Scottish Parliament - Neurodivergence Inquiry

This paper summarises the contributions that we made to the Neurodivergence Inquiry - both the evidence that Dani gave to the Committee, and the written evidence that we provided.

We warn against the use of the term "reasonable adjustments"  when discussing adaptations or the provision of support generally. It must be used precisely to refer to the Equality Act 2010 to ensure families know which rights are actually enforceable in a tribunal or court versus and on what basis. There are various legal and ethical duties that give rights to neurodivergent children, each with a different test and enforceability mechanism, and so we need to be sure that we use the right terminology when referring to them. 

There is a woeful lack of information recorded by schools in relation to the needs of neurodivergent children. For example, training materials from East Lothian Council instruct staff not to document an inability to meet needs or mention budget limits in writing because they open the Council legal challenges. This prevents the honest discussions required in order to implement a "needs-based" approach, and leaves families with no supporting information for benefits applications, or evidence of disability should they need to exercise their rights under the Equality Act 2010. 

The Scottish Government often tells parents that education is a local authority responsibility. However, Scottish Ministers have the power to investigate and intervene when local authorities fail their duties, and this power is significantly under-utilised. 

We highlight a lack of neurodivergent representation and input from neurodevelopmental policy colleges in the development of education policy, in particular the draft statutory guidance for additional support for learning. 

We express our concern about school inspection reports that use language that blames neurodivergent children for "impacting negatively on the learning of their peers" and for judging children on "appropriate eye contact". 

We think that GP "blanket bans" on prescribing medication initiated by private (but regulated) providers constitute disability discrimination and violate various other pieces of legislation and guidance. We don’t think the criticism of Healthcare Improvement Scotland has been properly explained and we have still not been provided with evidence backing up the claims of some GP practices that private assessments for ADHD are unsafe. 

We are disgusted by the continued labeling of a child’s distress as "violence" which can be weaponised by people to justify the use of restraint and seclusion and ignores the fact that schools often trigger this distress by failing to provide support. It contributes to the stigma that neurodivergent children are already subjected to. It is particularly disgraceful that a significant Scottish teaching union is using this language and contributing to this stigma. 

We welcome the focus from the Royal College on support but reject the idea that the "surge" in demand was "unforeseen," noting it was predicted as early as 2008. We also highlight how a lack of diagnosis can make it more difficult for families to access Social Security Scotland benefits. 

We ask the Committee to explore the Minister’s comments on "queue jumping" regarding private ADHD assessments and question whether the Minister lacks confidence in the Scottish health care regulator (Healthcare Improvement Scotland). 

We make a final plea for the Committee to urge society to stop asking families to "justify why they deserve the same opportunities" and instead start asking public authorities to "justify why they are failing to provide them”.