Services for People with Autism

Debate between David Drew and Huw Merriman

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I will take two more brief interventions, and then I will make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Drew]

May I pay my own tribute to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan)? The hon. Gentleman is doing a very good job of reading her speech.

What parents find most frustrating are instances in which a care plan has been agreed and is in place, and the local authority then tries to renegotiate downwards the sum that has been agreed. That causes problems for the parents and, obviously, for the person with autism, but is also causes problems for, in particular, specialist units. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is unfair, and the wrong way to go about dealing with this whole problem?

[Huw Merriman]

I certainly do. The challenge is to ensure that care plans are flexible enough to be built on, while also including an element of prescription so that there is a proper guide. What must not happen is plans being effectively reneged on when care and support are still needed. The hon. Gentleman made his point very forcefully. He also said that I was doing a good job reading the speech; I will carry on doing my best.

I was talking about the impact on services, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham puts it,

“from education to adult support, from diagnosis to employment, transition to transport. We know the many ways that an autistic person may turn to the state—and to us—for support, and how vital it is to make sure it is there to meet their needs.

The last national strategy ‘Think Autism’ in 2014 included wide-ranging actions. This was underpinned with revised statutory guidance, setting out clear duties on councils and the NHS to deliver on these actions—but we know that many local areas are not meeting all of their obligations. There are also questions about whether the Act goes far enough. As we reach the 10th anniversary of the Act, now is an appropriate time to ask these questions.

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism, which I am proud to chair, is spending this year doing just that. We are holding an inquiry into what has worked, what happens now and, most importantly, what needs to change. We are looking very broadly, to reflect the needs of autistic people,”

including in health and mental health; children, education and transition; employment; access to justice; adult support; and public understanding.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill

Debate between David Drew and Huw Merriman

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 1st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). It was also interesting to hear the contribution from my neighbour the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)—we wave at one another across the River Severn. It is interesting and somewhat ironic that both the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman who have spoken did not seem to agree with him as much as I am going to disagree with him. Perhaps that is because he was a member of the Executive and some of us have not had that opportunity.

I will keep my remarks much briefer than the right hon. Gentleman did, but I want to make a contribution because, quite simply, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). It is right and proper that we keep the size of this House as it is. It is somewhat ludicrous that, with an ever-increasing population, for whatever reason, we seem to be reducing the number of representatives in this House. Important though it is that we look at how to save money, there are other and better ways we can do that, not the least of which, some of us would argue, includes scrapping the House of Lords. However, that would be for another day and another debate.

My arguments start with the contrary point to that of my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean. Yesterday I was stopped in the street by someone from Minchinhampton—which is, as he may remember, now in The Cotswolds constituency—begging me to take up a case on their behalf, saying, “Why don’t you come back and become our representative again?” In that boundary review, I argued the case for keeping Minchinhampton as part of Stroud. Those who know my area would hardly describe Minchinhampton as a bastion of socialism. It is probably as strong a Conservative ward as I have in the Stroud district, within the constituency and without. Locational representation matters in this place. It matters to the people outside more than we think it does. They like to know who their MP is. They may not always agree with them or always be of the same party, but when they come to us with their problems, they know enough about who we are, what we can do, and what we should do.

The relationship with our local authority matters. If these proposals go through as constituted, the Stroud district, which has only 100,000 people, will be represented by three different MPs. I think that is wrong. It leads to confusion and to bitterness because people want to know who their Member of Parliament is and want to know that they have a relationship with the local authority.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Drew]

I will give way briefly; we have lots of people waiting to speak.

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be making the case for having no elections at all. I find that somewhat bizarre in a place such as this.

[Dr Drew]

As someone who has stood in seven parliamentary elections and knows his area rather better than the hon. Gentleman, I will take that as a slight rather than a positive intervention.

Location matters. It matters because geography matters, ties to an area matter, local authority representation matters, and the relationship with other constituencies matters. I could not represent any other area. No other area would have me! I am quite simply the MP for Stroud, the area I have always stood for. I would never stand for anywhere else because I believe that that is what I am best at, and I think I have done a reasonable job. I have been elected four times and lost three times, so, hey, I am ahead at the moment. It did not help my predecessor that in preparation for the boundary changes he moved his constituency office. That went down rather badly in the constituency and may not have helped his cause when we stood against each other again, as we have done on a number of occasions, for election earlier this year. Geographical representation has always had a stronger hold on the way in which we decide on the electoral relationships than purely the numbers. If we want to do that, we might as well go to the Soviet system, where the constituencies are not even named—there is just a number and a way in which certain people are put in place. I believe in local representation and I will always argue that case.

As we have heard, in 2015 the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee savaged the Government’s approach to reducing the number of MPs. It argued very strongly that we should not just look at the numbers and proposed a 10% variance. I would still adhere to that, because I do not mind representing more people. I would rather that the people I represent—