Neurodiversity in the Workplace

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Hall]

I could not agree more. I will come on to some of the work that GMB, Unison and USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers— are doing in this area.

The barriers that I mentioned are what disable people. Too often, neurodiversity is still approached through the medical model of disability, focusing on what is wrong with the individual, what they cannot do or how they fall short of an assumed standard. That approach creates low expectations and leaves people feeling pitied, patronised or quietly excluded. The social model of disability offers a different and more honest lens. It recognises that people are disabled not by their impairment or condition, but by barriers created by society: inflexible systems, poor understanding and rigid attitudes.

Let me ground that in a practical example. An autistic retail worker struggled with constant changes to their working hours not because they did not want to work, but because of unpredictability, increased anxiety and sensory overload. What they needed was a stable shift pattern. Predictability gave them control and made work possible. Under the medical model, the problem would have been framed as the worker. Under the social model, the problem was the demand for unlimited flexibility. When the employer agreed to a stable shift pattern, it meant the difference between staying in work or having to give up their job altogether. There was no grand intervention, just a reasonable adjustment.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

The number of education, health and care plans for children with autism has more than tripled over the past decade. When we combine that with rigid recruitment procedures and inflexible working practices, as my hon. Friend outlined, it creates a significant challenge. Does she agree that the Minister should address how the Government are working with employers, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business and Trade to make workplaces genuinely neuro-inclusive, supporting individuals and helping more young people into work?

[Sarah Hall]

I agree, and I will come on to that point in my asks of the Minister.

Something that I hear repeatedly from constituents is the lack of consistency around reasonable adjustments. Support agreed with one manager often disappears when roles change, teams move or a restructure happens. People are forced to re-explain themselves, re-justify their needs and start again. That is not dignity at work. Adjustments should travel with the worker and not depend on who happens to be in charge that month.

A constituent who contacted me described a stark contrast between workplaces that created barriers and those that removed them. In early roles, including in a warehouse and later in a café, my constituent was keen to work and learn, but support was minimal. Tasks were not adapted, opportunities to build skills were restricted and they were left without support. In more recent roles, they now volunteer as a radio presenter and at the Lowry theatre, and are also employed as a trainer delivering the Oliver McGowan mandatory training programme. My constituent tells me that she loves the reasonable adjustments that they have put in place for her, compared with the very little that was in place in earlier roles.

Another constituent, a new mother, contacted me about her attempt to return to work following maternity leave. She is autistic and requested reasonable adjustments to support her return. Instead of support, she was met with suggestions, including from HR, that needing reasonable adjustments meant that she is not fit for work at all. That response is deeply concerning, and it speaks to a wider problem about how disabled workers are too often treated.