Executive Summary: Learning Disabilities, Autism and Neurodivergence Bill: Consultation Analysis

Part 1: Reach and Definitions

Respondents were asked who should be eligible for support and what language/terminology should be used in the Bill. Overall, 735 respondents provided comments at this section and the most preferred option was to use and include ‘People who are Neurodivergent’/‘Neurodivergent People’ . Just over half of those who responded at this section preferred this option. This was considered to be accurate and clear; broad enough to be inclusive of all those targeted by the Bill; to not require a formal diagnosis; to reflect needs and a social model of disability; and was future-proofed to accommodate new and evolving conditions. Some respondents questioned whether the term ‘neurodivergent’ would be commonly understood or interpreted, and others were concerned that the broad nature of this option could result in an unmanageable increase in demand on services/for support.

Around a third of respondents indicted a preference for ‘including specific named conditions only’ and felt this would avoid any ambiguity or confusion over eligibility; that it would improve understanding of different conditions; facilitate condition-specific tailored support; and allow finite resources to be directed towards those in greatest need. In particular, those with Down’s Syndrome, and their family, friends, carers and support/representative organisations, supported this option. The main concerns were that this option risked excluding relevant conditions, and that it placed too much focus on formal diagnosis.

Very few respondents supported the option to use and include ‘People who are Neurodiverse’/‘Neurodiverse People’ , mainly because it was felt that the term ‘neurodiverse’ was inaccurate and too broad.

There was also discussion around the name of the Bill, and in particular, whether autism (among other conditions) should be named. Similarly, respondents debated which conditions would be protected by the Bill, with questions over whether this would include people with mental health conditions, acquired brain injuries, dementia, etc. Several respondents stressed that the Bill should not dilute the identities and needs of people with different conditions, and stressed that it was important for individuals to recognise themselves within the Bill.