Seòmar agus comataidhean

We move on to questions from Paul O’Kane.

We move to questions from Marie McNair.

Thank you. We move on to questions from Evelyn Tweed.

Thank you. We move to questions from Maggie Chapman.

Thank you very much for that powerful opening statement.

Before we move on to questions, I advise members that, if we direct our questions to Jan Savage, she will direct us to the person that she wishes to respond.

I will start the questions. The report highlights a

“gulf between the rhetoric of taking a human rights-based approach and the reality of putting that into practice.”

It says that the coming home implementation plan fails to comply with the right to independent living. What is the consequence if the Scottish Government fails to comply with that right? Who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the Scottish Government’s commitments to deinstitutionalisation are met?

We have come to the end of our public session as members have asked the questions that they wanted to ask. I thank our witnesses. We have had a powerful evidence session, and I assure them that the strength of their message and the urgency of their advocacy has come across.

We move into private session to consider the remaining items on our agenda.

I congratulate my colleague Daniel Johnson on securing this members’ business debate, and I thank him for his continued openness on this issue. I, too, feel deeply passionate about it, because it also affects me and my family. Ultimately, it is about how society is run, because it cuts across everything, from education and healthcare to employment and justice. Right now, neurodivergent people feel that they are being let down everywhere, in all of it. I want to tell them that I see it and that I validate them and their experience.

Around 84 per cent of autistic adults are unemployed, despite so many of them wanting to work, and nearly 66 per cent have contemplated suicide. People are waiting for years for a diagnosis and, in some areas, local authorities, health boards and integration joint boards have paused referrals. I agree that it is a crisis. Those are not abstract numbers—they are people’s lives. They are people I represent, people I know and people who email me every single week. In fact, it is the top issue on which I receive correspondence.

In my various roles as a local councillor, an MSP and convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and as a mum and a neurodivergent woman, I have seen and heard many devastating stories. There are women who have spent decades without a diagnosis, dismissed or misdiagnosed, and who are completely burnt out; there are families who are stuck in cycles of poverty because they cannot access suitable work; and there are young people who are overwhelmed by a system that was never designed for them in the first place. We often hear people say, “School just wasn’t for them,” but it should be—we should create an environment for them.

I was disappointed that the proposed LDAN bill was not included in the most recent programme for government, but I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has a continued commitment to publish that draft legislation. I can tell members today that I know that the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport, Maree Todd, is genuine in her care for that work and the people it impacts. I know that from the conversations that I have had with her, and I am grateful for it.

I believe that there are things that we can do now. We can embed understanding of neurodivergence across public services, ensuring that every GP, teacher and social worker is equipped with the training to recognise and support neurodivergent people. We can create clear national diagnostic pathways with self-referral options, and we can accept private diagnoses though the national health service from those who have felt the urgent need to pay for a diagnosis themselves.

We can begin early screening where neurodivergence might be masked, especially when people present with addiction, eating disorders, anxiety or chronic fatigue, because those are often the red flags. If we embed that thinking in our systems, we can intervene earlier and more effectively. We can improve the school experience by increasing the number of ASN teachers and adopting neuro-affirming approaches, along with quiet spaces, flexible transitions and reduced sensory load. Those things do not require new legislation; they simply require compassion and leadership.

We can challenge employers to build inclusive workplaces. We know that, in our justice system, a high proportion of people in custody are neurodivergent, and that is why we must act at the point of entry by signposting individuals for a neurodivergence assessment. Doing so could open up a pathway to not just support but true rehabilitation.

None of that needs to wait for a bill, but a bill can provide the backbone to sustain and scale that change. It can put rights on a statutory footing and help us to track and close the gaps. It is not about battling neurodivergence, but about building a society that welcomes it with all its potential.

Amendment 233 aims to remove the barriers that prevent individuals with disabilities from serving on criminal juries.

The goal of amendment 233 is to ensure that jurors with communication differences who are deaf and require a British Sign Language interpreter can fully participate in jury deliberations. That would foster more inclusive and accessible justice systems for all.

The current challenge is that only jurors are allowed to be present during jury deliberations, which excludes people who need communication support such as BSL interpreters from fully participating.

For a bit of background, in 2018, a group chaired by Lord Matthews recommended considering the issue; the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service echoed that call in December 2023, recommending that legislation be amended to allow approved persons, such as BSL interpreters, to support jurors during deliberations.

The amendment seeks to insert the proposed section 88A into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, enabling the court to appoint a communications supporter for jurors who need assistance due to a physical disability. The supporter would be present during deliberations, ensuring that the juror can participate effectively. The amendment also seeks to ensure that multiple supporters can be appointed if needed, and that they can take an oath to preserve the integrity of the trial.

Before appointing a supporter, the court would have the opportunity to hear from the prosecution and defence on whether the case was appropriate for the juror—for example, if the case involved audio recordings where hearing the tone was important, a deaf juror might not be suitable.

Amendment 233 seeks to empower judges to decide on a case-by-case basis, which ensures flexibility and judicial discretion. It does not mandate the appointment of a supporter in every case but provides the option for judges to consider communications support where appropriate. That ensures fairness and accessibility when needed.

The SCTS’s letter to the committee raised concerns about space constraints in courtrooms. If operational difficulties arise, such as the size of the courtroom, and the court cannot accommodate supporters, the court will not appoint a communication supporter, and the juror could be excused. Although operational concerns are valid, the vast majority of courtrooms cannot accommodate multiple communications supporters during deliberations. The flexibility in the amendment ensures that, if a court faces any difficulties, the judge can decide to excuse the juror, or the juror can be informed in advance of any issues with that accommodation.

Yes, absolutely. It is for anybody who has a physical disability that impairs their ability to communicate and who needs to have supporters present with them. The supporters would have to take an oath during the deliberations and fully accept the inclusion of all signed support.

In winding up, it is important to say that our step towards a more equal society is not something additional or added on at the end of anything. It is step by step that we make a more inclusive society. Whenever there is an opportunity to be more inclusive, we should take it. We should empower people with disabilities to serve effectively and fully in our society. I press amendment 233.

Amendment 233 agreed to.

Section 35—Verdict of guilty or not guilty and majority required for guilty verdict

Amendment 73 not moved.