 The fine light of a business is a member's business debate on motion 14097, in the name of Daniel Johnson, on a report on autistic children's experiences of school. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I could ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Daniel Johnson to open the debate. Mr Johnson, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I could begin this debate by wheeling off percentages and numbers, but I won't. I want to start with a feeling. I think that every member in the chamber will know that feeling of sitting in an over-hot car, where there's practically anywhere you'd rather be, where even when you put the fan on, it just blasts hot air in your face. Now imagine what it would be like if you knew that there was a wasp in the car beside you. I think that most of us would flinch. We might flail a little bit. If we realised that the doors were locked and we couldn't wind down the windows, we might start banging on the windows. Some of you might be shouting. If there was someone sitting next to you who didn't help you and just told you off and, in fact, told you that you couldn't use the car because of your reaction, I think that you'd find that very unfair. The reason for that analogy was because that wasp in the car was the way that somebody expressed what it feels like to have a meltdown if you're a person with autism. What we're doing in terms of the education system is all too often we are telling those people off when they're having those situations and excluding them from the car. That's what this debate is about. It's about building that understanding. Yes, there are important details in this report but, first and foremost, if there is one thing that we can do in this debate, it is building that understanding of autism and what it feels like because that would be the start that so many people in Scotland, so many people with autism need. I'd like to thank the National Autistic Society Scotland, Scottish Autism and Children Press for the brilliant report that they compare because it does that very important work of shining the light of that experience and how it feels for autistic children in our school system. Above all else, I'd like to thank the parents and the young people who participated in that survey because without that, that wouldn't be possible. I'm also very pleased that so many fellow MSPs who are at the launch of that report are in the chamber here this evening because I know that they will share my feelings from that event of shock and of anger, hearing of parents having to lawyer up to fight for the legal rights of their children to be educated. Families forced to homeschool not because it was their choice but because there was no other option for them to have their children educated. I'm not just told off, but seven-year-olds barely able to write their own name, asked to sign pledges to modify their behaviour at school. Most shockingly for me, hearing of the experience of some young people who are forcibly taken from their classroom and put into 12ft x 12ft windowless soft rooms because of their behaviour. That's what's happening to some children today in Scotland in our schools. I think that we need to make this the first step towards ending those experiences. The report is important. It shines a very real and important spotlight on the experiences of many children in our education system. The most distressing findings are the level of exclusions in our schools, both formal and informal. 13 per cent of parents said that their children had been formally excluded. Three quarters of those were excluded on more than one occasion. On top of the informal exclusions, the truly worrying picture is that the degree to which unlawful, informal exclusions are being used. 37 per cent of children, more than a third of parents reported that their child had been excluded informally. A quarter of those reported that that was happening more than once a week. Those informal exclusions are described as cooling off periods, time-outs, but those are children being excluded without record, without notification. Let us be very clear here this evening that is against the law and should not be happening. On top of that, the use of part-time timetabling. Indeed, part-time timetabling can be part of the educational solution for children with autism. Unfortunately, the majority of situations that are being instigated by schools, not by parents. For some children, that part-time timetable means as little as an hour of education a day. We have to be careful with those numbers. That is a survey. It is informal. They are not necessarily representative, but if you look at the total number of respondents, it represents 10 per cent of the autistic pupil population, so we have to take them seriously. Beyond those findings on exclusion, there was also the impact on children. Children whose educational progression has been diminished, children are a number of years behind where they should be in comparison to peers. More importantly, the isolation that many of them feel and their overall wellbeing and mental health are impacted by their experiences at schools. Beyond that, the impacts of the family are also reported, where parents have to choose between their work and their child-receiving education and the impact that it has on their mental health and their relationships. Perhaps, in some ways, the most troubling are the views on what would make a difference. Those were simple things. Improved understanding on behalf of the teachers entrusted to deliver the education, improved support and improved communication. That is not complicated things. That is basic, and we must make sure that they happen. There are a number of calls to action in the report. Dealing with the exclusions, improving the level of specialist teachers and the wider school community, the need to have the neurodevelopment disorders and autism, particularly included in the initial teacher education. We need minimum standards on hours of education. I think that those should be adopted in full. I would like to hear what the minister has to say, but I think that those calls do not go far enough. We must invest in teachers and their capacity to deal with additional support needs. They do an amazing job. No word of my speech here this evening or the report is a criticism of the fantastic job that teachers do, but they are not getting the support that they deserve. Specialist teacher numbers have been cut by 20 per cent since 2010. We know that educational psychologists, and while there has been recent funding analysis, have declined over a similar period. We know that there is a lack of provision for on-going training and development. That was the findings of the education committee just recently. We must ensure that they are available to appropriate placements for autistic children. While mainstreaming should be what we aim to, for some children, they need specialist education, but those specialist places are rarer and rarer for those who need them. Above all, I would like to look at call 9, because it asks for people to be made more aware of their rights to education. I do not know if that calls right. I do not think that people should have to know of their rights to education, their child's rights to education. I think that they should expect it, and that is where the Government must step in, because there is a legal duty of local authorities to provide education, and there is a duty from the 2004 Act for Additional Support for Learning to support for whatever reason. That is regardless of formal diagnosis or assessment. That law must be enforced. People deserve their legal rights, and the Government must ensure that local authorities extend it to them. Above all else, we have, I think, a very honourable commitment to mainstream schooling, because at the end of the day, we live in a mainstream world. If we do not prepare our young people to live in it, we are going to fail them. Equally, that commitment to mainstreaming is for nothing if, in reality, what mainstreaming means is exclusion from school and a very limited timetable. At that point, I will close. I remind members in the public area that we do not permit applause in the public gallery. I understand why it is done, but it is not permitted. Open debate, Richard Lyle, followed by Annie Wells. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Daniel Johnson for securing this member's debate on such an important issue. Tonight, I want to tell my constituents' personal story. I only have four minutes to tell it in. Ciaran attended mainstream primary in North Lancer from P13. It was evident that, even at this time, Ciaran had social and emotional difficulties and struggle with slight challenging behaviour at times around school—nothing, noteworthy, or enough to promote real investigation. His parents thought that if there were investigations required, teachers would highlight that to them, as they were the professionals. In primary 3, Ciaran's mother made a decision to move to a smaller primary school, which she had researched and found ever supported ethers. The family moved only a couple of miles, but that put them into South Lancer. My constituency is made up of areas from North Lancer and South Lancer. His parents were very unhappy that Ciaran's behaviour was put down to trouble-making, bad temper when he was struggling to cope with sensory, social and emotional issues. He was generally a kind and sensitive boy. I am moving schools that were linked in with educational psychology in South Lancer from their many agencies in NHS to pursue a diagnosis of autism. Ciaran did not have formal support in school at the time, however, due to the skills and experience of the individual teachers and a lot of luck, he was fairly settled until primary 6. Ciaran, at this time, had been brought through the assessment process. For autism, it was felt that it did not meet all the criteria, which is another failing. However, Ciaran is just one of those cases. As he moved to further independence and education in advance, peer issues and a change of teacher in P7, Ciaran began to really struggle. He had many absences. He meant that health became very poor and anxiety about school becoming a daily struggle. That resulted in Ciaran becoming suicidal and a referral to CAMHS was made. The family worked with CAMHS. We felt that Ciaran did make the criteria for autism diagnosis. Ciaran eventually was diagnosed in December 2017. The family moved back to North Lancer and Ciaran was enrolled to Stapney's local secondary school. Parents had reservations about Ciaran's ability to cope in main street high school, given the impact that his last year of primary had on him. However, no alternatives were offered. It became quite apparent that Ciaran was not coping with high school alongside his autism, diagnosis and hyper mobility, which restricted his mobility and caused pain and fatigue. His parents' approach to school highlighted the concerns that guiding teachers observed how Ciaran was upset and his parents were assured that action would be taken. By October, Ciaran was so impacted by his daily adverse experience at school that he again became mentally unwell. His mother had to take him to see their GP. Ciaran attended his radical and told January when the decision was made by school and staff from North Lancer to put in place a part-time timetable. However, a lack of support for Ciaran meant that he only got nine sessions before he became so unwell that he completely refused to attend. Ciaran is still out of school. He is mentally covered and keen to be educated. His mother has researched, contacted and visited many independent schools. They were offered a place in an independent school, specialising with boys with ASD. His mother applied for a place in request with North Lancer Council. They refused it. His mother has now contacted, as has arrived and said, the Government Law Centre. Quite honestly, local councils are failing Ciaran and others like him. Having previously been in a council, I know that a council could serve these people better and that would be pressing them to do so. The reports that Daniel Johnson went over—I could read them out also, but I am running out of time—were all parents, were all grandparents, uncles, aunts and deafers. We, as politicians, must look into the subject and aid councils to do better. We cannot fail Ciaran and we cannot fail people like him. Iain Gray, Ms Wells, I thank Daniel Johnson for bringing this very important debate to the chamber today. As a convener of the cross-party group in autism, I am really pleased to see autism getting the attention that it deserves. When I set up the CPG a year ago, I never anticipated the level of interest that it has received. Meeting to meeting, we have seen more and more people attend. Evidence of just how strongly people feel about the need for change. At our last meeting in October, we focused solely on education and I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for joining us at that meeting. We used the joint report by the National Autistic Society of Scotland, Scottish Autism and Children in Scotland as our point of reference. Those experiences will of course not be representative of everyone. There will be examples of great practice across Scotland, but what is clear from the key findings of not included, not engaged and not involved is that there is a systematic problem. 34 per cent of parents and carers said that their child had been unlawfully excluded from school in the previous two years. 28 per cent said that their child had been placed on a part-time table in the past two years. 85 per cent said that they did not receive the support to catch up on work that they had missed. As a result, many children with autism are regularly missing school due to stress and anxiety, and as a result, suffer from low self-esteem. At the meeting, we heard from two young people, Rachel Birch and Jasmine Gilby, representatives of the Scottish Women's Autism Network. I thank them both for allowing me to share the following with you. As someone who was only diagnosed with autism at the age of 14, Rachel had no transitional support when starting secondary school, and by her third year, her anxiety was so bad that she began to refuse to go to school and experience panic attacks. Upon her diagnosis, the school was unsure of how to support her, and the support that she received was believed to be in line with punishments for non-autistic individuals. Ultimately, feeling suicidal, Rachel now feels strongly that teachers receive better training and that a more positive narrative is built around autism. Jasmine, who was diagnosed with autism at four, spoke of how she felt ostracised at school due to a lack of understanding around the condition. As a victim of bullying, she felt that things were made worse by being put in separate classes with children with additional support needs, eventually leading her to attempt to take her own life. Although Jasmine's situation is improving upon leaving school and receiving CBT, that is evidence of how the system can fail to support those youngsters who need it more and the potentially drastic consequences that it can result in. Thankfully, there are ways in which the situation can be improved. The report outlines nine calls to action, as we have heard from Daniel Johnson. Those focus on improving understanding of autism within schools, with a call to increase the numbers of specialist teachers and enhance programmes in initial teacher training and continual professional development. They also focus on monitoring the use of part-time timetables and reducing the number of exclusions, both formal and informal, as well as making sure that children are aware of their rights to additional support for learning that should they need this, the resource is there. The Scottish Conservatives have supported those proposals with the belief that it is imperative that child and young people with autism are given the best start in life. That is a systematic issue in Scottish schools, and one that affects not just those with autism. The number of specialist additional support needs teachers has declined by 16 per cent over the past five years, with the number of pupils identified with ASN, increasing by 55 per cent over the same period. What is clear is that the pressure on teachers is huge, and if we are to give those with autism the best start in life, then the Scottish Government needs to take action to support pupils and schools. The CPG will continue to play an active role in monitoring if those actions are being delivered on. To finish today, I thank Daniel Johnson for bringing this important topic to the chamber. The years that you spend progressing through school plays such a huge role in shaping you and your values for making your way in the world. It helps to create the opportunities and confidence to take on the career that you wish to. However, for those who have faced autism, those years can be even more make or break. That is something that we should all strive to change, and I remain fully committed to doing so. Thank you very much. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to start by saying well done to Daniel Johnson for bringing this debate forward. However, more to the point, I want to say well done to the three organisations involved in producing and publishing this report. That is one of the issues that we all suspected was happening, but it was almost impossible to prove. I suspect that most of us have had constituents, parents of autistic children who have come to us about a failure to provide their child with the education to which they are entitled. However, the fact that the currencies are hidden amongst 32 local authorities and among thousands of schools makes the scale of the problem difficult to see. Moreover, as it turns out, the most egregious failure—the use of unlawful exclusions—is even more hidden, as it remains unrecorded. We should acknowledge the effort in establishing the evidence in this report and what shocking evidence it is. One-quarter of parents had seen their child formally excluded in the past two years, but a third—more than a third—had suffered informal, i.e., unlawful exclusion. We all know what the issue is here. Mainstreaming of children with additional support needs is absolutely the right principle, but the right principle is worthless without the right practice. That manifestly means enough support staff and enough resources to make mainstreaming work for all concerned, but above all for the children themselves. Otherwise, we are simply mainstreaming failure, frustration and, frankly, hypocrisy on our part when we pretend to be all about fairness. Of course, those issues do not apply only to children with a diagnosis of autism after all they only account for some 8 per cent of children with additional needs. However, the fact that the inquire special needs helpline sees 46 per cent of calls coming from parents of autistic children tells us that they are being particularly ill-served and are, so to speak, the canaries in the coal mine, alerting us to a wider problem to which we must respond. Now that we have the evidence, the honus is on the cabinet secretary to tell us what he is going to do. Wormwords are not going to be enough to solve this problem. Only more support—and that does mean more additional needs teachers and additional support workers—is going to do that. Yet, at education committee last week, the Government's head of support and the learning directorate admitted to us that she has no idea how many additional needs support workers we have in our schools. Never mind how many we need. She suggested that, because that was all up to councils and because they call those jobs different things, it is all too difficult to find out how many there are or, I suppose, whether there are any at all. Anyway, she told committee members, additional support is not just provided through additional needs teachers or support workers. Of course, that is true, as we can see from eight of the nine recommendations in this report. However, I have to say that she rather gave the impression that it was a bit quaint to us to think that such a thing as specialist staff mattered much at all. That report tells us that autistic children are being routinely illegally denied their place at school. More specialist staff to support them might not be everything that they need, but, my goodness, it would be a start to turning this around. I hope that the cabinet secretary will tell us how and when that is going to happen. Presiding Officer, I thank Daniel Johnson for the opportunity to discuss the issue in the chamber. Not included, not engaged and not involved is a report title that should not really surprise anyone in Parliament. As Ian Gray said, many of us will be used to receiving case work like that on a regular basis. It certainly does not surprise young people with autism, their parents, their carers, teachers or support staff. That was really valuable work done by children in Scotland, Scottish Autism and the National Autistic Society, and we should be grateful for it. It is a really invaluable insight into the lives of young people with autism in Scotland today. It sets out how our education system is failing far too many young people. Over a third of parents and guardians who responded reported that their child had been unlawfully excluded from school in the past two years, most of them on multiple occasions. Just under 30 per cent said that their child had been put on a part-time timetable. 85 per cent said that they did not receive support to catch up on the work that they had missed while they had been excluded. That report only adds to the substantial body of evidence that is building on the failure in Scotland to properly support children and young people with additional needs. The number of specialist additional needs teachers has dropped by more than 400 in eight years. That loss of expertise means that classroom teachers are left without the additional support and without the specialist knowledge that is needed to support every pupil. Those classroom teachers themselves are struggling to support every young person in their class. They are doing so with increased work loads, with 3,500 of their own colleagues lost over the past decade. That is fewer people with fewer expertise expected to do more with less. It is not working. Support staff, who used to assist pupils with additional needs directly, are now being stretched to support the whole class instead. Often, the staff with specialist skills and training have simply been cut completely, with the general classroom assistant staffing expected to take on the role of supporting young people with needs such as autism, which they simply do not know enough about. The Scottish Government, as Iain Gray mentioned, has even redefined the information that was published on specialist support assistance, grouping them now into a more general, to the point of almost meaningless category of pupil support assistance. Instead of asking why those specialist assistants are no longer doing that job, it feels like the Government has given up and accepted the loss of that defined and important role. Not included, not engaged, not involved is far from the only evidence that we have. Last year, the education committee undertook an inquiry into additional support needs in Scottish schools. We got hundreds of submissions, particularly from teachers and from parents of pupils with additional needs. The chamber will recall some of that evidence. The staff member who was told to watch the Big Bang Theory to learn more about how they could support a young person with Aspergers. We were told how patchy training on additional needs is for teachers in Scotland. So much training depends on a cascade model, where one teacher actually gets the training, then passes on what they know to others. That is why specialist additional needs teachers are so important, but with a loss of so many of them, passing on that knowledge is often not possible. The range of recognised additional needs is vast. The range of potential forms of support that young people with autism need is vast. Every young person is unique. Their needs are unique as well. Many teachers and parents also highlighted the importance of identification of additional needs in the first place. Again, this is an area where specialist teachers and support staff are able to identify additional needs are key, but one where there is a colossal inconsistency across the country. Educational psychologists play a vital role here as well, but the number of educational psychologists in our schools has really dwindled, particularly after the Government cut the bursary for that qualification in 2012. The Greens were critical of the loss of that bursary, and we welcomed its reintroduction announced earlier this year. That was absolutely the right move for the Government to make, and we will wait with interest to see if it helps to recover the number of people going into those courses and then into those roles. Accessing the support that they are entitled to is clearly an issue for young people with autism and for their families. There has been a drop of one-third since 2010 in the number of pupils with co-ordinated support plans. That is the only statutory support plan. CSPs allow parents and young people to write of appeal if their needs are not being met, so their decline is deeply alarming. We have a principle of mainstreaming in our schools, but mainstreaming without adequate support is not inclusion, it is exclusion, and it is all entirely avoidable. Our young people deserve the Government taking action based on the suggestions in that report. They deserve the Government to genuinely get it right for every child. Thank you. Before I call Mark McDonald, can I say that due to the number of members still wishing to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice and to roll 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Daniel Johnson to move a motion without notice. The question is that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we all agreed? We are agreed, so I now call Mark McDonald to be followed by Angela Constance. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I begin by thanking Daniel Johnson for securing this important debate. As he did, I commend the work of National Autistic Society Scotland, Scottish Autism and Children in Scotland for pulling together the report, and the parents and young people who contributed their experiences to the report in order that we might better understand what is or is not happening in our education system. I want to focus the majority of my speech on the experience of one of my constituents. She is requested that I anonymise her and her children, so I will refer to her as C and her experience centres around her children A and M. Much of what she has sent me has had to be abridged, but I will write to the cabinet secretary with the full details after the debate if he would find that helpful. C discussed various concerns that she had in relation to A with his health visitor and with nursery staff. Those were dismissed as typical boy behaviour or something that he will grow out of. By the time he was at primary, concerns were again raised, but were dismissed on similar grounds. By P2, he was really struggling and displaying challenging behaviour at home prior to and after school, and began refusing to attend school. Finally, following a meeting with the head teacher, a referral to CAMHS occurred and a diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder and comorbid ADHD was received. In primary 3, despite various measures being put in place, A was being taught one-to-one in either the corridor or the head teacher's office if a PSA was unavailable. The family made repeated requests for alternative provision to be considered, such as Camp Hill or My Land, but were advised that A was too able academically and the school were meeting his needs. Eventually, A was removed from school by his family due to a deterioration in his physical and emotional health. That was in primary 3. Following an emergency GERFEC meeting, it was finally agreed that Aberdeen City Council would consider an alternative placement, and he was eventually granted a full-time place at Camp Hill. He now thrives in the environment in which Camp Hill provides, as opposed to mainstream education. C advises me that, with her son M, she had to relive the entire experience again. Despite him already being under assessment for ASD, the nursery system did not adapt to or support his needs. Multiple measures were put in place at school, as they had been with A, but they were always reduced or removed when M showed any sign of coping, thus escalating matters and forcing the cycle to repeat. Both A and M experienced illegal exclusions and were placed on part-time timetables before C eventually took the decision to remove M from education and to homeschool instead. After a year of home education, C looked into returning M to mainstream education, but his catchment school refused to provide one-to-one support, which had been in place prior to homeschooling and insisted on replacing his current reading method, which had proven successful, with phonics, which had been unsuccessful for three years at primary. C feels that she has been completely failed by the education system, and as a result of the traumatic experience of A and M, her third son has refused school and is also being home educated. C advises me that, while home education is working and her sons are thriving, it is not the choice that she wanted to make. It has led to the household being dependent on a single income, and that means that families struggle financially as a consequence. That in turn places a great deal of worry and stress on the family unit. C is not the only constituent in those circumstances. I have seen many examples of part-time timetabling where parents are forced into a situation of either sourcing childcare or reducing or quitting their employment. At the same time, I have spoken to parents who have found that mainstream can work for their children, but in many of those cases it has been through the work of a specific school or a specific teacher rather than a wider ethos. One parent told me that her son now does well at his current school, but at his former school she was advised that his behaviours were probably a consequence of how she parented him. I have spoken in the chamber on many occasions regarding autism, often viewed through the experience of my son. I am fortunate that he has been placed appropriately in education, but that does not matter to the people who responded to the survey. Parents do not want a system that works for other people's children, they want a system that works for their children too. The review of mainstream presumption was instigated as a consequence of a question that I asked in the last session of Parliament, and I hope that we might see some progress around this issue. I have devoted a great deal of my time in this Parliament and will use whatever remains of it to ensure that we live up to the principles that we have collectively signed up to in relation to GERFEC—getting it right for every child. Not getting it right for most children, not getting it right for the majority of children, but getting it right for every child. The survey shows that we still have a journey to travel to achieve that ideal, and that must give us pause for thought and resolve to do better. Thank you. I now call Angela Constance before by Alexander Burnett. Mr Burnett is the last speaker in the open debate. Ms Constance, please. Presiding Officer, like Daniel Johnson, I will start with a feeling. I felt compelled to add my name and support of the motion before us tonight. I did so after reading the report, not included, not engaged and not involved. Like others, I want to commend the authors of that report, Children's Scotland, the National Autistic Society and Scottish Autism. It is quite simply not right on any level for any child not to receive their educational entitlements, as highlighted by the survey of nearly 1,500 parents. I know that that will be shared by MSPs and all ministers, too. I do not say that lightly, but the level of exclusions, unlawful exclusions, part-time timetables and missed schooling that is shown in the survey is utterly unacceptable and shocking. If that was not bad enough, 85 per cent of children in the scope of the survey did not receive any support to catch up on the work that they had missed. Like others, my main motivation for speaking in this debate is to speak up for the countless parents that I have had the privilege of representing over many years. Being a parent is the most important job that you'll ever have. It's actually the hardest job that you'll ever have, and it's harder still if you're the parent of a child with additional support needs such as autism. Parents of children with additional needs are always having to tenaciously fight and battle for what should be their children's right, what should be the norm. It must be utterly, utterly exhausting to have to constantly do battle with services, whether it's the DWP, education, health or social work, only often to be labelled as difficult or controlling or overprotective. So services and politicians need to work harder at really listening to and responding to what parents are telling us about their children. I hosted a reception of Parliament a few weeks ago to showcase the work of the multicultural family base who support children and families from a refugee or migrant background with those crucial early years transitions. There are a voluntary organisation who support the whole family on a wide range of issues in a flexible way that works. We need to be tapping into the talents of the third sector in addition to statutory services, particularly when it comes to developing that whole school approach as recommended in the report. There is also a need to get better at providing the right support at the right time and to get it right for every child the first time, because the impact of failed educational placements is hugely disruptive and damaging to our children's wellbeing and only adds to that sense of rejection and exclusion. In the testimony of the parent in the report who said, I had to pick him up every day at 12 and it was like that for seven years. Absolutely screamed to me. It screamed to me either no package of support or the wrong level of support or indeed the wrong school. Unlike cases that I was involved in say a decade ago, the issues do not appear to be with diagnosis or unidentified needs. In fact, it is about not responding to known needs. In my view, that is potentially negligent and, as Daniel Johnson says, is the breach of the law of this land and raises important questions for us all. A constituent showed me the statutory plan that was devised for her wee boy last year when he was in primary 1. Nothing happened and he is now in primary 2. It is now Groundhog Day, chasing up reviews and planning meetings. Of course, he is only five once in your life, so where was the support and early intervention for that wee boy? There is clearly a need for that fuller spectrum of services, whether mainstream or specialist, so that plans are acted upon and so that words are put into action. I do not deem your from the importance of resources, as they are indeed central. There are, of course, questions for local and national government and some quite tough questions. However, there is also something about culture, about attitudes, about how services are delivered and by whom. Crucially, there is something about putting our laws into practice where it matters the most on the front line and in our classrooms. I therefore support the recommendations in the report. I thank Daniel Johnson for bringing this important topic to the chamber and I thank members across the chamber for supporting this issue. When I was first elected as an MSP in 2016, I knew that case work would be a priority, and the topic of autism and aspergers has quickly become a growing concern. At first, it was just a few cases of families reaching out for help with their children diagnosed with autism, but then the scale of the issue became more apparent, with adults, teachers, social services for council and more bringing forward how lacking the support for those with autism and aspergers was. I met a CEO of Aberdeenshire Council yesterday and a meeting with NHS Grampian officials next week to discuss progress on the subject, and I am grateful for her attention now. After speaking with those who work with the autism community, it is important to note that the report, not included, not engaged, not involved, applies as much to Aberdeenshire as anywhere else in Scotland. For all the good intentions of Scottish Government ministers wishing strategies, if those required to create and deliver them are not supported, then the result, as we see, is failure. That not only applies to education, but employment, housing and mental health services, too, because many families face great difficulty in finding a pathway for autism diagnosis. However, even with a diagnosis, the support is often lacking, and, although I commend our teachers, unfortunately, there are not enough with autism qualifications. That ultimately results in a failure to implement the correct support, meaning that children and families fall through the net. I met someone just last week whose story echoes the issues that this motion brings to the debate today. Now, I also do not have time to tell the full story of what this family has gone through, but even this abbreviated account shows how badly this family has been let down. First, the primary school refused to submit a child for diagnosis for dyslexia, and, after privately paying for it, a diagnosis was given. The same then happened at secondary school, where the parents had to pay privately for a diagnosis of Aspergers, and the organisation they were put to, following a GP referral, then blamed the parents for the child's behaviour and only accepted that the child had Aspergers after the privately paid for diagnosis was passed on. The school's guidance then referred the family to social work as a family in crisis, putting even more stress on the family. The organisation forced the child to appointments, which was a struggle because the child had to be escorted to school due to their Aspergers. At one of those appointments, the child was told that it was good that they had not mentioned suicide, much to the parents' horror that the idea could be put in their child's head. Now, the school has done their best to provide what support they can, but with a lack of access to practical support and help from resource centres, the family are unsure about the future for their child. Mental health is a topic that has come to the forefront of national conversation in recent years, which I am grateful to see. After working with families and organisations in the autism community for over two years now, I am keen to see that our education system takes the lead on treating those with mental health conditions with the correct support. I call on the Scottish Government to ensure that all children are provided with the correct support so that they can all reach their full potential in life. Presiding Officer, let me begin by congratulating Daniel Johnson on bringing this debate to Parliament and thanking him for raising an important topic with which I have enormous sympathy on the issues that Tee has raised today. I express my thanks to Children in Scotland, the National Autistic Society and Scottish Autism for the production of the report, not included, not engaged and not involved. I gave Parliament a commitment that I would engage with the organisations to consider the findings of the report, and I have met all three organisations. I am looking actively at the issues that are raised by the report. I should also put on the record that a number of colleagues have done in the course of this debate today that, in my 21-year service as a member of Parliament, I have met many constituents who have wrestled with those challenges. Those are very difficult situations that parents find themselves in. They want to make sure that their young people are given every opportunity to prosper, to thrive in the way that Mr Burnett has just talked about, and that they want to ensure that services are available to support their children to achieve their potential. That is a completely and utterly natural aspiration for any parent to wish to ensure is the case. As I have wrestled with some of those cases over time, I have wrestled with some challenges that I will talk about in the course of addressing the issues that members of Parliament have raised today, which are, yes, about resources, but they are also about attitudes and about ethos. I think that we kid ourselves if we think that all of this is simply about resources. It is a significant issue, but there are significant issues about attitudes and ethos that are relevant in the consideration of those questions. Attitudes and ethos have underpinned the policy thinking that has gone into the approach that was taken forward by the Standards in Scotland Schools Act 2000, which was supported extensively in this Parliament and which brought in the presumption of mainstreaming for the education of young people within Scotland. What has flown from that has been a set of policy interventions that have been designed to give guidance to our education system about how the principle of mainstreaming in education should be deployed. So, when I read in the not included, not engaged and not involved report about the experience of individual families about exclusions from school education, much of that practice, as I confirmed to Mr Mundell in a question that he asked me a few weeks ago in Parliament, is completely at odds with the guidance that is in place, completely at odds with it. So there is a question that we have to address and it is an important question about the degree to which our policy framework as it currently stands provides sufficient guidance and sufficient rigor to ensure that what we aspire for in this Parliament, which I recognise is broadly shared across the political spectrum, is actually delivered on the ground by individual authorities. That brings me on to one of the points that Daniel Johnson raised about the Government, Mr Johnson's call for the Government to step in to enforce the law with local authorities on the right to education. I agree entirely with the sentiments about the right to education of every young people. I stand here as a very firm advocate of the principle of our obligation throughout the system in every respect to get it right for every child, but the question of the Government stepping in to instruct or require or oblige local authorities to take certain courses of action is a step for which, frankly, I think that Parliament would have to consider whether it wishes to empower the Government to do exactly that, because the Parliament at the present moment seems, in my view, reluctant to empower the Government to require and oblige local authorities to do certain things. Many of those decisions are taken operationally by local authorities. I accept that point, and I am thankful for the cabinet secretary for giving way, in general points of policy, but if things are set out in law, if there are legal obligations, what is the point of the law if it is not enforced and if it is not honoured? I am not disputing that point at all. What I am making the point to Mr Johnson and to Parliament is that, if Parliament wishes the Government to intervene in local authority practice to the extent that Mr Johnson suggested in his opening remark, then Parliament needs to consider very actively the support that it gives to the Government to intervene in local authorities where that should be required to be the case. If Mr Mundell will forgive me, I do not have a lot of time in that. I need to come on to another substantive issue that I am in the present office. I am happy to give you the time, cabinet secretary. Oliver Mundell. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer and cabinet secretary for giving way. I wonder if the Government is not able to intervene whether the cabinet secretary would support calls that I have made previously for the Children's Commissioner to step in and look at some of the breaches of children's rights to education and whether he thinks that that is a potential avenue to tackle some of the bad practice that we are seeing. I do not think that there is anything that would stop the Children's Commissioner deciding to inquire about anything. Children's Commissioner is a parliamentary appointee who is free to inquire about any topic that he chooses to inquire about. That was not the point that I was making to Mr Johnson. The point that I was making to Mr Johnson was about the relationship between Government and local authorities. I think that Mr Johnson raises some very significant issues about what practice should be taking forward. I wonder if the cabinet secretary would agree with me that I am concerned and perhaps suggesting that it is only about resources or that it is only about attitude and ethos. Attitude and ethos is really important. The Government has a very powerful tool by willing the means to deliver on the policy commitment that we have all got to inclusive education. That is what local authorities and teachers and support people and families are saying. They are simply not the resource there to support their young people. That brings me on to the point that I was just about to make, which is about resources. What we see in the most recent data that is available to us is that in 2016-17, local authorities delivered a real-term increase in expenditure on education services. Within that, there was a 2.3 per cent increase in real terms and 4.5 per cent increase in cash terms in the funding that was made available to additional support for learning within the education system. Those are the local government statistics that I am quoting to Johann Lamont. That brings me on to the other substantive point that I wanted to make to the Conservatives. I listen carefully to the words that Annie Wells and Alexander Burnett have put forward to the Parliament as I listen carefully to the points that all members of Parliament make. This is where Johann Lamont has a fair point about willing the means. When it comes to budget decisions, the Conservatives do not generally argue for more public spending when it comes to the day that matters on, which is budget day. On budget day, we have to make our hard choices about what money is available. We took decisions as a Government last year for which the Conservatives roundly criticised us, which involved increasing the public expenditure that was available. Yet the Conservatives come here for quite understandable reasons and make a plea for more resources. I simply say, in the space of the member's debate, to encourage the Conservatives to reflect on some of the real choices that face us in relation to public expenditure. Of course, I'll give one. Annie Wells Can the Cabinet Secretary also agree with the Scottish Conservatives that that is already in legislation that children should have the right to proper education, and that the cuts that have been made so far are 16 per cent. However, we have seen those diagnosed with autism increased by 55 per cent. I think that Annie Wells essentially makes my point for me that we are dealing with a set of financial circumstances and have been dealing with a set of financial circumstances since 2010, which have been acutely challenging because of the financial approach taken by the Conservative Government in London. We have taken some decisions to try to counter that for which the Conservatives in Scotland have criticised us, yet the Conservatives come here asking us to spend more resources on additional support for learning, for which, in my view, there is an absolutely justifiable case without seeing the deepest sense of irony in what they are arguing for, given the profile and the position of the Conservative Government. Of course, I'll give way to Mr Moffatt. Oliver Mundy I know that, Presiding Officer, this is a member's debate, but the Cabinet Secretary can't, on the one hand, make the argument to Labour members that it's not about resources. Then I point the finger at the Conservative Party for not helping his Government to provide those resources. There clearly is a problem here, and it's above party politics. Education is so important. Does the cabinet secretary not recognise that? I've been at pains tonight to suggest that this is not just about attitude and ethos, and it's not just about resources. It is about the combination of these factors, which is why I make my point to the Conservatives that if they are interested, in truly investing in public services and in improving the outcomes for young people as a consequence of the resources that we allocate, they must be prepared. It's all very well for the Conservatives to shout things at me when I'm making the pretty simple point that if they want to be part of the solution of increasing the resources that are available for additional support for learning, they must be prepared to support budgets that will enable that to be the case. There are other spokespeople who come to Parliament and argue for reductions in public expenditure and argue against some of the tax measures that the Government has brought forward to boost public expenditure. Those are the hard, arithmetic arguments that the Conservatives cannot avoid. I wonder if the cabinet secretary would agree with Chris Cunningham, who is the education spokesperson for the SNP and Glasgow City Council, who said that one of the problems in education was that local government had disproportionately been cut choices made by this Government. In my contention that, as a consequence, disproportionately young people with additional support needs are being disadvantaged in their education system. If he agrees with me on that, I'm sure that we could get some agreement, not in a false argument about resources, but recognising that there are choices that the Government has made that had consequences in our local communities. Cabinet Secretary, just before you answer that, we're all obliged for taking so many interventions in this very important debate, but I do want to bring matters to conclusions so that you can respond to that and then bring your remarks to conclusions. I come back to the points on resources that I've made to John Lamont. The most recent data that I have available is that local government spent 4.5 per cent in cash terms more on additional support for learning. I think that I'm in danger of overstaying my welcome at the Government's dispatch box. A cash terms increase of 4.5 per cent and education spending has increased by 2.5 per cent in cash terms in the most recent figures that are available. There is a combination of issues that have to be wrestled with, which are about attitudes and ethos, which are about whether or not the good guidance that is available from Parliament, supported by the parliamentary discussions, which creates the climate to support young people and fulfil their potential. The question of resources, where I would contend that we have a rising resource on education and a rising number of teachers that are being recruited into the system. I will finally close at the point that Angela Constance raised, where she made the point that there are examples of great success in mainstream education in supporting the needs of young people and ensuring that, with the right approach that is taken in individual schools, good outcomes can be achieved for young people with additional needs. Crucially, we must ensure that we have in place the approaches that support and train our teachers and our professional staff to support those young people. Last, the report is a report that has given me pause for thought. It has resulted in me holding back the publication of the updated mainstream and guidance to make sure that we properly address the issues that are raised in the report and that we can do everything within our power to address the issues that affect the life chances of some of the most precious young people in our society. It is our obligation to make sure that we get it right for every one of those children. I thank you for that conclusion and I close this meeting of Parliament.