Hansard

It does not quite seem that 13 years have passed since the last time we discussed a strategy to support people with learning disabilities. I admit that that point was brought home to me in looking back through the minutes of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee and our inquiry into special needs from that time. I discovered that Fiona McLeod and I are the only two members of that committee who are still here. When I read the 2001 report, I saw that another parliamentary colleague—Iain Gray, who was the minister responsible for bringing forward “The same as you?”—noted at the time that it had been 20 years since the previous strategy had been published and that little progress had been made since then.

The good news—and the reason that it does not feel like 13 years since “The same as you?”—is that we have moved forward. There is a far more inclusive approach to our education system and from employers across the country, and there is a much greater focus on giving people the resources and support to get on in mainstream activities. Perhaps most important of all, the concept of long-stay hospitals for people with learning disabilities is behind us. I think that Bob Doris made that point earlier.

It is also fair to say that the change has been less groundbreaking than we would have liked and that some of the challenges that were highlighted then are still with us. We still have the challenges of how to give people with learning disabilities a voice in choosing their own future and greater access to mainstream services—Stewart Stevenson made that point; how to reduce the conflict or tension between families that are struggling to cope and public authorities that are struggling to meet their needs while balancing the books; how to help those with additional needs to improve themselves through access to continuous education; and how to have clearer lines of co-ordination between services and provide the physical support to make inclusion a reality.

The report that we are debating is an excellent document that has already been warmly welcomed by those with a learning disability and the many hundreds of organisations that work with them. It is particularly useful because there is a clear recognition throughout the report of the need for joined-up solutions. We often call for those as politicians, but we rarely figure out how to deliver them.

Crucially, a strategy will take us only so far unless the resources that back it up are aligned and all levels of the process work towards the same goals. Across the chamber, we share a noble ambition for children to be educated in the environment that suits them, be it mainstream or specialist. It may not take very much support for a young person to thrive in a mainstream setting with all the benefits that that brings, but when that support is not in place, it can become impossible to cope with that environment.

In its briefing, Enable Scotland tells us:

“people with learning disabilities are perhaps the most marginalised and socially excluded group in our society”.

Children must feel completely isolated where help with communication difficulties is not available. A constituent recently contacted me about her daughter, who has Rett syndrome, which is a neurological disorder. She has struggled for many years to get the support with communication that she requires. That is particularly frustrating because it turned out that that young girl is cognitively much more able than any of her doctors originally suspected. She is able to communicate and has demonstrated an ability to make progress in literacy and numeracy, but she is unable to make the best use of the resources that are available because she does not have access to enough speech and language therapy.

The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists estimated just last year that 250,000 Scottish children, young people and adults have speech, language and communication needs. Based on the numbers of speech and language therapists in Scotland, we can work out that there are 262 people with a speech and language need for every such therapist.

My constituent wrote to say that,

“Alas”,

her daughter

“is not alone”

and that her

“story is typical.”

She went on to say that her daughter’s special needs school has a roll of just over 100, and that

“The great majority of the pupils at the school require SLT support at some level. There are 2 SLTs allocated to the school but they attend only once a week. This means that ultimately no-one is receiving any input from them—the caseload is simply too big.”

That is not only a loss for each individual who is affected or held back from making the most of their potential; we are all, socially and economically, the poorer for it. A recent study of unemployed young males found that more than 80 per cent were described as language impaired, in comparison with just 1 per cent of the UK’s general population.

The minister—and Mary Scanlon—made the point that people with learning disabilities want to work. The strategy that is before us today mentions communication 35 times, but does not give any recommendations on how to improve the provision of speech and language support for people with learning disabilities. I would be interested to know what more the Scottish Government can do to support those young people.

Some colleagues picked up on the point that the Scottish Government’s strategy is at odds with reality. I am grateful to Enable Scotland, which noted some figures that would shock all of us who believe that further education should be open to all.

Courses for people with additional support needs have been halved since 2007-08. The biggest cuts have been in the past two years, with a 46 per cent cut. The amount of staff who are teaching people with additional support needs has been cut by 16 per cent in the past two years, and the number of adults with learning disabilities who are attending further education for 2.5 days per week or fewer has fallen by almost 20 per cent in the past year alone. Just last week, that issue was raised in the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on colleges and universities.

I am conscious that one of the phrases de nos jours is that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden. I have heard that expression from the First Minister, the Prime Minister and leading figures in my own party, and in every case I do not doubt the genuine intent. However, the reality is that it is not the most resilient but the most vulnerable who bear the greatest burden of the economic difficulties, welfare reforms and education cuts. It is those with learning difficulties who are displaced by greater levels of unemployment and underemployment, and it is courses for those with additional needs that have been disproportionately cut.

I am proud of the fact that, through years of expansion and growth, the Parliament has improved services and reformed attitudes to people with learning difficulties. The real test, however, is how we respond to and protect those gains in difficult times.

I would like to end on a positive note.