Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

The Scottish Seafood Association, known for its quality and sustainability, has set out the growing need to increase sales and demand in the UK and across global markets and aligning that with the promotion of brand Scotland. However, with on-going challenges ranging from market access for small and medium-sized enterprises to logistics and skills shortages, it is critical that we not only strengthen our domestic seafood presence but bolster our position on the international stage and collectively work towards increasing the visibility of Scottish seafood as a premium sustainable product. What role can the Scottish Government play in facilitating the growth that the sector so badly needs?

To ask the Scottish Government what immediate and longer-term actions it can take to support and promote the Scottish seafood processing sector, ensuring that it can compete effectively in a United Kingdom and global market. (S6O-04482)

I join my colleagues in welcoming Scotland’s renewed status as a fair trade nation. It is not merely a badge of honour; it is a reaffirmation of who we are and the values that we choose to stand for—fairness, dignity, solidarity and justice.

I pay tribute to the fair trade campaigners, businesses and community groups across our country whose dedication has made that status possible. Among them are the inspiring members of the Peterhead and Buchan fair trade group in my Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency. That collective, which is made up of volunteers from Peterhead and from Mintlaw and New Deer in my colleague Gillian Martin’s constituency, has worked tirelessly since achieving Fairtrade status in 2012—a status that it has proudly renewed again this year.

The group’s work reaches across our communities and into the hearts of our schools. It has held fundraising stalls at school fairs, presented to assemblies and even introduced Fairtrade cotton uniforms as an option in local schools, planting the seeds of global citizenship in the minds of our young people. It shows us that fair trade is not a distant ideal but something that is woven into our everyday lives—our choices, our shops and our classrooms.

The Peterhead and Buchan fair trade group has also worked with local businesses, organising permanent fair trade displays in hardware stores and running seasonal sales and raffles to raise awareness. It has partnered with the Co-op, collaborated with Aberdeen fair trade group, presented to local organisations such as the Mintlaw women’s institute and the central Buchan rotary, and participated in national and international forums such as “Meet the Producer” and “Campaigning Together.” Its current campaign deserves special mention: collecting and sending donated tools such as drills, grinders and sewing machines to a rice co-operative in Malawi. That initiative speaks to not only the creativity of local campaigners but the deep solidarity at the heart of the fair trade movement.

Scotland has been a fair trade nation since 2013. The retention of that status in 2025 reaffirms our on-going commitment to fairness, social justice and global solidarity. It is a reminder that our small nation can make a big difference on the world stage, especially when we stand shoulder to shoulder with producers and workers in the global south.

We live in a world that is wracked by enormous challenges, such as climate change, conflict, inequality, and global health crises. Those crises disproportionately affect the very communities that fair trade seeks to support. Scotland’s response has been clear: we choose to stand in solidarity, we choose partnership over exploitation, and we choose justice over indifference.

The fair trade model is about more than just trade. It recognises the rights, dignity, and livelihoods of people throughout the supply chain, empowering farmers, workers and producers to build better lives for themselves and their communities.

That is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s international strategy. Through initiatives such as the climate justice fund, which was launched in 2012—making Scotland the first country to commit funds explicitly to climate justice—and through our partnerships with countries such as Malawi, Zambia, Rwanda and Pakistan, we continue to promote inclusive development and ethical global relationships. Scotland’s international development fund will increase to £12.8 million in 2025–26. That includes support for humanitarian emergencies and vital investment in areas such as global health and education—especially for marginalised women and girls.

At a time when global need is rising, the Scottish Government’s commitment is both morally right and strategically wise. In stark contrast, unfortunately, the UK Labour Government has chosen to slash international aid to just 0.3 per cent of gross national income—breaking a manifesto promise and turning its back on some of the world’s poorest communities. Scotland chooses another path. We choose to lead.

I believe—deeply—that, given the full powers of independence, we could go even further, by committing to the UN’s target of 0.7 per cent GNI for official development assistance and enshrining that promise in law. However, until that day comes, we must make every devolved lever count. Through our vision for trade, we apply the principles of inclusive growth, wellbeing, sustainability, net zero and good governance to every decision that we make, placing fairness and the planet at the heart of our economy.

Through grass-roots efforts such as those of the Peterhead and Buchan fair trade group, fair trade lives and breathes in our communities. Such groups remind us that global solidarity starts at home—that a stall in a school hall, a cotton uniform and a donated sewing machine are all acts of hope.

Scotland’s status as a fair trade nation is not a static accolade but a living and evolving commitment. It asks something of each of us: to advocate, to educate, to choose differently and to build a system that serves not just the fortunate but the forgotten.

We must continue to uphold that commitment. We must honour the campaigners, the producers and the promise that Scotland can be a beacon of fairness in a world that desperately needs that.

We move to questions from Paul O’Kane.