Meeting of the Parliament 01 April 2025
I am grateful to Daniel Johnson for lodging the motion and allowing us the opportunity to discuss an important topic. I am also grateful to the other members who contributed, many of whom have highlighted their personal experience. It is always powerful when members bring their own personal experience to the issues that we debate in the chamber.
In raising the topic for debate, Mr Johnson brings attention to the disadvantage and structural exclusion that neurodivergent people and people with learning disabilities experience. My work with and for those groups is a key part of my portfolio, but I also believe strongly that we need to change our approach in that area.
The motion that Mr Johnson lodged notes the disappointment that many people have expressed about the lengthened timescales for the LDAN bill. I acknowledge that neurodivergent people and people with learning disabilities have needed to campaign for far too long for the changes that they need. I understand how disappointing and frustrating that is, and I have met many individuals and our partners to express that I share their sense of frustration at the length of time that real change can take.
However, it is important that we recognise how far we have already come. The proposed bill started from a successful campaign by leading charities to highlight the need for greater accountability for those groups of people. From that early starting point, we have built a significant body of work over the past three years, and central to that has been the extensive consultation paper that was produced in partnership with the lived experience advisory panel. I am grateful to all the stakeholders who were involved in designing and responding to the consultation. The high number of responses that we received demonstrates the importance and relevance of the work.
I assure members around the chamber that the Government’s commitment to developing the LDAN bill has not changed. We have made a clear commitment that the work continues to progress and that the next steps will be for us to publish draft provisions with the benefit of the consultation evidence and further targeted engagement in forming our refined proposals.
The bill is, of course, only one piece of the puzzle, and members have rightly raised a number of other points that I wish to address in turn. In education, neurodivergent children benefit from existing protections under the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004. Local councils have a legal duty to plan and provide support for neurodivergent children. It is important, however, to point out that it is not necessary for children to have a diagnosis to receive the support that they need when they are in school. It is important that I correct the motion, because it is not correct to say that only 6 per cent of teachers are trained to provide support with additional support needs. All teachers undertake ASN training during initial teacher education; indeed, that is a requirement to meet the professional standards for registration with the General Teaching Council for Scotland.