just by ideology but by experience, because many years ago, when I taught in Gracemount High School, it was co-located with what was then CAME's school for the visually impaired, with the purpose of ensuring that CAME students could spend a significant part of their school week in mainstream classes in the high school. It worked extremely well. We had small classes, practical classes of around 12 to 14, perhaps two pupils from CAME's, and they often came with specialist support from CAME's school as well. It worked extremely well, it was a very inclusive setup. I have seen mainstreaming work, but unfortunately I have seen it fail as well. Over the years, at that time in the late 70s and early 80s, budgetary pressure began to bite, and then we found ourselves in full classes, over 20 for science classes, perhaps four or even five pupils from CAME's school and no additional support teacher coming with them. They did not get the education to which they were entitled. They were essentially parked at the back of the class and, I admit it, ignored. In my view, the right policy is the right policy for children themselves and their educational experience. It is the right policy for parents, children being educated in their local school, but it is also the right policy for other children in the school whose educational experience is enriched. As the cabinet secretary said, it is the right policy for society, too, in building a compassionate, fair and equitable society. Without resources and specialist expertise—and sometimes that does mean, as Liz Smith said, actual specialist provision—it is not really a policy at all. In fact, it is rather a con, a fraud, on those children and their parents. As it was for children who came from all across Lothians in those days to attend CAME's school and then came through into Grace Mountain High, where they did not receive the support that they were entitled to. We have the policy of presumption for mainstreaming. Today we have the resources. The answer is clearly that we do not. Year-on-year cuts to local government have taken their toll, as Liz Smith said. As she pointed out, since 2012 we have seen an increase of some 68 per cent, in fact, in pupils who are identified with additional support needs and, in the same period, 500 fewer trained ASN teachers. Mainstreaming can still be great. Only a week or so ago I visited the Royal Blind School to talk to them about the gloriously named Elvis, the East Lothian visual impairment service, where their staff work with some 56 children in mainstream education in East Lothian. That is a great scheme, but we are the only local authority in the whole of Scotland who use that expertise in that way. In the Royal Blind School, as Liz Smith suggested, there are now only 28 pupils. With over 4,000 children with visual impairment across Scotland, I simply do not believe that all of the pupils who could benefit from the expertise are there. Of course, it is not just about those with visual impairments. It is not very long since we did consider, and I know that the cabinet secretary is seriously considering this report, not included, not engaged, not involved, which talked about children with autism, for too many of whom mainstream turns into not a rich educational experience but rather a cycle of part-time schooling, informal and then perhaps formal exclusion. That is not good enough. The Tory motion in our view is not committed perhaps enough to mainstreaming. The Government motion I think corrects that, and we will support it, but neither of them say enough about the importance of resources, so we will press our amendment this evening. I declare an interest in that my wife heads up support for learning in a primary school in Edinburgh. I was also extensively involved around the work towards the 2004 additional support for learning act and its implementation. It is there that I want to start. In that piece of legislation, there is a line that is one of the most elegant pieces of prose in any statute passed by this Parliament. A child or a young person has additional support needs for the purposes of the act for whatever reason the child or a young person is likely to be enabled without the provision of additional support to benefit from school education. For whatever reason, it is that catch-all intent that captures the universal and unalienable right to education. Although that is very much the will of all of this Parliament, it is for whatever reason that picture is becoming bleaker and bleaker. We are 500 fewer teachers than we had in 2012 who had additional support needs training. One third of parents who have an additional support needs child have state that their child has been unlawfully expelled. In my own constituency, I come up on a weekly basis with parents who have children who have complex needs in the classroom and who are not finding that they are receiving the support. In some cases, offering to privately fund the support and being turned away because of a policy that does not exist where teachers say that we are having too many adults in the classroom. I think that there is definitely a disconnect between the goodwill expressed in the policies that we have passed in this chamber and the debates that we have had in this chamber and something happening on the ground. We can see that in the metrics. There is a four times higher exclusion rate in the additional support needs population in the school, yet additional support for learning only tracks something like 12 per cent of the overall spend in education. There are broken lines of communication, in some cases, siloed working, and I am particularly reminded of the case of the Muir family. They have given me their permission to use their family name, where I had to help them to lodge a section 70 complaint over the fact that there had been an element of drift whereby, because their child who has autism was not receiving the support that he needed but was very disruptive in class, there was an element of drift to the point where nothing was really done to help him until he had passed beyond the age of 16 at which the state no longer has an obligation to provide that education. Getting support to kids is a problem, it can be a problem, and that starts with identification. There are huge delays, as we know in the diagnostic process. Huge delays also in things like section 23 assessments. Upon diagnosis, they go back to yet another long queue. Families go back to the end of another long queue in terms of ascertaining the level of support that the local authority may be prepared to provide. There is a huge failure, as we know, in identifying hidden additional support needs. Looked after young people who exhibit attachment disorder, trauma and loss, their behaviour is not managed in the way that it often might be. Indeed, with young carers, many young carers are not aware of their additional support needs or the needs of their families. The picture is bleak. 78 per cent of teachers surveyed by an EIS say that there are not enough additional support provision. There was one quote on a prominent education blog, where one teacher said, I feel inclusion is a massive stick to beat me with. Teacher training never prepared me for this. That does not speak to whether the policy or right are wrong. We are not implementing it as we should do with the right resources, because the concept is not wrong. Universalism is important, because education is the right regardless of capacity or communication skills. Integration is both a social leveler and it can be very therapeutic, but it needs to be backed up with proper training and resources. Thank you very much. We now move to the open debate speeches of four minutes. Alison Harris followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Like many subjects in the education portfolio, the topic of today's debate is that of a well-intentioned policy that once again has not been fully thought through when it comes to implementation. The presumption of mainstreaming has been a part of Scottish Government policy since the year 2000 and has grown increasingly central to the ideology surrounding the teaching of children with additional support needs or ASN. The arguments in favour of mainstreaming point to the social and academic benefits for ASN children and the positives of other children learning the importance of inclusion at an early age. However, the evidence in Scotland points to the conclusion that it is failing too many children. Professor Lanny Florrie of Edinburgh University, an ardent supporter of mainstreaming said, We cannot dismiss the concerns of parents and teachers who feel that things are not working for too many children. The problem is that mainstreaming all children only works if there is an adequate support for teachers in its delivery. In December 2018, a Scottish Government publication stated that 28.7 per cent of the school population had additional support needs. In contrast, between 2012 and 2016, there was a 12 per cent fall in the number of additional support for staff learning. That is simply not sustainable. Other members have rightly highlighted the damaging effects of that for children, but it is also important to note the impact on teachers and staff. Teachers have written a series of letters to the Scottish Government highlighting their concerns. One letter said that the class teacher was hit, kicked, punched and the support staff were repeatedly subjected to kicks to the stomach and being bitten. In the Scotsman last February, one teacher described their colleagues as beyond breaking point and said that the policy was increasing staff mental health problems. I do not think that anyone would think that this is okay. Who would want to come to work with the threat of chairs and scissors being thrown at them or being bitten and kicked? Unfortunately, this is what we are hearing in schools time and time again. In many cases, a teacher's whole day is spent focusing on the additional support needs of one or two children to the detriment of every child in the class. I recently asked the cabinet secretary what action he was taking to reduce teacher workload in Falkirk. His response highlighted access to streamlined online resources and tool kits to tackle administrative bureaucracy, but those measures do not address the root of the problem. They just attempt to manage the symptoms. The cabinet secretary then said that it is the local authority's responsibility to ensure workload demands on teachers are minimised, but local authorities are having to make cuts across the board, so that seems like an impossible task. The education committee recently heard evidence from the Scottish Government regarding its updated data collection methods. The result in additional support staff no longer has been counted as a distinct group, meaning that their numbers cannot as easily be identified or tracked. If we are no longer collecting the correct data, then we have no method of truly deciphering just how bad the problem is for teachers, staff and ultimately children. The positives of mainstreaming are undeniable, but right now, for far too many children, it is just not working. That is why I will be supporting the motion in the name of Liz Smith this afternoon. Clare Adamson, followed by Johann Lamont. That is a very important debate to be having this afternoon. I thank Liz Smith for her remarks about inclusion, about the presumption of mainstreaming and how important that is for young people. Liz Smith mentioned how the increase in the number of people being identified with additional support needs had increased greatly. I believe that, from the committee this morning that Professor Harvie talked about his work in Canada, that in Canada it is actually a rate of over 50 per cent, so it could be that we have more work to do, and we should not be afraid of that because identifying additional support needs is about achieving that equity that the cabinet secretary spoke about. I was not on the Education and Skills Committee in 2017 when they published additional support for learning, working and practice, but I know since joining that how much that is a priority for the members of the committee and how they have embedded ASN work into all of the work that we are doing. Indeed, in the budget debate last week, it was one of the areas that I highlighted that the committee had concerns about. I welcome Mr Gray bringing in the issue of the special schools. Indeed, we visited the committee, the Royal Blind School, and saw some moving and excellent work. I was lucky enough to meet a Pushkin prize winner who was going off to university this year to study to become a writer. It is absolutely true that special schools have an important part to play, but it also has to work hand in hand with identifying an appropriate environment that is identified for each and every child individually. Only then will we achieve that equity that the cabinet secretary spoke about. Ms Harris is not a member of the committee and I know that she talked about the collection of data. I would like to speak about that, because I think that that is very important, because we are in danger of conflating ASN teachers with ASN support staff, and we have to be very careful about our language around that. Mick Wilson, who was acting deputy director of education analysis Scotland at our committee, said that, at the level of detail at which the data is collected, the descriptions of ASN auxiliary and care assistant, the two categories that were there, that we had in the past do not match with the staff that authorities have in place now, and because there was no pupil support assistant option to allow local authorities to turn in the data collection, authorities were randomly allocating their pupil support assistant to any one of those categories. It is not that we are not collecting the data, and the data was never collected in an efficient and in a manner that would have really fed into informing about this area. I think that that is something that the cabinet secretary is reflecting on at the moment, because people could be doing a role in a different authority with completely different job descriptions. The theme from what I have been hearing today is that that will be about partnership working. That is something that we will have to work very, very closely with education authorities and, of course, with local authorities to achieve, and that is another area that will need consensus from local authorities on how the job descriptions and the job titles and how they are actually describing their support staff in schools. I was also very glad to hear about the change in the guidance from Alex Cole-Hamilton. That was an important piece of guidance issued by the Government, and it sets out clearly the responsibility of councils in relation to the plans and the criteria that must be considered for implementing plans for young people to ensure that each and every child gets the appropriate support to indeed let them, as the cabinet secretary said, reach their full potential. Thank you for saying that. Jo-Hann Lamont, followed by Jeremy Balfour. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is obviously a very short debate, and perhaps one of the upsides is that therefore I will be making a very short speech. I will make some brief observations, but given the lack of debating time given by the Scottish Government to education and to this critical issue in particular, I would seek a commitment from the cabinet secretary to provide substantial debating time soon to allow the detail of the policy, its purpose and effectiveness to be explored in more depth. I think that we are all agreed on the basics, but I think that there is a more substantial and perhaps more nuanced debate that we need to have if we have a bit more time to do it. My starting point is a simple one. I support the presumption to mainstream education as a matter of equity and fairness to young people with special educational needs, but also as a matter of benefit for all young people. I have been privileged to go on a regular basis to Russell Academy and to Darnley primary school, both of which have visual impairment units. I believe that that is a benefit to all young people to share their experience of learning. It is, I believe, a means of breaking down the barriers to division and discrimination that all too many disabled people face throughout the remainder of their lives. To be clear, a policy commitment is not just stating it. A policy to mainstream is not a policy if the appropriate resources are not made available. If the appropriate training for teaching staff and support staff is not there, if there is not meaningful support to overcome not just the physical barriers that some young people may face but all of the barriers that present young people with huge challenges in achieving their potential. It is not a policy commitment if there is not proper monitoring of its implementation and its impact. As has already been referenced, we and the committee have looked at the lack of information about the skills and abilities of those supporting young people in our schools. We know that charities, unions, among others, carers and parents have all produced reports that often talk about a mainstream place that is honoured in the breach. As being a part-time timetable, as times spent out of class, unlike their peers, spent outside the headteachers door where there is at the more extreme end inappropriate exclusion, in those circumstances we have mainstream only in name. I do not think that anyone in this chamber would want simply to aspire to that. It is essential to confront something pretty basic that is going on in the system. All the evidence tells us that there is a stark lack of resource to will the means to make mainstreaming real in the lives of our young people, and that has got consequences. I am deeply troubled that that has led not just to concerns about how best to meet the needs of young people with additional support needs but a serious questioning of the policy itself and a consequent danger of blaming the young people with additional support needs for being the problem. We cannot allow that attitude to develop, but those who are saying that there are challenges need to be supported in understanding how those challenges properly can be met. We cannot ignore them by saying that you do not care about the policy. It is essential that we are part of willing the means. In conclusion, I would also want to reflect on how I believe that the policy has been distorted. I recall when parents campaign for and sought a presumption in favour of mainstream education. In a number of cases, we now see an assumption of mainstream education, even in family and those supporting the child, believe that that is to be inappropriate. That has consequences, too, and an inappropriate placement where we set up young people to fail. There is also a reduction in the specialist places and the specialism that many young people require, so that, even if they are assessed as needing a place out of mainstream, those places are not available. It cannot be acceptable that, even where there are places available, local authorities are having to decide not to use them because of the cost of that placement rather than an absolute objective assessment of the needs of the child. We know that that is not acceptable. We should, in conclusion, recall why parents and others sought a presumption of mainstream. They seek not warm words from us, but the proper effective support for the young people wherever they are pleased to choose their education potential. Can I remind members that there is a short time for this to be, and generally speeches only have one conclusion? Can I go to Jeremy Balfour to be followed by Jenny Horace? I welcome this debate. As I have said in previous debates around the series, back in the dark ages, when I started school, my parents made the choice for me to go to mainstream, which, back in the early 1970s, was perhaps not the choice that was made by the majority. I welcome the steps that have been made by the Government and previous Administrations to allow mainstreaming to become far more normative for those who have either physical or learning difficulties. However, I think that that is an important debate and an important motion that we will vote on later this afternoon. I think that we need some kind of review to see where things are and how things can be improved. Someone contacted me when they knew that the debate was taking place. That is their story. They have a child who is in primary 5. They are present in mainstream school, but she has requested that her son is taken out of it. The reason for that is that he has spent 90 per cent of his time out of the classroom working independently with an adult. He does not have any friends. He feels lonely, isolated and hates going to school. That is the time when mainstreaming has gone too far, when we are not looking at every child looking at his or her needs. Yes, we go to school to learn that that is a primary reason, but there are lots of other reasons that we go to school as well. We have an emotional development, we have a social development and if people are being excluded from the classroom, if they are even worse standing alone in the playground every break time, then they are missing out. That is why I think that simply to review and see is every child really getting the education that they should is welcome. Can I pick up another theme that is already outlined by Alison Harris? I think that we have to look at this holistically as well, because often a child in a classroom can disturb other children. That does not mean that they should be excluded. We need to have the appropriate support for that child. However, I know, having spoken to many teachers, that they are firefighting in the classroom, that they feel more like policemen than teachers because they are having to control what is going on. I think that there is a danger that we can have this debate in the pleasant surroundings, but I am sure that others have experience, either through personal experience, talking to teachers, talking to parents. What is happening at the core phase is often very different from what we express or what we see. Yes, I fully accept that mainstreaming should be the preferred choice, but it should not be the choice that parents and children are forced down to because of bad decisions that are made by local authorities, either on financial grounds or on ideological grounds. I think that there is room and opportunity for places such as here in Edinburgh for the blind school to continue to develop and to give that support, and that is why I will be supporting the motion that lives misnamed this afternoon. I am grateful to the Conservatives for bringing today's motion forward on presumption to mainstreaming. I agree with Clare Adamson on the importance of the subject of today's debate, and with Johann Lamont, my only criticism would be that we do not have a full debate here today because I know that the education committee has looked at this issue in great detail. 2004 gives us the backdrop to the policy, a very different political landscape consensus in Scottish education, the additional support for learning act. Not the language of disability, this legislation and the language that it enshrined was truly groundbreaking 15 years ago, but none of us can deny that the ASL Act fundamentally challenged traditional expectations of Scotland's teachers and schools. It put pressure on local authorities to accommodate learning needs that had never before been considered in the mainstream. It put pressure on teachers to properly equip themselves with the training that is required. Fundamentally, however, it put pressure on education authorities to work to get it right for every child. To do that properly, our schools had to start taking seriously their legal requirements to assess the needs of the children in their care. The evidence bears truth, a 153 per cent increase in the numbers of pupils recorded with an additional support need since 2010. Our children are more readily assessed for support, and this is being done at an earlier stage in their school journey than ever before. Conversely, since 2002, the number of pupils in special schools has fallen by 19 per cent compared to a 4 per cent drop in the number of pupils in mainstream primary schools. Today, 97 per cent of children in Scotland schools with an additional support need are educated in mainstream education. The Government's review into the presumption of mainstreaming is nonetheless timely, particularly given recent developments in Scottish education, and I note that the Government is to report on the implementation of additional support for learning nationally in due course. Classroom assistants are a vital part of the education system. They support some of our most vulnerable pupils. Last August, the Herald reported on an overall increase in classroom and support staff from 12,992 to 13,761. That is good news, but the same article goes on to consider behaviour support, where posts have reduced. As a former teacher, I think that part of that is about a cultural shift in our schools, away from disciplinary behaviour support bases to enforcing positive behaviour by the use of restorative practices. Listening to Alex Cole-Hamilton, with the story of his constituent, certainly reminded me, and some members might remember this story, of a boy called Jamie that I once taught. Jamie was regularly removed from classes across the school. Every day, he would sit outside the deputy head's classroom, and he would sit with a jotter and doodle away to his heart's content. In one free period, I remember sitting down with Jamie in a very public place and asking him how he was. He'd been removed from his home, and he'd been sent away to live with his grandparents, who lived much further away from the school. School really was a salvation for Jamie. It was the one constant in his life. When Jamie arrived, he was promptly removed from classes for his disruptive behaviour. I texted my former colleagues and friends ahead of today's debate, and I was delighted to hear that Jamie's desk is no longer there. Presiding Officer, our teachers are professionals. Every single one of them is trained to support pupils with an additional support need or needs. That is a core part of initial teacher education, and I take issue with Jeremy Balfour's comments with regards to policing the classroom. That's certainly not why I came into education nor why any of my colleagues came into education. They come in to make a difference to children's lives. That's a very different picture from the one that we heard earlier. It should also be said that throughout the academic year, our teachers must evidence 35 hours of continuing professional development, and for many that time is used to hone their skills by focusing their training on the pupils in their care. Children's needs are not fixed. Conversely, our teachers' training requirements will change over time to reflect the children in front of them. Good local authorities know this, good local authorities provide and promote training opportunities to ensure continuous improvement in the profession. Good teachers know that simply passing your teacher training or completing your probation is only part of that journey. The Government amendment today recommits to a continuing commitment to a presumption to mainstream, and I hope that that is a shared perspective across the chamber. As Liz Smith alluded to, however, we should be honest that there have been challenges in implementing mainstreaming for all pupils, because all pupils' needs are unique, and many of our skills simply were not built to accommodate children with additional support needs. That is a fact, and I know from experience that it remains a challenge. Mark McDonald, followed by Bob Doris. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I declare at the beginning of this debate that I am a parent of a child with additional support needs. My son has a diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder. It was just over three years ago today that I asked a question of the then Minister Alasdair Allan as to whether the Scottish Government would consider a review into the presumption of mainstreaming because of concerns that I had been receiving about how it was being applied in practice. That was committed to, and I understand that that review is on-going. I echo the point that Johann Lamont made that perhaps we would benefit from a longer debate, which would allow for longer speeches with perhaps more nuanced contribution, although I do think that the contributions up until now have been broadly very good in that respect, and perhaps that is something that can come at the end of that review process. I think that when we talk about additional support needs in this chamber, we must remember that, when we refer to an additional support need, that covers a very wide spectrum in relation to needs. Some of those needs will be transient in nature, some of them will require very minimal support and some will require only short-term support, but others will require intensive and on-going support. However, it is important to remember when we talk about percentages and figures that those figures cover a very broad spectrum in relation to needs, but that debate is rightly focused on those children with the highest tariffs of need and those children for whom perhaps the support is not being provided that it ought to be. That is about a question that arises around consistency, because it would be fair to say that, even within different local authorities, there is variability of how children with additional support needs are being supported by different schools and, indeed, even within different classrooms. That sometimes comes down to an ethos of an individual school or an approach of an individual teacher, often inspired by training that they have undertaken or a course that they have been on. I think that the challenge that we face is how we get from that situation of pockets of best practice to one that delivers a culture of best practice. The point that I made in the debate that Daniel Johnson held before is that the key to GERFEC is the word every. It is not about getting it right for the majority of children, it is about getting it right for every child. If there are children for whom the system is not working properly, we must work to make sure that the system does work for them. It does not just impact on that child alone, although it should be the central focus of our attention. It has a wider impact on that child's family, on the other people's within the class in which that child is being educated, and on the teachers and staff in the class and the wider school in which that child is being educated as well. It is important to note that families and parents who come to me—I suspect to other members in relation to their surgeries where cases have arisen where things have fallen down—often feel that they are ignored and sidelined and are not included properly as partners in their child's education. We must remember that parents should be seen as partners, given the important role that home has as well as school in that child's educational performance. Too many parents feel that their concerns are not taken on board, are not addressed properly or are dismissed out of hand, and that is something that needs to be reflected upon. A final point that I would like to make and perhaps not yet been brought up in relation to the debate is about how we manage transitions for children, whether that is from early years to primary, from primary to secondary, or from secondary to further higher education or work after school. Those are very different environments that children are moving from and into. If the transitions are not managed appropriately and the changes that they are going to experience are not properly explained and catered for, those children can find that, while they have coped perfectly well in a mainstream environment in one educational setting, it can all fall down very quickly in another educational setting, because those changes are not suitably planned for. In relation to my constituency, I would encourage the cabinet secretary—I have written to him about whether he would consider coming to visit Orchard Bray, which is the 3 to 18 campus that Aberdeen City Council has set up for specialist education, which looks very clearly at that whole life journey and preparing for appropriate transitions. I would just finish on one quote from Charlene Tate of Scottish Autism, who tweeted recently a sentiment that sums up how this debate should be framed. Inclusion is about how you feel, not about how you sit next to you, and that should be the guiding principle that flows through this debate. The last of the open debate contributions is from Bob Doris. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me begin by acknowledging the constructive manner by which Liz Smith has raised this very important issue here this afternoon. I also absolutely agree that we must distinguish between inclusion and mainstreaming. They can be the same thing, but they are not always the same thing. Mainstreaming without the support that is required is counterproductive to a young person, their family and a wider learning community within that school. Mainstreaming without the required support also drives up demand for specialist schools by some young people who may potentially be well-served and flourish in a mainstream inclusive setting, but only if the correct support is there. I welcome the Scottish Government funds available—we will see more about that in a second—and the soon-to-be published revised guidance to councils to drive up consistency and standards across all local authorities. I would ask how that guidance will be monitored once it is implemented, and how councils are audited in how they perform in relation to that guidance, or else it just simply becomes guidance sitting on a shelf. Johann Lamont-Claire Adamson raised some very important points about how we monitor and capture the information out there and the challenges around that. I think that briefly on resources, let us just be honest, they are finite, and we can certainly do with more. That is self-evident. Different councils place different levels of priority and investment on inclusive mainstreaming and specialist school provision, which we must remember is also a valued part of the wider school estate. We want national consistency. In some areas, it is easier to get an assessment than other areas via the local authority and the NHS, so it is difficult to ascertain the level of additional support needs in different local authorities. We are not always comparing apples with apples. How does all that feed into the funding formula for local authorities or health boards? If we start picking up that funding formula, I have to say sometimes port barrel politics in terms of how money is moved across the regions and local authorities of Scotland comes in through self-interest. There should be no self-interest when looking at additional support needs. The interest is the best for the young person and their families, and we all talk about local flexibility. I have to say that if we are going to get national standards, there could be constraints on councils. Let us just acknowledge that. I want to use the second half of my speech in relation to my mum. I met her this morning, I know her quite well. I have a primal seven child who is on the autistic spectrum. This woman has got a skillset and a determination and a knowledge to fight for her son's rights, and she certainly does and succeeds in that. Her son is now approaching a vital transition period, attending a special school and a co-located campus. Her son hopes to attend a mainstream secondary, but with her special support unit within it. Although mum would have preferred a secondary school with a more local support unit, she knows that there is certainty there over where her son would go. However, Glasgow City Council has decided to move that support unit from one secondary school to another secondary school. It is unclear how many staff will be redeployed to that secondary school, it is unclear what the structure of the support unit will be like, and that young person and his family need certainty in relation to planning for their transition, which could potentially be undermined. I just wanted to raise that here today, because it is not just about the quality of provision in our schools, of course it is. It is also about planning for transition for young people and their families, and when we do seek to improve, reform, update, advance, progress, whatever system we have across 32 local authorities, we have to do it with the wider community and we have to do it for the long-term and make sure that the voices of those living with autism and other additional support needs and their families are at the heart of that. So, in important aspects such as transitions, families do not lose out. We move to the closing speeches. I call Mary Fee for up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome today's debate to reaffirm our support for mainstream and support that has been shown from all of the speakers in this debate this afternoon. Presumption to mainstream is an important feature of our education system, benefiting children with additional support needs, creating a more inclusive system for all. I thank Inclusion Scotland and Enable Scotland for their very informative briefings ahead of today's debate. My closing remarks will focus on some of the issues that they have raised in their briefings and I will reflect on the challenges that have been highlighted by inclusion and enable to give an extra voice for the people that those organisations represent. One of the main challenges for schools with mainstreaming is resourcing. That is why we have tabled an amendment to reflect the impact that cuts have had on promoting and maintaining mainstreaming. Mainstreaming in itself does not necessarily mean inclusive education. Cuts to learning support staff, including teachers and other support workers, will further disadvantage disabled pupils and restrict their full inclusion. Not my words but the view of Inclusion Scotland. 122 specialist teachers have been lost since 2014, whereas the number of pupils with additional support needs has risen by more than 40,000. That is simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable for children with additional support needs, unacceptable for other pupils and unacceptable for teaching staff, facing further pressures to support all of Scotland's children. A recent EIS survey revealed that 52 per cent of teachers say that supporting pupils with additional support needs has caused stress in the past 12 months. When asked to agree or disagree with the following statement, the provision for children and young people with additional support needs is adequate in my school. More than 78 per cent of teachers disagreed with 42 per cent of teachers strongly disagreeing. That is the view of the teachers that are working in our classrooms each and every day, meaning that children with additional support needs are not being given the education that they need to learn and prosper. Inclusion Scotland revealed that over 10 per cent of school leavers with additional support needs leave school with no qualifications at SQVF level 3, compared to less than 2 per cent of children with no additional support needs. Simply being present in a mainstream classroom does not mean that you are included. Again, not my words but those of enable. To ensure that mainstreaming works for children with additional support needs, there must be quicker and effective assessment of their needs. If not, we continue to create barriers for many children with additional support needs to be included and to be actively involved. Once more, that all comes down to staffing and resourcing. The Conservative motion fails to address the issue of funding in our schools and instead seeks a regressive step that could be punitive to children who could prosper with mainstreaming, but only if the right resources are in place. We should all support the presumption to mainstream. It supports inclusion and has benefits for children with additional support needs. Otherwise, we could go backwards in separating children from their peers, creating divisions and creating more barriers. John Swinney, for up to four minutes please, cabinet secretary. This has been a helpful debate and I will try to respond positively to the call from Johann Lamont for more debating time to consider this issue, echoed by Mr MacDonald. I will look at the invitation from Mr MacDonald to visit the Orchardbury campus, which sounds like a fascinating facility to meet the needs of young people. I aim to do that as quickly as I can. Johann Lamont mentioned the issue, and Mary Fee touched on it in her closing remarks about the impact and outcomes of what it achieved. It is important to put on the record what is achieved by young people with additional support needs in mainstream education. 69 per cent of school leavers in 2016-17 with additional support needs left school with one or more qualifications at SCQF level 5 are better. That was an increase of 13.8 per cent since 2011-12, which I think demonstrates on one measure the effectiveness of the mainstreaming approach. 65.2 per cent of 2016-17 school leavers, including special school pupils, with additional support needs, attained one or more qualifications at that level, which was an increase of 10 per cent since 2011-12. We look carefully at positive destinations, where positive destinations have increased for pupils with additional support needs by 5 per cent between 2011-12 and 2016-17. There are achievements that are made by young people through mainstream education, and that is something that we should see about. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills for taking my intervention. You have touched on a point that I wanted to ask you about. One of my constituents came to see me, quite a distressed mother, about her autistic son who is not receiving sufficient support at high school. He cannot cope because he has stress and anxiety while doing his NAP4 exams and the curriculum. I just wondered if the Cabinet Secretary believed that the colleges sector can play a key role in delivering more practical skills and learning experience for young people with autism. Could I remind members that in short speeches, long interventions are not always useful? John Swinney? That may well be a possibility for the individual concerned, and I would encourage, as I responded to Liz Smith in my earlier speech, to dialogue between the family and the local authority about the question. We have to make sure that judgment is made about what is the correct educational setting for every young person. The issue of resources has been touched on in the debate. As I have told Parliament before, the resources spent on additional support for learning increased from £584 million in 2015-16, an increase of 2.3 per cent in real terms and 4.5 per cent in cash terms. I am conscious of the significance of resources, but I do not want to strike a discordant note at the end of my speech, but it is a little bit incredible for Alison Harris to give us lessons about resources when her party supports a policy position of reducing the amount of money available to the public finances because of the tax position that they support in this Parliament. Of course, tomorrow we will see whether or not the Conservatives will support any money being allocated to the public services through the passage of the budget. If I can conclude on the points raised by Jenny Gilruth, who I thought put the changes in our education system as a result of the passage of the additional support for learning act into their proper context in the classroom, as we might expect from a former teacher, that what Jenny Gilruth illustrated was the change in the approach to education that has come about by the benefits and the advantages of inclusion. It has required adaptations in teaching practice. It has required adaptation within our education system, but the education of our young people is the better for having a mainstream approach of an inclusive commitment within Scottish education, and the Government is committed to maintaining that. I now call Oliver Mundell to wind up the debate for up to five minutes, please. I am pleased to close the debate today on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, because I believe that it is incredibly important that we talk about those issues in the chamber. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has picked up on the strong hint from a number of members that we would like to discuss those issues more on Government time. Often, it is difficult, because as a collective, as a society, as a Parliament, and I say very gently, as a Government, as local authorities, as individual schools, it is often very difficult to say the truth out loud. That is that we are not getting it right for every young person in Scotland. Our education system, as it currently stands, is failing a small but significant group of young people, and I think that we have to be honest enough with ourselves. I find it very difficult when I speak to constituents who are experiencing exactly those difficulties to explain to them why the system is letting them down so badly. I welcome the tone from other members and the cabinet secretary in that context today. Inclusion is so important, but it is not just about being present in the classroom or even the school building, as many have said. We have to redouble our efforts to make sure that the reality matches up with the rhetoric for many of the young people and parents that we are here to represent. Bob Doris made an important point about the variability across Scotland. I can only speak for my own local authority area, but if there are similar problems elsewhere, members must see in their own mail bags that there are systematic issues here, and I think that we have heard that today. We know for a fact that current practices are just not good enough. We know that the expertise and support is in fact out there. We have lots of very talented people in our education system and lots of specialist provision that, as others have said, could be better used. However, I join Iain Gray in referring to the work that has been done by a number of autism charities recently, which has highlighted unlawful exclusions. That was not the first report where we saw those concerns being raised and enabled to raise them in their report, including in the main. It is very clear that, right across the country, there is a problem specifically in this area, with many good teachers, good schools and proactive parents struggling to work in partnership to ensure that young people access their legal right to an education. We also have to ask ourselves what principle we are putting first. When the presumption of mainstreaming is, while others have said that it is very important and noble, I think that we cannot disregard what is in the best interests of a child or young person. I believe that true inclusion is about listening to what young people and parents themselves are asking for. I find all too often, in my constituency work, that people are crying out for help. They often find that the type of support that is being offered through mainstreaming or even within their local authority is inadequate and does not meet their needs. I think that we have to be willing to listen and to approach those very complex issues with an open mind and work hard to find the best solution. I also think that we need to trust our professionals and listen to what they are saying. Teachers and specialists are identifying clear issues as Mary Fee and others have highlighted. I think that we need to think of inclusion not just as something that happens in school, because I am very well aware from my work with young people that there are some people who find that the idea of getting very intensive support for a short period of time, even if that means that they are being, in some senses, excluded by not being in a mainstream setting, they believe that it is more important that they get the right support in the short term so that in the long term they can get the advantage of being more included in society by fulfilling their potential and by being able to access opportunities in the workplace. I say that because we have to find the right balance. Sometimes being excluded from a mainstream setting in the short term to access specialist support can offer more in the long term. In conclusion, we have heard today that there is a great deal of positive practice to build on, but we cannot simply ignore the issues that are highlighted right across the chamber. No-one has said that those issues are easy. We must be willing to embrace the challenges or things will not get better. In action and simply saying that we have noble policies in place is not enough, I commend the Scottish Conservative motion to the chamber. That concludes the debate on the presumption to mainstream. It is time to move on to the next item of business. I am aware that I am hurrying you all up, please, because we are already late starting for this next debate. If you could change places quickly.