Autism

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Tom Clarke

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for securing the debate and for his fine speech. I should also like to say how much I value working with him on the all-party group on autism. For many people watching this debate on television, their usual view of Parliament will be the robust exchanges that they see on a Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, and I confess that I play a part in that, as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. For me, however, Parliament is more about debates such as this, when we come together across geographical and party lines to try to progress an issue of great importance to our constituents. Such debates reveal what this Parliament should be all about.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I have to declare an interest in that I have a son with autism. That explains much of my involvement in the issue and in the work of the all-party group. I would like to pay tribute to the work of the National Autistic Society for its campaigning and for the services that it provides, as well as for providing parents with hope and with help when they need it most. When a parent first becomes aware, perhaps through a teacher or through their own intuition, that their child might have autism, the resources of the National Autistic Society will invariably be the first that they access to learn more about it. The role that the society plays is vital.

I welcome the intentions of the Government, as revealed in their Green Paper. We all want a more joined-up system that is easier for parents to access and that makes it easier for young people with autism to get the support they need. I know that a lot of parents have concerns; I hear them from my own constituents as well as from people who contact me as an officer of the all-party group, and I would like to go into those in some detail. As I understand it, however, the Government’s intentions are good.

At present, it is too much of a fight to get what our children need. Parents always tell me that local authorities are reluctant to give a statement, telling them that they do not need it, that they can have the same support without it, and that it is unnecessary because their child is doing fine. That is wrong. Too often, only those people who are really prepared or equipped to take on the system will get what they need, as the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) pointed out.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

My hon. Friend is making a very well informed speech. With regard to local authorities, does he agree that there are major gaps? For example, only 9% of people with autism are entered into the system for speech therapy, perhaps because their GP has recommended it. Local authorities ought to be defining these matters much more clearly, and we should encourage them in the debate today to take a proper role in these important issues.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Tom Clarke

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and others, I served on the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill and so have heard much evidence on the future of the House of Lords, but I want to refer later to the impact of all these proposals, and perhaps others, on the future of the House of Commons.

When I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I was of a mind—I still am—to support those on my Front Bench and vote for the Bill on Second Reading, but the more I see of the shenanigans on the Government Benches, including what has happened this afternoon on the programme motion, the more I wonder whether I am making the right decision.

What I do believe to be right, and my reason for serving on the Joint Committee, is that there is indeed a challenge and an opportunity for us to look at the House of Lords and come up with better ideas than have emerged thus far. I am comforted in that by “Erskine May”, and my interpretation of what he wrote is that if the Bill collapses, it is unlikely that a similar Bill will be accepted for a long time to come.

The Bill is imperfect. The alternative report, which I signed, indicated some of the difficulties, some of the arguments not addressed and some of the issues that should be put before this House. I came here today to support the Bill’s Second Reading, to support very strongly the referendum and to oppose a programme motion. Whatever else might be said today and whatever other changes might be made, that remains broadly my approach to the matter.

The alternative report to which I have referred was extremely helpful, and I am sorry that Members have not heard more about it. It mentioned, for example, the Scottish Constitutional Convention and its preparations for the Scottish Parliament. The convention called on the whole of civic society, including politicians, Churches, trade unions, community councils and many others, and on that basis of wide consultation we have the Scottish Parliament as it is today. Why, then, can we reasonably object to the referendum that these issues invite? Do we not trust the people? Time and again we are urged to listen to what people are saying, which I think is right. I hope that the alternative report helped to clarify matters. It did so to the extent that, on the advice of Lord Pannick and Lord Goldsmith—paragraph 227 of the report is the relevant part—reference to the Parliament Acts was included in the new Bill before us in an attempt to make greater sense of the matter.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend’s reference to Scottish devolution is particularly appropriate in relation to a referendum. The Deputy Prime Minister said earlier today that the case for House of Lords reform was so big that no referendum was needed, yet my right hon. Friend has correctly highlighted the fact that, despite the strength of support for devolution in Scotland, the referendum procedure was still used there. It was used not so much to endorse that change, but to embed it. With an unwritten constitution, it is that embedding of a change that I think is most important.

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and one that is worthy of more consideration.

The Joint Committee sought to serve both Houses in our report, and we were a very mixed group, including independents, Conservatives and Lib Dems. I note that its Lib Dem members voted the whole way throughout the Committee’s considerations, which leads me to think that there might just be another agenda, and some of us have drawn attention to that this afternoon. A number of us signed the alternative report, including six Privy Counsellors and the Bishop of Leicester, the Convenor of the Lords Spiritual. He said that it was not enough simply to talk about bishops because we ought to be dealing with inter-faith matters. This is a diverse society. The House of Commons has not as yet reflected that, but if we get the opportunity to do so in the House of Lords, we ought to take it.

I complained yesterday in an intervention on the Deputy Prime Minister, to which he responded inadequately, that the Joint Committee did not even have the opportunity to consider costs. Even today the Government have been very reticent in the information they have given the House. They refer to the Bill, but it leaves most of the decisions to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. There are varying levels of respect for IPSA in this House, but whether that is the right way to go in these matters is worthy of more thought.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jonathan Reynolds and Tom Clarke

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What plans she has to improve air quality.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

5. What plans she has to improve air quality.