| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.23 am
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill): The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) has excelled himself by being even more negative than usual. I sometimes think that if he won the lottery, he would complain that the cheque was sent by second-class post. On a more serious point, it is easy to be cynical and doubtful, and it is also cheap, but it is important to find
ways forward. It is extraordinary that any hon. Member can make a lengthy speech without once referring to the great gains that have been made in the past few years, which have been much more peaceful, allowing all the people of Northern Ireland to live in better circumstances.To take up a point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), when the IRA leadership said on 6 May that it would put arms beyond use--which it has never said before--it would have been easy to reply, "Does it mean it? How can we prove it?" I should point out that the IRA has been well aware of international criticism of its slowness in moving forward. People have asked, "Why doesn't it get on with it? What is the big difficulty?" It has been aware of that. If its actions were to turn out grudging or there were attempts to deceive the international inspectorate, it would lose credibility in the international community generally. So, having made such a statement, it has to be able to move forward.
People have been talking as if the IRA were one monolithic block of opinion, but none of us should underestimate the difficulties of the peace-mongers in the IRA and Sinn Fein in determining to move along the paths of peace. We should not underestimate what they would have been up against among some of their more hard-line colleagues in achieving such movement. It is therefore important to get behind the statement and to ensure that it is acted on.
I was wryly amused by the fact that, after commenting in the previous debate that, although over the issue of flags the SDLP would be in a difficult position, it was easy to predict that all parties would encounter difficulties over one issue or another, just a few minutes later the hon. Member for Belfast, East did his utmost to make life difficult for the Ulster Unionist leadership--not because he thinks that it is constructive to do so, but because it is simple vote-grabbing from another segment of Unionism. That is truly deplorable because the leadership of the Ulster Unionists has been extremely positive and deserves a lot of credit.
If the heart of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will stand it, I will say that I agree with much of what he said. His comments were very constructive. Yes, we must recognise that breakaway groups from the IRA will hold on to their arms, but we cannot hold the IRA responsible for the actions of such groups any more than we can hold Unionist Members in this Chamber responsible for the actions of loyalist extremists and breakaway groups. If we do not grab hold of this opportunity, there will be difficulty putting pressure on all those groups to come up with the goods and to follow the path of peace, which is obviously what the people of Northern Ireland want.
Earlier today, I listened to a little of the debate in another place, in which some extraordinary comments were made. One of their lordships said that the Minister was looking on the matter with rose-tinted spectacles simply because he wished to take up the prospect of moving forward which the IRA has opened up. A baroness whose name I did not catch questioned whether a Finn and a South African could do the job, which was an extraordinary thing to say. She asked whether the inspectors had ever seen Semtex or handled a gun. I should imagine, having been highly involved in the politics of South Africa over the past decade or two, they
most certainly had. Those are the sort of nonsensical arguments that one hopes not to hear, and we did not hear them in this Chamber.It has been said that an unknown quantity of arms will be held by individuals on both sides. I do not know how much. I dare say that the police in Northern Ireland have a pretty good idea and could estimate the amount reasonably accurately. Clearly, we must consider that in future, because it is of course unacceptable to deal with arms dumps but leave vast quantities of arms in the hands of individuals, regardless of whether they are political extremists. There could be another madman like Mr. Hamilton in Scotland. The sooner that we take arms out of civil society the better--whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United States. We need to move forward on getting rid of arms.
- That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) (No. 2) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Companies
- That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Audit Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.--[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Autism
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Mike Hall.]
1.30 am
Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and to my other parliamentary colleagues for keeping you all here at this time of night. However, having apologised, let me point out that this week is autism awareness week, so it is important to highlight autism and the important issues surrounding the condition. I am therefore delighted to have obtained tonight's Adjournment debate.
I am especially pleased because on Monday evening, in the Jubilee Room off Westminster Hall, we held the public launch of the parliamentary all-party autism group, which I have the honour to chair. My hon. Friend the Minister has already addressed the group, and I am grateful to him for doing so. Its membership, which is still growing, includes more than 130 parliamentarians from all parties and both Houses. The group has received several dozen letters of support from parliamentarians who are not able to join, including members of all the Front-Bench teams and the Prime Minister himself. That is a remarkable display of support for a new specialist parliamentary group.
The group is being generously sponsored by the Shirley Foundation--it is proper to place that support on the record and to acknowledge the generosity of the foundation and its founder, Dame Stephanie Shirley. Also providing support and advice for the group is a team comprising people from the National Autistic Society, the Parents Autism Campaign for Education, leading academics, and other individuals with an interest in autism.
All those parliamentarians and strangers have come together because of their deep conviction that the causes and occurrence of and the support for autism require urgent review, and that such a review will reveal a need for the Government to increase the level of support available to autistic people. For the sake of clarity, let me state that, tonight, I shall use the word "incidence" to indicate the annual occurrence of autism within a given population, and "prevalence" to indicate the total number of autistic people in the population at any one time. "Autism" will be used to refer to the whole spectrum of autistic disorders, including Asperger syndrome.
There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that the incidence of autism is increasing, and several studies by scientists of repute point to an increase. One such study suggested that, in one region of the United Kingdom, the increase in incidence might be as high as 25 per cent. compounded annually. In passing, I note that, in its 1998-99 annual report, the special educational needs tribunal reported a 360 per cent. increase in hearings related to autism during the preceding four years, making autism the second most common disability with which the tribunal deals.
Some of the perceived increase is, no doubt, because of improved diagnosis or a broader classification of autism. However, in my view and, more significantly, in the view of most of the experts to whom I have spoken, the
underlying incidence of autism is increasing and the apparent increase is not just the product of better diagnosis. Some factor is causing the increase. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that many parents and even some academics believe that the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine or other vaccines are responsible; most clinicians and scientists disagree.I have written to several leading academics and some degree of consensus has emerged that an individual's potential to develop autism involves several genes, not one; and that different factors might be at work in establishing that potential. The expression of autism must be triggered in an individual with a predisposition towards it, and several different triggers may be involved.
The condition may arise, therefore, in different people as a result of different mechanisms. At this stage, there are several environmental factors, including the vaccination programme, that cannot be ruled out as factors for at least a subgroup of the population of people who have autism.
Given that complexity and the view in the scientific community, it must surely be the duty of Government to initiate studies that can finally decide the controversy. We need to answer the question, "Is the incidence of autism increasing?" If the answer is yes, we must isolate the factors that are at work.
It must also be the job of Government to ensure that support for autistic people is planned for. To do so, we must know the prevalence of the condition. On 14 January 1999, in a written answer to me, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), told me that his Department did not collate data in respect of the number of autistic people, but relied on local authorities to do so.
I can tell my hon. Friend that recent inquiries by individuals and voluntary organisations indicate that many local authorities do not collate that data, so we do not know, nationally or locally, how many autistic people there are. How can we plan adequately, when we do not know how many people we are planning for?
Let me summarise. We do not know how many autistic people there are and how many there will be. We cannot therefore be sure whether we as a society are doing something to cause the condition. We do not know whether we could reduce the incidence by doing something differently, by stopping doing something or by starting to do something. We cannot plan adequately for supporting autistic people, as we do not know accurately, locally or nationally, how many people have the condition.
We can make some estimates. A study by Wing and Gould carried out in Camberwell was published in 1979. Another study in Gothenburg by Ehlers and Gillberg was published in 1993. Using those studies, the National Autistic Society estimates that 91 in 10,000 people have conditions on the autistic spectrum.
At the launch of the all-party group on Monday night, Dr. Fiona Scott of Cambridge university announced her recent findings, which are to be published in The Lancet in the next week or two. They indicate that one in 175 children in Cambridgeshire is autistic.
Those are frightening figures. Some people with an interest in the condition have started to speak of an epidemic. The figures must surely concern and may even
frighten the Government. The figures suggest that on average, every English and Northern Irish Member of Parliament has more than 800 constituents with an autistic spectrum disorder. Every Scottish or Welsh Member of Parliament must have more than 600 autistic constituents. Accurate figures are needed to plan support and care. The Government should initiate such research urgently.If those figures alone do not frighten my hon. Friend, let me tell him the recent estimate of the cost of autism. The real cost of autism, we all know, is in heartache, but let us consider the financial implications. The average lifetime cost of supporting an autistic person has been estimated at £2.9 million. That excludes the loss to the economy as a result of autistic people who cannot live independently and earn their own living. The total cost to the economy is about £1 billion a year. Those figures should start appearing on the Chancellor's radar screen, never mind my hon. Friend's in the Department of Health.
If the condition were better understood and causal factors could be reduced, the costs could be reduced. If those who develop the condition receive early diagnosis and intervention, and if they get the right support and the right education package, diet and health care, many will make huge progress and will eventually be able to live independent and productive lives.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |