Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE1837, which was lodged originally by Stephen Leighton, calls on the Scottish Government to clarify how autistic people, who do not have a learning disability and/or mental disorder, can access support, and to allocate investment for autism support teams in every local authority or health and social care partnership in Scotland. The petition was last considered in February. At that meeting, the committee at the time agreed to continue it and also to include it in its legacy paper, which we have received, along with the suggestion that we take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on the various concerns raised in written submissions on the petition.

Since the petition was last considered, written submissions have been received from Autism Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Indeed, the petition has received 23 written submissions to date and was considered twice by the previous committee.

The Scottish Government’s submission of 2 December 2020 highlights that

“Support for autistic people is available from a wide range of sources”

that

“provide a range of support including social groups, 1:1 counselling and post diagnostic support.”

It also notes that

“the Scottish Government is working collaboratively with national autism charities and autistic led organisations to deliver a national autism post diagnostic support service”.

That pilot project ran from December 2020 until May 2021. Moreover, according to that submission, a national autism implementation team was established in partnership between the Scottish Government and Queen Margaret University

“to support Health and Social Care Partnerships to consider best practice and improve service in the redesigning of autism diagnostic services.”

The team

“is supporting NHS Boards to examine diagnostic pathways for autism and establish regional experts to assist with improving tiered autism specialisms across health boards.”

In its submission of 11 March 2021, Scottish Autism says that it welcomes the petition’s call for more resources from the Scottish Government at a local level to support autistic people and their families, and it believes that

“there continues to be an absence of consistent and accessible support services”

available in Scotland. However, in its submission, COSLA states that it currently does not support the

“call for a blanket approach”

to providing support teams or ring-fenced funding, due to the impact of ring fencing on local authorities’ ability to fund non-ring-fenced services. COSLA also highlights that

“services are not provided”

to autistic people

“on the basis of the Mental Health Act”

and that, instead, they are provided following professional assessment of

“individual need and ... eligibility criteria.”

In their submission, the petitioner highlights that in the report on rejected referrals to child and adolescent mental health services, the repeated issue that was raised was that services were declining to support autism needs on the ground of its not being a mental health issue. The submission then suggests that if autism is to be considered a mental health disorder, investment from the mental health budget could be used to create autism support teams, which would in turn reduce pressure on mental health and social work services.

The petitioner concludes by stating their view that the status quo is not enough and that the submissions to the petition made by autistic people and their families demonstrate that more needs to be done.

That is a comprehensive analysis of where we are. Do members have any comments or suggestions for our next steps?

It has been a huge issue. I remember colleagues in the previous session lodging motions for debate and speaking regularly on the issue. Many people feel quite passionate about it. We have a specific recommendation in the legacy paper, which is that we should take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on the issues raised in the petition. What do members think of that proposal? Is there an alternative course of action?

I see nods of approval. Do we agree on that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

We will follow that through and meet the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to focus on those specific issues.

The next continued petition is PE1838, on the regulation of non-statutory child advocacy services. I welcome Christine Grahame, who has joined us for consideration of the petition. The petition was lodged by Martin Baker and Katherine Bailey and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that non-statutory child advocacy services are properly regulated to ensure competence, transparency and accountability.

The session 5 Public Petitions Committee last considered the petition at its meeting on 10 March 2021. At that meeting, the committee agreed to continue the petition and include it in its legacy paper, along with a suggestion to write to the relevant minister to seek a response on whether the Scottish Government will undertake the work necessary to introduce legislation to regulate non-statutory child advocacy services.

Including its last consideration, the committee has considered the petition twice and received 14 written submissions.

In her written submission of 1 December 2020, the then Minister for Community Safety stated:

“Any regulation of child advocacy services would require a full consultation and primary legislation. The scope for, and effect of, regulation may be limited as child advocacy services are not only provided by organisations or persons acting in a professional capacity”.

She continued by saying that, in the event that regulation was implemented, consideration would be required as to how it is enforced for persons supporting in the capacity of a relative, for example.

In response to the limitations of the scope and efficacy of regulation due to non-professional persons carrying out the role, the petitioner questioned whether the definition of “services” under any legislation could be outlined to cover paid employees or volunteer staff of organisations that offer such services.

Before I ask for comments from members of the committee, would Christine Grahame like to speak in support of the petition?

Thank you. That was interesting.

I am happy to support all those suggestions. The issues that have been raised are important. I would like to write to the health boards and to Sir Lewis Ritchie, on the basis that it might be useful for the committee to take evidence on the back of the submissions that we receive in order to pursue the issues in more detail in an oral evidence session. In the first instance, I want to hear how they would respond to some of the arguments made in the petition, but, after that, we could drill down a bit further. We will keep the petition open and we will proceed on that basis. I hope that that meets with everybody’s approval. Thank you. That concludes agenda item 1. Members will be glad that there are only two items today.

My sympathies are very much in support of that proposal. People and organisations have regularly come to us in the Parliament and have done their best to educate and train MSPs in the use of sign language. I remember thinking previously that it would be useful to have a professional or educational qualification that could be pursued in that regard.

In the first instance, let us see whether the SQA can explain to us whether such a qualification could be introduced, what would be required in introducing it and what the SQA sees as the obstacles to the proposal being progressed. Once we have the response, we will consider the petition afresh.

Yes.

Thank you.

I know that many of the women involved might be watching this morning, so I would like to say a huge thank you to them for everything that they have done over seven years—a third of the lifetime of the Parliament—in pursuing this extraordinary health injustice. I also thank our former colleagues Alex Neil and Neil Findlay, and Johann Lamont, who did terrific work as the convener of the Public Petitions Committee in the previous session.

The petition has been one of the most significant ones that the Parliament has progressed. It has had implications and ramifications that have been watched and felt in countries across the world. All of that was down to the original petition, which was led by two women, Elaine Holmes, who is a constituent of mine, and Olive McIlroy, but many other women have been involved. There are one or two questions that we might still ask but, in closing the petition, I would like to take the unprecedented step of inviting all colleagues on the committee to give those women a round of applause, because what they have done has been remarkable. [Applause.]

Thank you. I think that we have formally closed the petition.

Sorry, what was the point about Dundee? I missed that.