Sarah Hall

I absolutely agree. Some neurodiverse people would describe it as a superpower; some do not like that term, but there are so many wonderful assets and abilities that we in the neurodiverse community have. If only we were given a chance, we could make a real difference and be fantastic in whatever we choose to do. Recruitment processes often reward confidence over competence, eye contact over ability and social performance over skill. Vague job descriptions, ambiguous questions and high-pressure interviews screen people out before they have had a chance to show what they can actually do. We also need to talk about masking. Many neurodivergent people hide parts of who they are at work to fit in. Sometimes, they do not even realise they are doing it, but masking is exhausting. It contributes to anxiety, isolation, burnout and poor mental health. I recognise that experience myself, and I know from constituents how common it is. People might not need to mask so much if workplaces were designed with difference in mind. Although this debate rightly spans all sectors, I want to be clear that the public sector must lead by example. Unison has been clear that, despite legal protections, many public sector workplaces still lack awareness and fail to implement inclusive practices. Rigid recruitment processes, inflexible performance systems and delays or refusals in reasonable adjustments cause stress, sickness absence and employment disputes that could be avoided. There is also a gendered dimension to this. Neurodivergent women often face compounded discrimination. Unison has called for neurodiversity to be embedded properly within equality and diversity frameworks, backed by training for managers and reps, stronger enforcement of Equality Act duties and better access to support schemes such as Access to Work. Those calls matter, because without enforcement, rights are theoretical, and without adequate funding, inclusion becomes optional. Trade unions have been vital in driving this agenda, and I want to highlight the role of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—the retail trade union. Across the UK, thousands of shop workers, warehouse staff and reps are having conversations about neurodiversity. Many USDAW members are neurodivergent themselves. Many others are parents or carers of neurodivergent children and adults, juggling paid work with caring responsibilities in sectors where flexibility is often in short supply. USDAW talks about neurodiversity in the same way that we talk about physical difference. Some people are taller, some are stronger, some have more stamina. We accept those differences without question, and our brains are no different. I also highlight the work that the GMB has done through its “Thinking Differently at Work” toolkit on neurodiversity, which I value because it is practical and designed for real workplaces, covering understanding neurodivergence, good employment practice, the law, reasonable adjustments and more. Clear, accessible guidance is what too many workplaces are missing. It shows how much progress can be made when knowledge is shared early, rather than after problems escalate. Without neurodivergent minds, the world would be a poorer place. We would miss out on different ways of seeing problems, spotting patterns and challenging assumptions. That is true on a shopfloor, in a hospital, in a classroom and here in Parliament, which is why I have joined other MPs who are neurodivergent or disabled to support work on modernising Parliament, not just to make it more accessible for those of us already here but to encourage more people from different backgrounds to come into politics in the first place. Neurodiversity should never be a barrier to ambition, public service or opportunity. Earlier this year, the TUC passed a motion calling for stronger national action on neurodiversity at work, calling for: clearer rights to reasonable adjustments, including for those waiting for a diagnosis; recruitment reform that assesses ability rather than social performance; investment in inclusive apprenticeships and work experience; better workforce data; and a national neurodiversity strategy co-created with disabled people. Those serious, practical proposals are grounded in lived experience. Supporting neurodiversity early is not a “nice to have”. It is a prevention that benefits everyone. I have six asks of the Minister. First, will she commit to strengthening compliance mechanisms for how the Equality Act duty to make reasonable adjustments is understood and enforced in practice? Secondly, will she set out what the Government will do to make sure that people can access support at work, based on need not paperwork, including those who are waiting for or do not have a formal diagnosis? We cannot build workplace inclusion around a system where people may wait years for an assessment. Thirdly, will the Minister commit to improving Access to Work, with clearer signposting for employers and employees, a simpler process and faster decisions, so that support arrives when it is needed and not months later? Fourthly, will she ensure that the public sector shows leadership by adopting consistent neuroinclusion standards, including manager training, so that reasonable adjustments are not left to chance or the good will of individual teams? Fifthly, will the Minister commit to collecting and publishing workforce data on neurodivergent employees, so that progress can be tracked? At the moment, too much of the conversation relies on anecdote rather than evidence. Transparency matters and what gets measured gets improved. If we are serious about accountability, workforce data must be part of the picture. Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that neurodivergent workers’ voices are central to this work, based on the principle of “nothing about us without us”, so that policy is shaped with people and not done to them? Neurodivergent people should not have to work harder than everyone else just to stay afloat. They should not have to mask, explain themselves repeatedly or wait until they are in crisis before support appears. We should design work that works for people, not expect people to endlessly adapt to systems that were not designed with them in mind. If we want our workplaces and our Parliament to reflect society as a whole, neurodivergent people must be able to see a future for themselves. I hope today’s debate helps to push us towards inclusive workplaces, where difference is expected, supported and valued, and not tolerated as an exception.