Autism and ADHD Assessments

Debate between Julian Lewis and Bambos Charalambous

Monday 6th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: getting the resources after a diagnosis has been made is affected by which school the child is at and what resources it has available to provide the support needed.

As I was saying, where someone lives is critical in determining how long they are likely to wait to be referred for an assessment or diagnosis of ADHD, especially given increasing demand. As we know, there is no NHS waiting time standard for ADHD assessment, which means that waiting times are not measured and reported. Last week the Minister, in response to a Westminster Hall debate, pledged to look into national data collection for ADHD assessment waiting times. That would be a positive step forward and I urge the Government to take it. Will the Minister confirm today that she will ensure that that data is publicly available so that we can start accurately to measure waiting times and standards, and end the postcode lottery that exists in ADHD support?

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I ask the hon. Member, who is clearly something of an expert in this area, how reliable he thinks the diagnoses are when people eventually get their appointments? Two of the three cases brought to my attention feature quite strongly a resistance to making the diagnosis of ADHD, even though in these cases—one involving a child and the other a young adult female—they were absolutely convinced that this was the answer. All sorts of reasons are found, including a lot of misinformation, for not making what we think is the correct diagnosis.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the inconsistency in diagnosis. The unwillingness to give a diagnosis impacts on people’s ability to get on with their lives, which also needs to be addressed. On that point, will the Minister see what can be done to ensure consistency across the board on diagnoses?

I end by paying tribute to the incredible work of those involved in ADHD support: the charities, including the ADHD Foundation and my local National Autistic Society group; clinicians in the NHS; and members of the public who are pushing for change in how we think about and support people with ADHD so that those with the condition can thrive. As chair of the APPG, I know that the work of the ADHD Foundation and others is incredibly valuable. I hope that today’s debate, with the many excellent contributions that will follow from Members from all parties, will show the breadth of support in this place for ending the delays and barriers in ADHD diagnosis and treatment. It is time for the Government to act so that we can break down the barriers to success that thousands across the country continue to face in their everyday lives.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Julian Lewis and Bambos Charalambous

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Many people have been confused about what status they have because of the emails they have received.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I warmly endorse the last intervention the hon. Gentleman took. Governments of all stripes surely have enough experience of digital disasters to know that people need to have something tangible on which they can rely if they request it and if they feel insufficiently confident that a digital system guarantees that they can prove their status.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We need to ensure that there is documentation, because we have seen the failings of other IT systems in the past and cannot allow that to happen again, especially on an issue as important as people’s rights.

Although we are open to the Government’s aspiration to move towards a digitally-focused system for all UK immigration, we are also aware of the internal failings that prevail within the Home Office. With that in mind, we urge the Government to think again about adopting Lords amendment 5.

Lords amendment 9 would give EEA and Swiss nationals who are victims of trafficking at least 12 months’ leave to remain and access to benefits during their period of recovery after being confirmed as victims of modern slavery. I thank Lord McColl for all his work on this issue and congratulate him on garnering considerable cross-party support. There is an unfortunate absence of domestic statutory provision in England and Wales for confirmed victims of human trafficking on their rights to support and assistance. Over the years, that deficiency has been filled by EU law.

As things stand, following the end of the UK-EU transition period on 31 December, human trafficking victims will be left in an undefined legal vacuum. Following the end of the EU settlement scheme, victims of human trafficking who are EEA or Swiss nationals will be able to apply only for discretionary leave to remain. The criteria for that are very narrow and it is unclear whether the same treatment as that for non-EEA nationals will apply.

Lords amendment 9 would provide much needed refuge and support to people who have suffered unimaginable uncertainty and abuse. We hope that the Government will support it. We must tackle the systemic factors that lead to modern slavery, provide support to those who are affected, and encourage more people to come forward to end the perpetual cycle of abuse and crime. I heard what the Minister said, and we wait with interest to see what the Government will come up with, particularly in respect of support for victims of modern day slavery.

To conclude, this is a bad Bill: it is reckless and ignores the evidence. The Lords amendments, many of which have cross-party support, are a genuine attempt to address those failings. If passed unamended, the Bill will lead to staff shortages in our care system at a time when it is perilously close to collapse; encourage dangerous crossings, as it fails to address safe family reunion routes after Dublin III; and lead to a lack of safeguarding and support for victims of modern day slavery. The amendments have been well debated both here and in the other place, and I urge the Minister to accept them.

Horizon Settlement: Future Governance of Post Office Ltd

Debate between Julian Lewis and Bambos Charalambous

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

The Post Office Horizon scandal must rank as one of the most shocking and badly handled ever. Its impact on honest, hard-working sub-postmasters has been truly devastating and life changing. Even the compensation won by the sub-postmasters in their class action against the Post Office will do very little to replace the lost years of pain, suffering and social stigma due to being classed as criminals, when all these people set out to do was to earn an honest living.

One of those affected is my constituent Kamran Ashraf, whose wife was a sub-postmaster, and together they ran the business. Right from the beginning, using the Horizon software provided by the Post Office, there were shortfalls. In September 2003, the Post Office carried out an audit of their branch and found a shortfall of £25,000. Following investigation, the Post Office prosecuted Kamran and his wife, but because they had two small children, even though they had done nothing wrong, Kamran decided to plead guilty so that their children would not risk both their parents being incarcerated. In February 2004, he was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment at Kingston crown court and, to add insult to injury, was fined £25,000.

Kamran and his wife lost their business and their home and had to enter into an individual voluntary arrangement to pay off creditors. Because of his conviction Kamran struggled to find work, and although his conviction is now spent and he has found employment, he still has that stain on his reputation because his conviction has not been overturned.

In August 2015 Kamran happened to chance on the BBC “Panorama” TV programme, which highlighted other cases identical to his, where sub-postmasters were prosecuted and convicted due to shortfalls in their takings following an audit. Dozens of sub-postmasters were affected and came forward and formed an action group called the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, or JFSA for short. The JFSA, led by Alan Bates, brought a class action with a total of 557 sub-postmasters which was vigorously fought by the Post Office, and on 11 December 2019 the sub-postmasters were awarded £57.75 million in damages.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) is right when he says that the biggest scandal of all was the fact that the Post Office denied that there was any flaw in the system but knew all along there was a problem, while innocent people were sent to prison.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

One other thing the Post Office must have known all along was that there was this huge spike in postmasters and postmistresses being reported and prosecuted, so they did not know that they were not alone in the matter, but the Post Office presumably knew that all this was going on at scale.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and makes an excellent point. Evidence about the infallibility of the system would have led to the conviction of these sub-postmasters, and that is why we need to look at how to progress this further. While after the trial the Post Office chairman conceded that it had got things wrong in the past, the fact was that the Post Office fought the action until the bitter end, and that speaks volumes.