Seòmar agus comataidhean

:That is a really important point, which I engaged with directly through my previous portfolio as the Minister for Employment and Investment. The committee will fully appreciate that employment law is a reserved matter, but we have certainly sought to engage constructively with the UK Government on its employment rights legislation and its wider programme.

There are various principles in our fair work policy to support the core theme of diverse and inclusive workplaces. We encourage all employers to have workplace practices that are not only consistent with having a fair and inclusive environment but which will give them access to a huge pool of talent, creativity and ingenuity that is too often excluded.

I can give another example. Members will be familiar with various initiatives that are designed to promote inclusive workplace environments. Although it is not directly connected with what we are considering today, I will talk about an analogous area that is connected with another part of my portfolio and which I had a long-standing interest in prior to being in government. The carer positive scheme is all about encouraging employers to have workplace practices that recognise and support those who are combining work with unpaid caring responsibilities. Those practices can include often quite small reasonable adjustments that enable people to balance their workplace and caring responsibilities.

12:15

We know that employers that have such policies in place are able to access a significant pool of people in the workforce who want to work and to participate. It is very good for employers and, of course, it is good for any individuals who are unpaid carers and want to work. We also recognise that employment will not be right or suitable for every unpaid carer, just as not every disabled person will necessarily want to be in employment. However, we know that many do and are not able to access employment. That is why we have made a commitment to reduce the disability employment gap. Progress has been made on that and we continue to make progress towards the longer-term target.

Within the suite of devolved levers that are available to us, although we do not have a statutory power, through our convenership, our influence and our engagement, we seek to promote best practice in the workplace from the perspective of ensuring that we have an inclusive society and that everyone who wants the opportunity to participate in the workforce is able to do so. We also recognise that, in Scotland, we face significant economic challenges that are related to our demography. Unemployment is at very low levels, we have an ageing population, and we are operating within a restrictive migration environment because of the UK Government’s policies. It is of the utmost importance that we are able to create every opportunity to fully utilise the workforce in Scotland and ensure that those who want to participate in the workplace are able to do so, free of discrimination and barriers.

There are things that we would like to do but cannot do because of the devolution settlement. One example of that is more engagement and involvement with the access to work scheme. I state very clearly, and I hope that the committee will reiterate it, that employers should be taking every opportunity to ensure that they have diverse and inclusive recruitment practices—which many employers do—so that they can fully utilise all the talent that we are fortunate to have in our country. Many neurodivergent individuals are making a huge contribution to society at all levels, and I am sure that many of them are in this building.

Good morning, convener, and thank you to you and to the committee for the opportunity to contribute to this important inquiry. I welcome the committee’s focus on the lived experience of neurodivergent people in education, criminal justice and the workplace, which are areas that have a profound influence on opportunity, wellbeing and future stability.

Neurodivergence is a natural and valuable part of human diversity. Neurodivergent people contribute talent, creativity and insight across our society. However, we must recognise that many of our systems were not designed with different ways of thinking, communicating and processing information in mind. In a world that is not always built for neurodivergent people, everyday interactions can become barriers, which is why building a more neuro-affirming society must sit alongside ensuring access to effective neurodevelopmental support. Valuing difference does not remove the need for timely, practical help when it is required.

Demand for support and diagnosis continues to rise and, although increased awareness is welcome, it has placed pressure on services. A model that is centred solely on diagnosis and waiting lists is not sufficient. What makes the greatest difference is co-ordinated, needs-based support—indeed, small, proportionate adjustments can often have a significant impact on someone’s confidence, stability and ability to participate fully.

Effective support must be whole system, holistic and multi-agency. It must span health, education, justice, employability and community services, including vital input from the third sector, and it must adapt as people’s needs change across their lives. Many of those themes were explored during the Health, Social Care and Sports Committee’s inquiry, which reported earlier this month. I have also considered many of those issues with a cross-party group of MSPs and experts at our neurodivergence summit at the end of last year. A follow-up to that summit is set to take place next week.

It is clear from all that work that the shared challenge is to ensure that systems recognise difference, respond proportionately and adapt as people’s needs change over time. Often, it is relatively small, practical adjustments, made at the right moment, that can have a significant and lasting impact on someone’s ability to participate and thrive.

I very much look forward to the discussion ahead.

:Those are very important points. I will ask Robby to come in, but first I reiterate the point about situations in which assessment and diagnosis are undertaken by someone acting in a private capacity who also works in the NHS naturally leading to the kind of comments that you very reasonably put forward. I will also offer the balancing point about assessments that are not undertaken in a way that we would regard as robust and so cannot provide that assurance. I reiterate the importance of ensuring that, when assessments are undertaken, they are holistic, rounded and consider the full range of potential issues, challenges, conditions or circumstances that pertain to that individual—Robby can speak to that in a professional capacity—and that we are in a position where we have that assurance.

It may have been a witness from the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland who used the perhaps blunt expression,

“if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 20 January 2026; c 15.]

That is an important point in relation to risk around single-condition assessment. However, I recognise and reiterate your point that there will be those who are undertaking assessments in a private capacity who also work in the NHS.

I am conscious of a range of views with regard to what the degree of utilisation of private capacity across healthcare should be. Clearly, there are very strong principles, and there is broad political consensus, which the Government is absolutely committed to, that the NHS should be free at the point of use. However, the issue of utilisation of private capacity has been raised. There are those who advocate it on the basis that it is a practical and pragmatic use of the capacity that is there, and there are others who raise what I think are fair and legitimate concerns around equity and fairness in the system. It is not always as straightforward as simply having an assessment and diagnosis outwith the NHS; it is about the on-going care and support that are required beyond that.

I add those nuances of complexity, but that is in no way to dismiss the points that have been brought forward. I recognise that that view is widely shared, and I reiterate my reassurance to the committee that we are engaging seriously on the issue, but we recognise that there are challenges.

Particularly in relation to what are described as shared care arrangements, but which are technically voluntary arrangements, it is not for ministers to seek to interfere in the decisions of the lead clinician or the general practitioner on whether to enter into any such agreement. However, I am conscious of the calls that have been made to the Government for greater clarity and consistency around policy. It is a complex area, and I assure the committee that we are giving it serious consideration. Would you like to add anything further, Robby?

:I thank Ms Chapman for her important question, which highlights that providing services and investing in ensuring that they are available are one thing, but ensuring that people are aware of and know how to access them is another thing entirely.

There has been work on raising awareness in recent years—there was, for example, the Different Minds campaign a number of years ago—and there is certainly a recognition that we have to do more to increase awareness of the range of services that are available. A point that I would observe, and which the committee will be au fait with, is the proliferation of resources that are now available online. Some of them will come from reputable sources and can be of use, but I think that we would recognise that others are potentially more concerning in some of the information that they provide. Therefore, ensuring that we have clear and accessible publicly provided information and signposting to services will be a key focus of the Government, and our investment in expanding service provision will, of course, be complemented by that signposting and awareness raising.

Georgia, do you want to add anything specific about some of the work in that space?

:In answering that question, it is important that I recognise—this also applies to your previous question—that significant work still needs to be undertaken in responding to the challenges that are before us. As Robby Steel said, there has been a societal shift whereby we are seeing something that has always been there. That is a positive, but it is now incumbent on us collectively—particularly those of us who are in government and local government and who lead public services—to utilise that enhanced understanding to ensure that services meet the needs of everyone who interacts with them, whether that is in education or in the criminal justice system.

As in education, work is under way in justice to ensure that there is increased understanding and awareness of the needs of individuals who are neurodivergent, whatever their interaction with the system is and whatever capacity they interact with it in. I ask Georgia de Courcy Wheeler to give more specific information.

:I have always sought to make it clear that Government ministers hugely value the contribution of lived experience, and I recognise that the committee does as well. I and colleagues and officials in Government have engaged several times with many of the individuals and organisations that were represented and therefore heard from at your round table, and we hugely value those insights.

I assure you that of utmost importance to us in relation to our policy development and implementation is that we take on board and respond to the expertise that is provided through lived experience so that the actions that we are taking are consistent with our values of inclusion and equality.

I might ask Georgia to come in with specifics in a moment, but I want to highlight a broader point. Although we will naturally focus on systems, this is also a societal issue. Although that is a much bigger challenge, given the concerted effort that is required over a sustained period to effect cultural change, it will be of the utmost importance to consider that this is not simply about a whole-systems approach but about a whole-society approach, too. As I said in my opening remarks, our world is perhaps still characterised by the norms and approaches that are relevant to neurotypical people but which often disregard the way in which neurodivergent individuals experience the world. That is something that we must address.

We recognise the significant progress that has been made over decades by taking a social model approach, to physical disability, for example. The barrier to someone being able to enter a public building or a theatre is not because they use a wheelchair, but because there is no ramp or because the equipment set-up is insufficient to allow them to fully participate. That social model approach has been very influential. Although we acknowledge that there is much work still to be done and much progress to be made, we can recognise the positive impact that the social model has had and that it is possible to effect societal change and to raise standards and expectations about inclusivity in society, so that everyone has an opportunity to fully participate and realise their rights.

Of course, that also has to apply to taking a whole-society approach in our response to the significant number of people who are seeking neurodevelopmental assessment support. We recognise that those individuals have always been there, but many of them now have greater awareness, due in part to the tireless campaigning of many of the lived experience organisations that the committee has taken evidence from and that I have had the privilege of meeting. Those organisations have helped to ensure that the community is finding its voice. In doing so, they are helping to effect change at a systems level as well as culturally and societally. I do not know whether Georgia would like to add anything on our engagement around issues of tackling discrimination and promoting a more equitable society.

11:45

Good morning. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak about a proposed amendment to the Community Care (Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Regulations 2002.

The draft regulations will make routine annual increases to the rates for free personal and nursing care. The payments help to cover the cost of those services for self-funding adults in residential care. This year, we are again proposing to apply an uplift based on the gross domestic product deflator, which has been used historically as the inflation measure to increase the rates. That means that the weekly payment rates for personal care for self-funders will rise from £254.60 to £260.30 and that the nursing care component will rise from £114.55 to £117.10.

The most recently available official statistics show that a reported 10,920 self-funding residents aged 18 and above were in receipt of free personal and nursing care payments in 2024-25. Those residents should all benefit from the changes.

I do not disagree with your point about the value of investment in social care. Investment in social care is of tremendous benefit and value for the individuals who receive social care and for the wider health and social care system. Much of the longer-term strategic work that has been undertaken, and on which I think there is broad political consensus, is in recognition of the value of social care and ensuring that—notwithstanding the significant challenges that we operate under with regard to the public finances—we are working constructively to ensure that enough resource is going into the system.

In the budget that is making its way through the Parliament, there is an increase in investment in health and social care—specifically social care—and local government. There is broad recognition and shared understanding of the value of social care and the importance of investment in it.

As I said earlier, I recognise the importance and value of investment in social care, in and of itself as a good, and a deliverer of high-quality services to individuals, and also because of its importance as part of the overall functioning of our health and social care system.

We operate in a challenging and pressurised environment for public finances. In recent years, across multiple sectors, challenges have ensued from economic and fiscal turbulence. That is well understood and well documented. We are committed to engaging constructively with providers and local partners to ensure that we can maximise the resource that is available in the system.

Ultimately, it is for any member to engage with the budget process in the Parliament if they wish to make representations to the Government for additional resources.

I recognise the points that committee members have made with regard to the financial pressures that we are all operating under, and I welcome members’ support for the instrument.