Hansard

Yes. I am not involved in the criminal justice system, but I want to make a couple of observations that pick up on something that Natasha Spassiani said. I wonder whether we could take a step back, because there is a piece missing.I have heard references to managing behaviour and behaviours. I wonder whether we fully grasp that someone who is neurodivergent will be experiencing points of distress or dysregulation rather than behavioural matters. If that is not well understood, what will be managed is the behaviour rather than the distress or the dysregulation. There is a world of difference between those things, and I think that we need to understand that better. Certainly in justice, we are now understanding it better. People are beginning to recognise that the symptomatology or outward expressions of the particular neurodiverse condition are quite distinct from behavioural disruption or choice in how someone behaves. It is a common misconception that the person is choosing to behave in a particular way when what they are emanating is actually distress or dysregulation. If we understood that better, the system would be built better, because that is the foundation.I absolutely agree with the point that Natasha Spassiani made about voice. Voice and co-design are parts of the Promise, which I am sure the committee is familiar with, and that is critical. We, too, have been trained by the National Autism Implementation Team, and its mantra is “difference, not deficit”. We need to understand that much better.In order to build systems in justice, certainly in my tribunal, we have had to go directly to those with lived experience. We are never going to get a better expert than those who are actually living it. It has been good to hear that people recognise the important point that every individual’s experience is individual. However, if we are going to establish confidence in the systems that those of us round the table represent, those who actually live with neurodiverse conditions need to have confidence that the systems that we generate are built on their actual experiences.I put a lot in the written submission to the committee, and I do not intend to rehearse all of that.Doing it that way was quite a different approach to take. It has given the children and young people who are the subjects, the parties or the witnesses in our proceedings the confidence to be able to speak more openly. They speak about not feeling that the space is right for them to be able to tell their own stories, and, in all the systems that are represented around this table, we must create the right environment.You will all be aware that the UNCRC—I think that you will know that that is short for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—was incorporated into Scots law a very short time ago. For anyone who is under the age of 18, as public authorities, we all have a responsibility to ensure that we do not act in a way that is incompatible with the UNCRC. There is a great deal in the general comments on article 12 about what weight we attach to the views of the child, as well as on the environment that we create so that an under-18-year-old is able to share their story well.Preparation for that is key, and I am not sure how well prepared someone who is neurodiverse who finds themselves in one of the systems that are represented here will feel. We had to do an awful lot of work on that in the tribunal. We had to focus on preparation. We might feel that we are preparing ourselves, but how well prepared the person who is at the centre of it is could be another matter. We cannot skirt around that now that the UNCRC is in Scots law. We have to apply it properly and well.If we listen to informed voices and work with them on developing the design, things will improve. Things will be better for the person who is neurodiverse if they have been involved from the very beginning. The problem with bringing them in quite far down the line is that confidence can be weakened and we might make many mistakes. I cannot tell you how often I have attempted to do something, then gone back to the voice of experience and had to rip it up and start again. Instead of doing that, we are far better going to the right starting point and building our systems around the individual experience and needs that neurodiverse people have.Thinking about voice and about difference, not deficit is not just a nice thing to do to—it is a critical thing. We must not get it the wrong way round. I appreciate all the questions that are coming—they are incredibly valuable questions—but I am thinking of some of the voices that I have heard, such as children and young people who say, “Ask the right question. Go to the beginning.” I am only speaking in relation to children and young people, but I would be very surprised if it was different for older individuals.My final point is that, although it is very common that the child or young person at the tribunal is neurodiverse, their parents might well be neurodiverse, too, so it is not just children and young people who we accommodate in our proceedings. We accommodate the wealth of people who attend our tribunals who are neurodiverse. It might not surprise you to know that the majority of the people on that side of the table will have neurodiverse needs.I said that that would be my final point. However, the full stop is that those who are not neurodiverse speak incredibly positively about the steps that have been taken to change the process and the experience. What we do well for those who are neurodiverse will have a positive impact on those who are not, because we will do it better.