Autism Awareness Week
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2988, in the name of Lloyd Quinan, on autism awareness week. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons and I ask those members who are leaving the chamber to vacate the premises as quickly as possible.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament acknowledges Autism Awareness Week 2002 and the forthcoming Autism Awareness Week 2003 by supporting both the Scottish Society for Autism and the National Autistic Society in Scotland in their efforts to promote and care for those affected by the condition and notes the incredible amount of work carried out by the very effective network of smaller support groups.
I am delighted again to be afforded the opportunity to raise awareness of autistic spectrum disorders in the chamber, even if it is slightly due to the hand of fate and the interference of our esteemed legal establishment. Nonetheless, as I look around the chamber, I see many faces from the many debates that have been held on the issue over the past two or three years and we must congratulate ourselves and the business managers on putting ASD regularly and firmly on the Parliament's agenda. That has gone a long way to increasing awareness and understanding of the condition throughout the country, which is marvellous.
I have stated many times that my knowledge of the condition has been gained by the sheer determination and continuous campaigning of parents, carers and professionals, some of whom are in the public gallery. I thank them and commend their efforts.
There is little point in my raking over old ground by citing statistics and explaining the condition to members. It will suffice to say that the number of those who are diagnosed is growing rapidly every day. That increase includes not only children but adults. We cannot afford to waste any more time in debating how to address the situation. The time has come for action.
I am an active campaigner for the rights of those on the spectrum and am the convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on autistic spectrum disorder. I stress the importance of implementing the recommendations of the Public Health Institute of Scotland's needs assessment report. Many members have received notes of concern—as I have—from many organisations as to the scope of the consultation process that led to the report. We must take those concerns on board, but the report is a basis for the best way forward, if only because it is at least a step in the right direction. I am sure that the positive feedback of carers, sufferers and organisations can add to and strengthen the report's recommendations as they are implemented.
I draw attention to some of the report's recommendations. First, it recommends early identification and appropriate early interventions. We in Scotland are well positioned to use means of early identification, new means of identification and new forms of diagnosis on a biomedical level. Much work in that area has been done in Scotland and it would be foolish of us not to take advantage of that work and our expertise and thereby allow a full life-term plan to be laid out for all sufferers.
Secondly, the range of services that are delivered must be seamlessly delivered and planned and developed in a multi-agency way. I have frequently talked about the necessity for a national strategy that is focused on the individual and that uses multi-agency methods and many members have agreed with me.
Thirdly, the report recommends the planned and sensitive management of the transition between childhood and adulthood, which must be carried out between agencies. At the moment, the transition period is the most difficult period for parents, carers and professionals but, most important, it is the most damaging period for sufferers. Continuity is the key to treatment of people with ASD. It is vital that there should be continuity of provision, teaching and treatment. The terrible break between school and adulthood is allowing people to fall into wrong areas of support.
Fourthly, all planning should be carried out with the person at the centre of the services to ensure that individual needs are assessed. The only thing that I will say about the condition itself is that it is different in each sufferer and therefore treatment must be individualised for each sufferer. If we do not understand that simple and basic principle, we will fail. However, I genuinely believe that we do understand it. Finance is required. The simple fact is that our society will be denied the abilities of many people with ASD if the required finances are not made available.
What should our approach be? As I have said, we need joint policies, strategies and operational arrangements among agencies, skilled and experienced professionals and targeted funding. We have some skilled, trained and experienced professionals, but we do not have enough of them. This is a great opportunity for this country to become a centre of excellence in training. We can provide not only for our own sufferers but for sufferers throughout the UK and Europe, if not the world. As I said, the expertise exists in Scotland. Let us make something of that. It would be a positive contribution to the world and, more important, a positive contribution to our own economy.
In my opinion, targeted funding can be delivered through a central base—that is the national strategy that I keep talking about. However, we also need a centre of excellence that can set out the strategy and policies nationally and that can be used as a resource for training, information and research. That is not a new idea. As many members know, we have the potential for that centre of excellence in Struan House and in the Scottish Society for Autism's planned facility in Alloa. Again—I cannot restate it often enough—that would enable us to make our contribution to the world, not just to our own society.
I have stated in the chamber and in the cross-party group that the benefits for the autistic community of the creation of a centre of excellence would be huge. It could ensure that special skills and quality of life are nurtured and not ignored, as many of those needs are today.
The Scottish Society for Autism runs an excellent school and the National Autistic Society runs a complementary facility at Daldorch. Those are very special places, where children and adults can be cared for and educated and where, most important—this is why they work—the environment is geared towards continuity of provision, education and treatment.
Struan House is an exceptional centre, but it is far too small to cater for demand. That is why the SSA has set out its appeal for a new school and centre for training research and assessment. I understand that both Nicol Stephen and Hugh Henry have visited the school—I hope that Frank McAveety will do so too—and have seen the benefits that it provides for the Scottish autistic population and the international community.
I urge Frank McAveety in his reply—I accept that he is new to the brief—to commit the Government to the changes for which I have asked. We know what is happening out there. We need action. Further consultations could be useful, but only in terms of the action that is required. I ask the minister to implement at the earliest opportunity the recommendations from the PHIS needs assessment report. More important, I ask him to recognise the report's limitations, listen to carers and professionals and, most important, recognise the needs of each individual sufferer.
I would like to make a brief speech as vice-convener of the cross-party group on autistic spectrum disorder.
I congratulate Lloyd Quinan on securing the debate, albeit at very short notice and rather unexpectedly. I also congratulate him on his commitment to the cross-party group.
I recognise, as did Lloyd Quinan, the individuals and organisations who are members of the cross-party group. They faithfully come in some numbers from throughout Scotland to attend the group's meetings. It would be good if some more MSPs joined the group and came along to the meetings, given the commitment that has been shown by individuals and organisations.
As the constituency member for Coatbridge and Chryston, my mailbag and my surgeries continue to include approaches from parents of children with ASD. As I have mentioned before, those approaches tend to focus on problems with service provision.
It is fair to say that it is known that an increasing number of children are being recognised as having ASD, including Asperger's syndrome, but it is not known whether that is due to better diagnosis or an increase in the incidence of ASD.
It is recognised that not enough is known about the causes of autism. Malcolm Chisholm acknowledged that when he responded to the report by the measles, mumps and rubella expert group last month. There is an urgent need for much more research on the causes of autism. Malcolm Chisholm recognised that, too. Perhaps Frank McAveety may want to update the chamber on what is happening to address that need, as Malcolm Chisholm acknowledged that it was an issue.
When the diagnosis is made, many parents feel that they should be able to access assistance to understand the issues and challenges for them and their child and to access the appropriate services to allow their child to reach his or her full potential. However, as Lloyd Quinan said, assistance is not available for many parents, who report that after the diagnosis is made they are left feeling as if they are in a kind of vacuum and that they do not know where to turn next. They do not experience joined-up working and continuity between services. While they are coming to terms with the diagnosis, they are left wondering what the future will hold for their child and their family.
Nursery and school provision are still major issues for many of my constituents. I will not go into the details of those issues, as I have done so in previous debates on this subject. The nature of ASD means that each child's case is unique. Although some children will be able and will want to attend a mainstream school or nursery, others will thrive and develop their potential better at a school specifically designed for children with autism, such as Struan House.
For more than 20 years, Struan House has provided excellent education and care for many of Scotland's children with autism. However, because of the increasing number of children who are diagnosed and because of the increasing number of parents who want to exercise their choice and have their child educated at a school such as Struan House, demand is exceeding supply. As Lloyd Quinan said, there is a proposal to establish a new Struan House, which would be not only a school, but a centre of excellence. Some funding support for that visionary project has been secured. I hope that the Scottish Executive will assist in ensuring that the dream of having such a centre in Scotland will become a reality in the near future.
Although I am sure that the organisations that will receive assistance through the £500,000 of new investment that was announced last month by Malcolm Chisholm will welcome that money, the specific issue of training for service providers has still to be addressed—people such as teachers, health service staff, social services staff and educationists. In particular, we need to increase the number of psychiatrists who have knowledge of and expertise in ASD. Services that are appropriate to specific needs also have to be provided, as one-size-fits-all approaches are not acceptable. I agree with Lloyd Quinan that there is a need for continuity and person-centred planning throughout a person's life.
On a positive note, I am pleased by the attention the Executive is giving ASD. It has been pushed, in part, by the work of the cross-party group—that is what the cross-party group is for—but complacency is not an option. Today's debate will help to keep the issue firmly on the agenda and I again congratulate Lloyd Quinan on securing it.
I congratulate Lloyd Quinan on securing this debate about increasing awareness of autism.
It is now nearly a quarter of a century since Struan House was established in Alloa. The Scottish Society for Autism had small beginnings but now has 430 staff at eight locations. There is also a craft centre for adults at Alloa and a horticultural centre at Balmyre. Like many colleagues, I have visited all three centres and seen the remarkable work that is done by the society—not least by Jim Taylor and his outstanding staff at Struan House school.
As others have said, the facilities at Struan House are inadequate and cramped, and there is a proposal to establish a new Scottish centre for autism at a cost of £5.1 million. Scottish Executive support for that is vital. I know that discussions between the Executive and the Scottish Society for Autism are being held. We must build on what has become not only a Scottish centre of excellence, but an international centre of excellence—although even the new school will increase the facilities only from 30 to 36 pupils and then, we hope, to 54 in three years' time. The new Scottish centre will provide an educational outreach service; further advisory support services for families; a badly needed centre for training for professionals and carers; and an improved diagnostic, assessment and research service.
It is estimated that autism affects 28,000 people in Scotland, 8,000 of whom are children. We need financial support from the Scottish Executive not just for the new Struan House school project, but for improved diagnostic and assessment services.
Schools in Scotland report a lower rate of ASD than do schools in England and Wales. It is thought that that is largely because of different methodologies, so improved diagnostic and assessment services are a major priority.
We also need more research into whether the large increase in the number of children with ASD at primary school, compared with secondary, is due to an increasing prevalence of autism—as many believe—or because there has not been effective diagnosis of secondary school children with ASD. We need more resources: not just financial ones, but more specialist practitioners and more specialist training to meet the needs of the children with ASD in Scotland's schools. More children are being diagnosed and reported as having ASD than ever before.
If we are to place children with ASD in mainstream classrooms, they must have adequate support. By that I mean adequate support as defined in several ways. We must have more speech, language and occupational therapists, more educational psychologists and more special needs support assistants. We must also have more basic teacher training in behaviour management for all teachers and substantial training in ASD for some teachers. If we place children with ASD in mainstream classrooms without adequate support, that will place unfair pressure on teachers, on children with ASD and on their fellow pupils.
I want to touch on two issues. The first is inclusivity for young people with autism; the second is adults with ASD.
We start from the premise that the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 will introduce in August next year a presumption that children will be educated in mainstream education. To remind chief executives of local authorities that that will happen, the Executive issued a circular, dated 5 April 2002. On planning, the circular states, on page 3, paragraph 13:
"Education authorities should also from the date of this circular begin to consider the placements of children already attending special schools or special units when they undertake their annual reviews of children's progress during the 2001-02 year."
In other words, the attitude is that local authorities should address the policy now. That is not happening. There are a couple of reasons. The main one, as usual, is resources. There simply is not enough money to fund placements for children with special needs or autism in which they get support from educational psychologists, speech therapists and so on.
The second issue that requires to be addressed is the attitude of some professionals. Unfortunately, out in the educational world there are head teachers who are not happy about taking children with autism or special needs into their schools. Some educational psychologists are also resisting the policy.
I know from members' business debates and others that the spirit in the Parliament is to place such children, as far as possible, within their local schools, but that is not happening. I know of a child who has been at a local nursery two years, whose mother is having a terrible time trying to get her into a local primary in September. That is the reality.
An issue that is often not addressed—but not by members—is the problem of adults with autism. Autism is for life. I know of a case involving a beautiful 22-year-old girl. It is difficult for people to understand that she has a problem. They just presume that she is not autistic. She was placed in accommodation with someone else who has autism. Lloyd Quinan rightly said that everybody is different. That placement was a disastrous match. The girl was bullied, harangued and had two beatings from the other person. She had to be quickly placed somewhere else. Her parental home was not an option. She has no friends and is well aware of her difficulties, so she took it out on her parents by behaving aggressively.
To the outside world, however, the girl appears to have no problems. She contains it. She was placed in so-called emergency supported accommodation. The carers came in on rotation. They changed each day and she had no idea who they were.
Anybody in the chamber who knows anything about ASD knows that it is important that the daily life of a person with ASD is structured, predictable and stable. The girl, however, was in an unstable situation. For two months, her parents slept over in the flat with her at night because there was nobody to come in. They are exhausted. It is a wonder that their marriage has survived the stress.
I would like the minister to advise us of the strategies that are or will be in place for dealing with adults with ASD and what data we have. I do not expect those answers today.
I have lodged a parliamentary question on funding in this area. Could the funding come from the centre? That would make rucksacking—where the funding follows the child—a lot easier because local authorities would not suddenly find that they do not have the resources because of accidents that happen in their community.
Christine Grahame raised a good point. I have heard anecdotally that many marriages do not survive the bringing up of an autistic child. It has also come to my notice recently that many mothers with autistic children cannot work due to their commitments, so it leads to financial problems as well.
I welcome our new Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care to what I think is his first health debate in his new post.
When reading the Scottish Parliament information centre's research note on autism, I noted that the majority of parliamentary questions on the matter have been asked by Margaret Ewing. I hope, Presiding Officer, that you will not mind if I pass on the best wishes of my group and, I am sure, of many other members to Margaret Ewing and her family, who are in the chamber.
I fully support Lloyd Quinan's motion and agree that there should be a seamless service. I also agree with Kenneth Macintosh's motion S1M-2428, that we should recognise
"the everyday challenge faced by children and adults on the autistic spectrum, and their families, in gaining appropriate support from the statutory services".
As a former lecturer in further education, I am aware that the learning difficulties of many teenagers and adults were discovered in further education. The phrase "slipped through the net" is often used. I did not understand what Asperger's syndrome was until about five or six years ago. That sort of thing is a cause for great concern.
I produced a report for the Health and Community Care Committee that was unanimously accepted. It was not only about the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. It examined the need to integrate health statistics and recommended that a special needs register be set up; that parents, health visitors and general practitioners be given more extensive and accurate information; and that a system of consistent assessment and diagnostic checks be introduced. All those recommendations were accepted by the Minister for Health and Community Care a year ago. The situation has moved on and I hope that we will get an update on that movement today.
A document produced by the Scottish Society for Autism recommends that the Scottish Executive fund and encourage improvements in diagnosis and assessment and that the national initiative for autism screening be implemented. I am also aware of the checklist of autism in toddlers system—CHAT—that was successful in diagnosing and assessing children under school age. I understand that that pilot project is on-going, that there are no recommendations and that it misses certain people. I understand that there is a Westminster working group on the matter as well.
Lloyd Quinan mentioned the Public Health Institute of Scotland. It recommends that there be a Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guideline, a local audit, clinical networks and so on.
Recommendation 28 of my favourite document, "The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities", says that
"The Scottish Executive should commission research into the number of people with learning disabilities in prison or in secure accommodation and the arrangements for assessing and providing them with care."
There are lots of booklets and recommendations, but I think we are a long way away from providing a seamless service.
In the brief time that Frank McAveety was on the Health and Community Care Committee, we discussed supported accommodation and housing support in relation to the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill. It has come to my notice recently that people with mental health problems and learning disabilities in Inverness are being moved from the category of supported accommodation to that of housing support. That may be for the best reasons. I would like to think that it is. I would like to think that it is not because there is fearfulness about the Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001. I would like to think that those vulnerable people will not be taken advantage of. I hope that the minister will keep an eye on that.
I commend Lloyd Quinan and Elaine Smith for their excellent work on autism and on the speeches that they made at the start of tonight's debate. I also place on record my thanks—and, I am sure, the thanks of many others—to Michele Savage, who was parliamentary officer for the Scottish Society for Autism, for her work. She has moved on to another job, but she did an excellent job on behalf of the SSA in mobilising awareness of the importance of the issue.
A series of issues could be raised, but I will focus on two or three. The first is the decision that ministers are about to make on the future of new Struan House. Lloyd Quinan was correct to say that a great deal of work has been done at Struan House over the past 15 or 20 years. New practices have been developed there and new forms of support for people with autism have emerged. It is important that that work is continued and supplemented, and that the present constraints on the number of people who can be supported are overcome.
The issue is difficult. Any request to ministers for additional resources presents problems in that ministers have options for what to do with the resources. It is important to acknowledge that best practice has been built up over a long time and that new Struan House is an opportunity, as Lloyd Quinan and Elaine Smith said, to extend that good practice and for the SSA to become a leader beyond the confines of Scotland. I hope that ministers will consider with sympathy and understanding the application that is being made and that they will respond positively to it.
Secondly, I highlight the need to ensure that we provide appropriate support for carers of people with autism as well as for those who suffer from autism. The courage of those who care for people with autism constantly strikes me. The kinds of difficulties that they have to face up to, the problems that they have to address and the difficulties that they encounter in managing their lives are a huge burden. Generally, they accept that burden happily in that they want to do all that they can for the person for whom they are caring.
Wider society has an obligation to do what we can to provide respite care, training and other appropriate forms of support. It is correct to say that those with autism need different kinds of care because their conditions differ. It is also fair to say that those who care for people with autism often need different kinds of support, depending on the circumstances and problems they encounter. We have to be very aware of how much we depend on those who take on the caring role. One of our obligations is to consider systematically the kinds of services and support that such people need and to try to find ways of providing them.
A connected point is the need to identify best practice. One thing that I am constantly told when I deal with constituents who care for people with autism, as well as when I deal with people with autism, is that there is a constant process of trying to reinvent the wheel—trying to bring a record of care into existence or trying to get the building blocks of support in place.
We should be able to find a better way of dealing with this issue, either through the education system or through the care system. I hope that the process of learning for best practice will be embraced actively by the relevant authorities—the Executive, health authorities and education authorities—so that we get better mechanisms that are more suitable for people who need services.
Lloyd Quinan and Elaine Smith deserve great credit for pursuing the issue of autism and for making the tone of the debate very constructive. Some people have wrongly regarded MMR and autism as the same subject. Today we have heard that, quite apart from MMR, there are huge issues relating to autism that we must address.
When I was young, many people—especially young people—were regarded as very stupid or very bloody minded. We now recognise that those people had a particular condition. A great deal of research has been done into autism and considerable progress has been made in identifying it. A little—though much less—progress has been made in dealing with the condition.
Progress has been made not because of the powers that be, but because groups of volunteers, usually with a family interest in autism, have worked with very dedicated medical professionals to investigate the issue. Our task is to harness with Government the work of voluntary organisations and the professionals who work with them. As other speakers have said, there is some confusion about how we deal in our education system and elsewhere with people who have specific problems.
I accept that we want to help people individually. This might be a daft suggestion, but if we brought together the voluntary sector and the relevant parts of local and central Government in a sort of parliament of people who deal with medical and similar conditions, we might work out a more coherent way of dealing with the problems. We should harness the energy of the volunteers and tie that in with good use of public funds. At the moment, a considerable amount of money is wasted.
My proposal would also help to bring about a rational discussion. Occasionally, I am distressed by the fact that political correctness enters into discussions about issues such as autism. Christine Grahame spoke about money following the person. I agree with her. When, at council level some years ago, I proposed that assistants should follow children with problems who had been brought into mainstream schools, I was regarded as a latter-day Luddite and was pooh-poohed entirely. I might have been wrong, but I was denounced on the ground of dogma, rather than with rational argument. We must consider issues of this sort sensibly.
We should bring together the knowledge, skill and energy of people such as those who are involved in the autism organisations and we should support them with well-directed public money. That will enable us to deal with the conditions, as well as to identify them.
I must cut the time allocated to speeches to three minutes. I apologise to members who have yet to speak.
I warmly congratulate Lloyd Quinan on bringing his motion before the Parliament at short notice, and on the work that he, Elaine Smith, Christine Grahame and many others have done on the subject of autism.
The motion is on the subject of autism awareness week. The Parliament has done a great deal to promote awareness and better understanding of a condition that has in the past been misunderstood. Donald Gorrie, who has greater longevity than some other members, made that point. Partly through the efforts of members, we are beginning to understand a condition that remains far too mysterious.
Mary Scanlon kindly mentioned Margaret Ewing—she would undoubtedly have wished to contribute to the debate had she been able to. She sends her best wishes and has been very touched by the warm support that she has received from all members of the Parliament over the past months.
I will make two points. Des McNulty made one of them in part already, namely about the huge pressure on parents of autistic children. There are huge difficulties for parents who have kids who do not respond, who have repetitive behaviour and are different in other such ways. I am interested to hear what the minister thinks can be done to acknowledge that and provide concrete support.
The second and last point that I want to make is about availability of single vaccines. Single vaccines should be available. I formed that view early, after meeting constituents who must deal with this very difficult condition, and nothing that I have read subsequently has made me alter it.
I come to the general point that I want to make. I have also recently spoken to a parent who already has one autistic child and who is now worried that the younger child might also have autistic spectrum disorder. He raised with me the point that whatever the general policy on the single vaccine, there is a strong case for allowing parents who already have a child who has been diagnosed with ASD the option of the single vaccine. Despite the lack of hard scientific knowledge, there must be a greater statistical likelihood of a younger child's being predisposed to ASD if an older child in the family already has it.
I do not expect the minister to respond unequivocally to that point today, because the issue is complicated. I hope that he will go away and address the point later. Who knows, I might even lodge a question on it.
I congratulate Lloyd Quinan on introducing the debate, despite the unfortunate circumstances around it. I state for the record that this is the first debate in which I have talked about issues relating to education. I am a ministerial aide for education and I clarify that I am speaking as a back bencher rather than with some sort of ersatz Executive hat on.
I welcome Mr McAveety to his ministerial chair. I hope that he acknowledges the cross-party nature of the issue and that he will approach the debate in the same style, rather than using his usual combative approach.
I endorse the recommendations that several members have made for the minister to look favourably on the new Struan House project, which the Scottish Society for Autism promotes. It is unfortunate that I was not able to check before coming here to speak whether Mr McAveety was able to sign the letter of support that came round before he became a minister. However, I know that a very large number of back-bench MSPs from all parties have signed it. That shows the support for the issue and the cross-party nature of that support.
Given that we are talking about what is in effect a special school, we might be seen to be swimming against the tide of educational policy. Christine Grahame talked about the importance of the presumption of mainstreaming, which the Standards in Scotland's Schools etc Act 2000 included. I realise that the two positions are not in opposition. There is a presumption of mainstreaming and parents want their children to be educated locally where that is appropriate, but there are many circumstances in which that is not appropriate. I hope that the minister will acknowledge that and the need for a centre of excellence, such as the centre that new Struan House will provide.
Many of the benefits of the new school have been emphasised. Those include the importance of early diagnosis that the research excellence will give and the centre's provision for training other teachers. I mention that particularly because I know that the Scottish Society for Autism provides outreach training for teachers, for example in West Lothian. Such a role for a school, or a centre of excellence, should be welcomed because it would benefit all communities in Scotland, not just those near Alloa.
I also want to mention the importance of support services generally. This week, I heard from a constituent—the mother of a six-year-old girl with autism. I will not go into the details, but the tone of the letter that I received will be familiar to all members, because it was angry and frustrated. The common factor in all constituents' letters on autism is that they are all angry and frustrated with the services that they have to battle to gain access to. We must take a joined-up approach and I urge the minister to work with his colleagues in education and elsewhere to deliver on the Executive's policy on autism. I also urge him to endorse Lloyd Quinan's motion and to implement the recommendations of the Scottish needs assessment programme.
I have great pleasure in calling Frank McAveety to testify to the effectiveness of the Executive's recycling policy and to respond to the debate.
Surely you mean resurrection, Presiding Officer?
That would be a sound theological position for me to adopt.
I congratulate Lloyd Quinan on securing the debate, albeit in unusual circumstances. It is interesting to note that this the third time since the Parliament was established that we have debated autism. That is testimony to the genuine concern to raise the issue and to identify ways of moving forward the agenda that was expressed by all who spoke in the debate. It does not matter how piecemeal some people may consider some of those moves—at least we are moving forward, in contrast with what happened in the past.
I thank my colleague Ken Macintosh for the subtle way in which he reminded me of my responsibilities as a new minister and how I should conduct myself at the dispatch box. There are always occasions on which I listen to him, and, given the subtle way in which he gave his advice, I will take on board what he said.
The motion specifically welcomes autism awareness week 2002, but it also acknowledges autism awareness week 2003. As members, we often concentrate our minds on the future. Perhaps that was a good way of including a reference to 2003 in case some of us are not here then—of course, that depends on the circumstances that members find themselves in today.
Let me move on to the big issues. Members raised some fundamental points, which I will deal with as best I can—members will appreciate that I took up my portfolio just over a week ago. One or two areas require further deliberation, and the Executive is still considering the important matter of the future of Struan House and the request for funding. I am happy to discuss that matter with members after the debate or to respond in writing, and I hope that it will be concluded over the next few weeks.
I repeat the thanks that are recorded in the motion for the efforts of the Scottish Society for Autism and the National Autistic Society in Scotland to promote and care for those who are affected by autistic spectrum disorders. I am unfamiliar with some of the work that is being undertaken by smaller groups, but I hope that, in the time that I will be allowed to keep my portfolio as a member of the Executive, I will be able to visit those support groups. I record our recognition of the role that is played by members of the cross-party group. It is testimony to the work that they have done that they have made a difference.
Members raised the key issue of training for service providers. I recognise that establishing new service providers in the health sector or upgrading the skills and training for existing service providers does not happen overnight. However, we acknowledge that a skills deficiency has built up over time. The societies also recognise that, and I give a strong commitment that we are happy to continue to work them, as appropriate, to address that issue over the next few years. I respond to Lloyd Quinan's comments by noting that that is a step in the right direction, as it creates a base from which we can move forward. We must try to work together effectively.
A key theme during the debate has been seamless delivery. That is an easy point for members to make, but, because of professional jealousies or institutional barriers, things are more difficult out there in the real world. The fact that we debate and consistently raise the subject of autism in the Parliament and identify it as an issue for Executive ministers to address feeds back to organisations on the ground. I hope that we will reflect on the policies and attitudes that those organisations strike.
Other issues have been raised on the role for education. Over the past three years, the innovation grants programme has supported projects that are aimed at improving standards and practice in schools in relation to autism. Those projects tackle difficulties that are caused by a misunderstanding of the problem through school exclusion and the consequential impact that that has on family relationships. They also seek to develop much more effective social skills for those who deal with individuals who suffer from autism. The aim is to work with local authorities to develop an effective training pack that will mean something at a local level.
Learning from around the country is important. I am sure that many members can testify to the good practice that exists in parts of Scotland. Like many things in Scotland, that good practice is not shared universally and we must tackle that.
The innovation grants programme will fund projects between 2002 and 2004. Five autism projects have been awarded 14 per cent of the £5 million that was available. The SSA and the NAS are involved with us in determining how to develop those projects. One of the projects is aimed at joining up training for professionals who work in the field of autistic spectrum disorders. We will review training provision for autistic spectrum disorders in Scotland to identify gaps in provision and to develop a targeted national training framework, which some members have mentioned.
Next week, I will have the opportunity to hear at first hand from more than 400 people who will attend a conference that is being organised by the NAS and the SSA. I look forward to getting a better handle on relevant issues.
The societies have helped with the database information, which is an essential tool for developing awareness, understanding and knowledge. Progress will continue to be made with the database, which was one of the recommendations in the report by the Public Health Institute of Scotland.
The national service network for people with autistic spectrum disorders was recommended in the document that Mary Scanlon referred to—"The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities".
Mary Scanlon also raised the specific issue of prisoners and of conducting further research. I guarantee that we are engaging on the relevant recommendation, which has now been implemented. We will look at the forgotten element of prisoners who suffer from autistic spectrum disorder.
There is also the broader issue of adults with autism. I do not have a specific response on that. I take that back—I will definitely respond to Christine Grahame on that issue.
Malcolm Chisholm commissioned the PHIS to prepare a needs assessment report for autistic spectrum disorders. That report, which was published a couple of months ago, refers to what we would define as an ideal service. Although that is a moving target, at least it gives us a target to aim for. It is important that we develop much more effective work on the ground.
Another area for which I have ministerial responsibility is developing the joint futures agenda, which has much in common with the issues that have been raised in tonight's debate. I give a commitment to move forward on that.
I am conscious of time; I do not know how much time I have left, but I notice that the Presiding Officer is making eye contact.
How do we harness the energy of volunteers and carers, who everyone says are the forgotten individuals in much of the process? It is time to address the needs of carers, because the relationship pressures and support service issues that have been raised need to be dealt with.
There are many other issues that I cannot deal with because of lack of time. If members have specific points that have not been covered, I would be happy to respond directly in writing.
I thank the cross-party group for continuing to raise the issue. I am sure that we will continue to be in contact on the matter. I pay tribute to the role that the autism societies in Scotland have played in supporting those who suffer from autistic spectrum disorders and the families who have to care for them. We are on a journey and we are moving in the right direction. It is important that we work together, as we have done throughout the debate, to find ways of making a genuine difference. I thank the member for securing the debate.
Meeting closed at 17:55.