Neurodivergent People: Employment Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Work and Pensions

Neurodivergent People: Employment

Josh Newbury Excerpts
Tuesday 9th September 2025

(2 days, 4 hours ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Josh Newbury Portrait Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am pleased to have the chance to speak on the importance of supporting neurodivergent people into work. I will focus my remarks in particular on the experiences of autistic people, drawing on the voices of my own constituents and on the work of local organisations in Staffordshire. Since being elected, I have had constituents with autism reach out to my team and me, sharing with us that they find it difficult to get into and stay in work, despite being well qualified. They have spoken candidly with me about the barriers they face, as well as the skills and determination they have and can bring to an employer. Only by hearing directly from autistic people can we get this right.

The statistics remain stark. Only around 28% of autistic adults are in any form of work, compared with more than 80% of non-autistic people. That is not about a lack of ability; it is about the barriers that are in place, and the failure to make adjustments that are both reasonable and achievable.

The evidence tells us that, even with legal protections, too many disabled people and people with neurodivergence encounter managers or decision makers who simply do not believe in non-visible impairments, or who resist making adjustments. That creates mistrust, isolation and ultimately exclusion from work. We need to reduce stigma, but we also need to make it much simpler for employers. Right now many businesses, particularly small ones, simply do not know what adjustments look like in practice, how to put them in place or how to access the funding that exists to help them to do so. If we want employers to be more inclusive, guidance, training and access to support need to be much clearer, consistent and easy to navigate.

There are many positive examples. I recently met with the Staffordshire Adults Autistic Society, which does invaluable work supporting autistic people and their families. On the national stage, the inaugural neurodiversity employers index has highlighted organisations that are showing real leadership in adapting recruitment practices and workplace culture. We know that schemes such as supported internships can provide a pathway into work for young people with special educational needs and disabilities.

However, there are gaps. Supported internships, for example, are only available to those with an education, health and care plan, and many families in Staffordshire have told me how hard it is to secure one due to delays and mismanagement locally—something that we will be debating no doubt at length in this Chamber next Monday. This is not just a moral issue, but an economic one. The brilliant organisation Pro Bono Economics has shown that, by doubling the employment rate of autistic people by 2030, we can deliver up to £1.5 billion in societal benefits each and every year. As has been mentioned already, Sir Robert Buckland’s recent review concluded that to close the employment gap, we need more than just high-level words; we need practical, bottom-up support for employers, including training and long-term programmes such as Access to Work.

Tom Gordon Portrait Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

One of the things that constituents have to come to me with is worries about the proposed changes—which have now been shelved—to personal independence payments. Does the hon. Member agree that the rhetoric and language of Ministers has not helped people to want to go out and seek support to get into work, due their worries about barriers they may face?

Josh Newbury Portrait Josh Newbury
- Hansard - -

When we approach things such as welfare reform—this is probably also true of SEND reform—it is always bound to cause anxiety for people. We absolutely have to be mindful of that, particularly in this place, with the rhetoric we use and the way we go out to consult. I am concerned that the hon. Member is picking that up in his constituency; I have certainly had constituents reach out to me with concerns about welfare changes. It is incumbent on all of us to listen to that, to appreciate where the proposals are coming from and to try to find a common ground. We absolutely can do that in this case and in the case of PIP changes.

Above all, for me, this is about fairness. Everybody deserves the dignity of meaningful work, and everyone benefits when talent is not wasted. Autistic people have so much to offer, whether in science, like Einstein, in conservation, like Chris Packham, or in the day-to-day workplaces that keep our communities and economy running. The Government have already taken important steps, creating the independent panel, ensuring that work coaches have access to autism-specific training and providing disability employment advisors to offer specialist guidance, but the real test will be whether those reforms can deliver change on the ground in job centres, interviews and workplaces.

In the shortest line possible, everyone benefits when talent is nurtured, not wasted. My ask is that the insights of the new independent panel are coupled with autism-specific training, so that constituents such as mine and thousands of others across the country can finally see the promises of inclusion turn into the practical support they need to succeed in work.

Esther McVey Portrait Esther McVey (in the Chair)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We have quite a lot of Members in the room wishing to speak, so can we keep speeches to a maximum of four minutes?