Chamber and committees

I am pleased to take part in this important debate and I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton and the Liberal Democrats for bringing it to the chamber.

This is not the first time that we have debated the mental health emergency in Scotland and I, for one, do not believe that it will be the last time. It is hard to think of a topic that has been discussed so widely in Holyrood and yet on which so little progress has been made. On many fronts, Scotland’s mental health crisis appears only to be getting worse. It is getting worse for the kids in school, for their teachers and parents, and for adults who are battling a range of problems for which treatment seems virtually impossible to access.

Most political parties have agreed, at one point or another, that mental health should have parity of esteem with physical health within Government and the NHS. However, no one working in the system, or who has had to navigate their way through it from outside, really believes that that has ever happened. Today’s debate focuses on a number of areas relating to neurodevelopmental conditions and the provision—or lack thereof—to help people cope with them.

Those shortages affect people of all ages, but their impact on children is causing the most distress across society. Services are so chaotic and disjoined, and the waiting times so unbearably long, that many young people will not even be children any more by the time that the NHS gets round to seeing them. That is not a reflection on the dedicated and hard-working staff, many of whom constantly go the extra mile just to keep their services above water. It is, however, very much a reflection on the Scottish Government, which has underfunded and undervalued mental health care for nearly 20 years of its being in power.

Since 2007, mental health has been under the sole control of the SNP Government. It is entirely devolved, and the Scottish Government has no one to blame but itself for the current state of affairs. Education is also devolved, and the Scottish Government’s desire to mainstream as many children as possible is visibly backfiring. We have heard countless reports—shared in the chamber and beyond—of how so many young people are being forced into environments to which they are clearly unsuited. It ruins their learning and development, and it jeopardises the experience and education of those around them.

Only last year, I had a Glasgow family in my office in tears because they could not access special school provision for their child who has severe autism. They were terrified about what life would look like for him in a mainstream school, but because of Government and local government policy, they had no choice but to go with it. The statistics bear that out, too. Hundreds of special schools across the country have been lost since 2007, and with them have gone hundreds more specialist, experienced and skilled teachers. Kids are waiting years for testing in relation to autism and ADHD. Professional psychiatry bodies have said that, by failing to help those young people now, we are merely storing up even more problems for the future.

There are things that the Government could do now to help. It could increase mental health spending to 10 per cent of the front-line NHS budget; it could ensure that there is sufficient capacity in education for pupils with complex needs; and it could better support teachers to identify and help pupils with conditions such as ADHD and autism. Those measures would make a real difference to those suffering on the ground. If mental health and physical health are, indeed, to have parity of esteem, those commitments would be a good place to start.

Thank you.

Good morning, convener, and thank you for allowing me to join you today. The only interest that I have to declare is that I am the second signatory to the bill that will be discussed in this meeting.

Just to expand on that theme, how would you ensure that Scotland’s most deprived communities were aware of their rights under the bill?

Good morning. It has been very interesting to listen to all the evidence, and we have heard quite a bit from other panels, too. My questions are about the practicalities of signing a recall petition. How do we know that we will have the right amount of places—and the right amount of time—in which to do so? How do we ensure that electoral fraud is not committed?

Given that he said at the beginning of the session that there are not enough places to sign a petition, especially in the islands, I ask Dr Stanford first to talk about the practicalities.

That is really interesting. Thank you.

Does anyone else want to come in? I do not want to ask everyone the question if we do not need to.

Morning, guys—thanks very much for coming in.

We have touched on the issue of induction and training quite a bit this morning. The first time that that was done was in 2016, when we became MSPs, and I found it really helpful at the time. What knowledge do people who come into the role of committee member need to fulfil that role? Should it be the party or the Parliament that advises the member on what they are expected to do in that role?

I have another two quick questions. Most people present are spokespersons as well as committee members. How do the parties explain the difference, or balance, between being a spokesperson and being a committee member? Should one role be left at the door when you walk into the committee room? I think that that is a difficult one to balance. Should the party be guiding its members as to how much importance—that is probably not the right word to use—is attached to their party role versus their committee role?

Good morning, and thanks for coming along. I am looking at induction and training. What training and support do ministers get when they are preparing to come in front of committees? Could the Parliament learn from that when it is looking at induction and training for new members? Could anything transfer over?