Seòmar agus comataidhean

Cathy Asante might want to come in on this.

Our second agenda item is to take evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission on its report “‘Tick Tock…’ A human rights assessment of progress from institutionalisation to independent living in Scotland”, which examines Scotland’s progress on moving from institutional models of care towards independent living and how the current practices and policies uphold the rights of disabled people. Members might also wish to explore further questions on another recent SHRC report, “Economic, social and cultural rights in the Highlands and Islands” as part of their on-going interest in rurality issues. I refer members to papers 1 and 2.

From the SHRC, I welcome Jan Savage, executive director; Oonagh Brown, participation and policy officer; and, joining us online, Cathy Asante, legal officer, human rights-based approach. You are all very welcome. I invite Jan to make a short opening statement.

We will move on to questions from Pam Gosal.

We have another question from Tess White.

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2025 of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, in session 6.

Before we begin, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to Christina McKelvie MSP, who sadly passed away last week. As a previous convener of this committee and as an equalities minister, she was a fierce advocate for social justice and for human rights. She will be very sadly missed, but her legacy will go on, and we will always remember her, particularly through her work.

We have received no apologies today. Marie McNair will join us online.

Our first agenda item is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take items 3 to 6 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Given that the coming home implementation plan has now ended, what mechanisms exist to hold decision makers accountable for the lack of progress?

Cathy would like to come in.

We move on to questions from Paul O’Kane.

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.

There might be concerns about the financial cost of providing interpreters, as well as that space, for jurors. However, although providing interpreters comes with some costs, those costs were found to be manageable in England and Wales. The number of cases that require such support is expected to be small and the costs can be calculated to ensure sustainability. More important, investing in accessibility and inclusion absolutely brings long-term benefits by ensuring that our system is fair for all, regardless of disability.

Amendment 233 matters because everyone, regardless of disability, should have the right to serve on a jury. The amendment seeks to ensure that deaf jurors and others with communication impairments are not excluded from fulfilling that vital civic responsibility, and reflects our commitments to an equal justice system, where everyone can participate fully in legal processes without discrimination. The amendment is a step forward in ensuring that Scotland’s justice system is inclusive and accessible to all, by empowering jurors with disabilities to serve effectively and reaffirming our commitment to equality and fairness.

On a personal note, I am a child of a deaf adult—I am a CODA. For almost 50 years, my father has often relied on me or others to interpret for him, as he is a BSL user. Throughout my life, I have seen him and other members of the deaf community being excluded from various aspects of society, the access to which we, as hearing people, take for granted—we do not note it in our everyday lives.

That exclusion is regardless of their intellect or their good character. It is a shame that that happens. My amendment is not just about deaf people being included in society. Our justice system will benefit by including deaf people, and it will give us more access to a broader demographic within our society. I urge members of the committee to support this important amendment, because it will make our legal system more just and inclusive for all.

I move amendment 233.