ADHD Diagnosis

Debate between Olivia Blake and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) for securing this debate and for raising awareness of the case of Matty Lock.

I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and as one of the openly neurodiverse Members of this House: I have dyspraxia, dyslexia and—surprise, surprise—ADHD.

As someone with personal experience, I know how transformative a timely diagnosis and the right support can be—something I unfortunately did not receive as a little girl. I was often considered disruptive and described as having little focus, lazy and not meeting my potential. I was moved to the “naughty boys table”, aged seven, away from my friends. Even though my handwriting was atrocious, I struggled to read and I had very difficult emotional dysregulation, a lack of attention and fidgeting, no one would ever have considered back then that I was neurodiverse.

It has been many years since I was at primary school, but I would have hoped that the situation would have progressed. Unfortunately, it is hard to hear, again and again, about parents and children battling a system to get their needs recognised. It is troubling to hear from constituents who are in similar situations to what I experienced in the early 1990s, and about the barriers they are currently facing in accessing ADHD assessments, medication and therapeutic input. Those are not isolated cases, as we have heard. For both children and adults, waiting several years has become routine.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In the last few weeks, I have visited two alternative learning projects in my constituency. One is the Wheels Project, which gets children working on restoring cars. The other is Enemy of Boredom, which is a brilliant thing, getting children video gaming while learning at the same time. What is amazing is that they do only half a day a week there, but it transforms their experience of mainstream education. They are much better when they get back to the classroom, because they have had focused attention on something they love doing. Does my hon. Friend agree that we ought to do more of that?

[Olivia Blake]

Absolutely. Just to go back to myself again, in a very ADHD way, I did art and drama alongside sciences. I became a scientist before I came here, but without the art and drama I would never have succeeded in science. I think it is really important that we work with people’s strengths, because the alternative to not doing that is huge. We have heard about suicide rates, prisons and unemployment among young people, and young people being blamed for being unemployed even though they have ADHD and have gone through a system where they are not getting the support they need. The ADHD taskforce has all the answers and should be looked at urgently by the Government.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Olivia Blake and Kerry McCarthy

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Olivia Blake]

Absolutely, and I will come to that point. This issue is so significant: it is important that we find the funding for these sorts of interventions because almost 9,000 neighbourhoods in England and Wales have very low incomes but higher than average energy costs because of poor insulation. That requires Government action, and I fully support Labour’s plans, which I believe would cost £12 billion a year—I might be wrong about that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is £6 billion.

Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Olivia Blake and Kerry McCarthy

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Olivia Blake]

Possibly a record. Who knows?

I rise to defend the amendments made in the Lords and to speak against Government amendment 12, predominantly because of the aims of the Bill that the Secretary of State outlined when it was brought forward. Those aims were about security, but also about tackling fuel poverty. The facts about fuel poverty in the UK at the moment are very telling. I will cite the End Fuel Poverty Coalition’s numbers: 1,000 people died in 2022 as a result of living in cold, damp homes, unable to heat them because of costs. We also know that 7 million people in the UK last winter were living in fuel poverty. Taken together, those are staggering numbers, and it is important that they are at the forefront of our minds when we discuss the levy.

It is telling that there seem to be unified voices against the policy. The figure of £118 that the shadow Minister mentioned came from Onward, which is a Conservative think-tank. The discussion is also about who has the broadest shoulders to help with the changes that desperately need to be made to our energy system. I completely agree with the shadow Minister that the Bill gives the public all the risk and potentially none of the benefits.

There are 37 independently published reports that set out that they do not believe that the UK will move fully to hydrogen for home heating. Obviously there are massive benefits for steel—Sheffield is the city of steel—that could be unlocked through hydrogen, and there are many benefits for industry, but it seems wrong for Government amendment 12 to remove the protections given in the other place to the levy to prevent that cost from falling so dramatically on households. As the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell set out, it is really important that we bring the public with us.

Government amendment 12 is almost a wrecking motion for net zero, because the opposition to this will be huge. I ask the Minister to think hard about whether the Government want to champion such a burden on households when it is not clear whether the benefit will ever fall on households. We do not yet know the questions about hydrogen, let alone the answers, or what the benefits to home heating will be, if that is the path we go down as a nation when there are many alternatives growing at speed, as we have discussed. I think the Government’s amendment is very challenging. I urge them to think again for the benefit of all those who struggle to pay their energy bills now and for those who may struggle in future if the levy comes in.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I want to add to what has been said on both sides of the Committee Room today about how unwise it is for the Government to go down this path. I do not agree with what the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said about how we should not conflate public feeling about net zero with public concern about energy bills; the green transition and the move towards renewables will bring in cheaper energy and enhance our energy security, so I do not accept his arguments. However, if I were to argue that point with him, you would quite rightly say that I was broadening the debate beyond the parameters of the Bill, Mr Gray, so I will save my remarks for this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on the Government’s approach to net zero.

At the heart of the issue is what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, said: consumers want to know how this will come to us. I share the concerns—my hon. Friend listed the other green levies in legislation, but the difference is that we can see a benefit from investment in such fields—but the hydrogen levy will mostly be to the benefit of energy-intensive, hard-to-decarbonise industries, and consumers will rightly feel that they are paying for something from which they will not receive the benefit.

We know that there is huge concern. The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said that there is fear in people’s eyes about how they will meet their energy bills. There is—I have seen that concern. In my public communications about how energy bills were predicted to rise, I was very worried about making constituents even more scared. It was a balance: I wanted to warn people about what is to come, but given the stress that they were under, I felt that it was important not to be alarmist. It is a difficult position to hold. As has been said, it could put about £118 on bills. Documents from the Department state that after 2030, the impact on consumer bills will ramp up even further:

“Once introduced, we expect its impacts will ramp up as we look to deliver our 2030 hydrogen ambitions to improve energy security.”

This is a deeply regressive move.

I do feel a bit of sympathy for the Minister, because he has to defend to the hilt something on which, given the reaction on Second Reading, he will end up having to U-turn. He will get all the flak, and his boss will get all the credit for having listened to people and changed his mind.

Somebody mentioned the think-tank Onward, which has contributed a piece to “ConservativeHome”. Onward has also said:

“The Government is walking into a trap with the hydrogen levy. It would be a mistake that risks stalling the development of a British hydrogen economy. It would also be unfair to ask households that won’t benefit from hydrogen directly to pay for it. The Government should think again. And the Treasury should get off the fence and back the role hydrogen can play in the economy.”

Clearly this is not an anti-hydrogen move. It is about ensuring that the people who will benefit bear the majority of the cost.