New Autism Strategy (Autism Act 2009 Committee Report)

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest: I am a vice-president of the National Autistic Society, an honour I share with my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. More than that, I thank the noble Baroness for her work in persuading the Liaison Committee to agree to set up this committee of inquiry in the first place. She and I started out working together on that, but when I was appointed leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, did the heavy lifting alone and I thank her for that. I also thank the chair of the committee, and the committee itself, for coming forward with a report that is imaginative and shows us a way forward.

“Autistic young people can thrive in the right environment and collapse in the wrong one”.


Those were the words of Alan Milburn in his interim report Young People and Work. The report revealed that among young people who are not in employment, education or training, 22% cited autism as their main limiting condition. Milburn went on to say that benefits assessments

“lend themselves to a binary judgement”

of whether a person is able or unable to work, but this approach does not match the reality of many young people’s life-changing conditions. Autism is a life-changing condition. Seven out of every 10 autistic people want to be in work, but only three out of 10 are actually in work.

Like many, I want to see autistic people in a job, building up their confidence and giving them the opportunity to enjoy the quality of life that we all expect. The recommendations in this report offer us hope of progress, and I certainly hope—Hope with a big H—to see a more positive response from the Government than we have seen so far.

The Autism Act was a critical step forward in the recognition of autistic people, yet successive Governments have failed to deliver the change. With the greatest respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord who will be responding for the Opposition, I can tell them that Dame Cheryl Gillan—who took the Autism Bill through Parliament and with whom I served on the Council of Europe, where we produced a major report on the problems that autistic people are facing across Europe—would certainly have plenty to say about the failures of Governments of all parties if she were with us today. She would be telling Ministers to take this report’s recommendations seriously and to engage with the charitable and voluntary sector to embrace the reforms it proposes.

My most immediate concern is the next autism strategy. It is the key to deciding priorities and making sure those priorities are delivered. The Act placed a strict legal duty on the Government to prepare and regularly review a national strategy to meet the needs of autistic people by improving local services. Is it not alarming to realise that after the first year of the 2021-26 strategy, there was no plan to deliver or fund it? That is a scandal. That strategy will end soon, and the Government say it will remain in place until a new strategy is agreed. Of that new strategy, the Government say that meaningful engagement will take place, but how long will that take? How long will we have to wait?

In response to the report, the Government praise the committee for the large amount of evidence it gathered. In view of that, I ask my noble friend to use that evidence, much of it given to the committee by autism charities and experts in caring and supporting people with autism and their families. Use it in working up the new strategy; I can tell her that it will save countless hours of research by her civil servants. The committee has done the work for you, so use the work that it has done.

The report points to a way we should all embrace and welcome. It calls for the new strategy to identify priority outcomes and produce a costed, deliverable plan to achieve those outcomes. The strategy should make clear who is responsible and accountable for delivery. To me that is common sense; having said that, I remember that when I was growing up, my mother would say to me, “Son, in life, sense is not that common”. Despite that, I plead with my noble friend to take the common-sense approach. Use the findings of this report to build on the new strategy, and do it right away.

Mental Health Bill [HL]

Lord Touhig Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society, a role I share with my good and dear friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Browning.

I welcome the Bill. It has been a long time coming, and I passionately hope that it will allow us to end once and for all the myth that autism is a mental health condition. Autism is most definitely not a mental health condition, and our failure to address this has meant decades when autistic people have been wrongly incarcerated, often in appalling and degrading conditions, and robbed of their human rights. More than 2,000 autistic people and people with a learning disability are in mental health hospitals in England, a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his opening remarks. The National Autistic Society tells us that 68% of these people are autistic.

Some 93% of autistic people and people with a learning disability in mental health hospitals are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The average length of stay is five years, but for a great number of autistic people the detention lasts for decades. Professor Sir Simon Wessely’s review of the Mental Health Act in 2018 found that the experience of detention was often damaging and traumatic. The Bill includes measures to improve care and support for autistic people, reducing reliance on hospital-based care. That certainly is good and is welcomed.

However, there are aspects of the Bill that concern me, and I have had a chance to discuss them with my noble friend the Minister. I have been fortunate to have had a number of fruitful meetings and discussions with a team from the Autism Centre of Excellence at Cambridge and, as a result, they and I share some concerns. First, the Government have said:

“For those with a learning disability or autistic people, the act will be amended to place a limit of 28 days for which they can be detained unless they have a co-occurring mental health condition”.


My noble friend mentioned this in her opening remarks. I stress again that autism is not a mental health condition, but given that eight in 10 autistic people experience mental health issues, without the right safeguards there must be concern that the new provisions could simply lead to a continuation of the current intolerable situation. I hope my noble friend, who kindly met with me recently to discuss these matters, will seek to assuage my fears on that point.

The Government have also said:

“Police and prison cells will also no longer be used to place people experiencing a mental health crisis … Instead, patients will be supported to access a suitable healthcare facility that will better support their needs”.


The right reverend Prelate referred to this in her remarks. The Lampard Inquiry was set up to look at more than 2,000 deaths of people in in-patient mental health facilities, specifically in Essex, and it is believed that many of those who died were autistic. I say to my noble friend that it would be wrong to assume that simply switching the location where autistic people are detained is going to achieve a much better way of protecting them.

The Government have also said the reforms will

“introduce statutory care and treatment plans”.

I share the Cambridge centre’s belief that every autistic person who needs support should have access to a statutory plan to enable them to get the help they need. It should not take an autistic person falling into crisis and being detained in a mental health hospital for such support to be provided, as is often the case today. Autistic people who are at risk of falling into crisis should have a similar right to such plans to prevent in-patient detention becoming a risk in the first place.

A focus on prevention would be in line with Wes Streeting’s idea of reforms of the National Health Service. It is recognised that the current system does, in fact, have a range of provisions, legal rights and safeguards that should, in theory, have reduced the number of people detained in in-patient mental health services. But published statistics show us that this has not happened, with thousands of people still inappropriately detained, so I ask my noble friend to consider these concerns as the Bill passes through the House in Committee and so on.

There is a danger of allowing, even unintentionally, the creation of a critical gap between what happens at a policy and legislative level and what happens on the ground. Without reckoning with this gap and setting up measures to ensure that what is said by government turns into real action on the ground, these reforms will not change the decades-long scandal of thousands of autistic people being detained inappropriately. To do this will require clear measurement, consistent and regular accountability and the necessary funding to enable the National Health Service and other agencies to deliver the hoped-for change that we need from this Bill.