| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference
- That—
(1) There shall be a standing committee, called the Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference on the Future of Europe.
(2) At any sitting of the standing committee, the chairman may permit a Minister or Ministers to make statements on the Inter-Governmental Conference, and questions may then be put thereon by Members:
Provided that no proceedings under this paragraph may continue after the expiry of a period of one and a half hours from their commencement, except with the leave of the chairman.
(3) At the conclusion of proceedings under paragraph (2), the committee may consider either of the following—
(a) when a written report has been laid before Parliament by a Minister or Ministers, a Motion proposed from the chair 'That the committee has considered the report of [date] on the Inter-Governmental Conference'; or
(b) a Motion for the adjournment of the committee, provided that a Minister of the Crown has given notice of a subject relating to the Inter-Governmental Conference for the debate on the adjournment not later than five days before the sitting.
(4)(a) The chairman shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on any Motion under paragraph (3)(a), if not previously concluded, when the committee shall have sat for two and a half hours; and the chairman shall thereupon report that the committee has considered the report of [date] on the Inter-Governmental Conference, without putting any further Question;
(b) in case of a Motion under paragraph (3)(b), the chairman shall adjourn the committee without putting any question, not later than two and a half hours after the committee has begun sitting.
(5)(a) Notwithstanding Standing Order No. 86, the standing committee shall consist of those Members of the House nominated for the time being to the European Scrutiny Committee (appointed under Standing Order No. 143) and to the Foreign Affairs Committee (appointed under Standing Order No. 152); and
(b) any Member of the House, not being a member of the committee, may take part in the proceedings of the committee and be counted in the quorum, but shall not vote or make any motion, except that any member of the government may move a Motion under paragraph (3)(b).
(6) Members of the House of Lords may participate in the committee's proceedings, but no member of that House may vote or make any motion or be counted in the quorum.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the next Session of Parliament.—[Joan Ryan.]
Machinery of Government Changes: Amendments to Standing Orders
- That—
(1) Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Scottish' and inserting 'Scotland';
(2) Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Welsh' and inserting 'Wales';
(3) Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be amended in the table in paragraph (6), as follows:
(a) in line 5, by leaving out 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and inserting 'Transport; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister';
(b) in line 12, by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Department for Constitutional Affairs (excluding those responsibilities of the Scotland and Wales Offices which fall to European Standing Committee A)';
(4) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2), as follows:
(a) before item 1 insert
| '1 Constitutional Affairs | Department for Constitutional 11'; |
| Affairs (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland) |
(b) leave out the item relating to the Lord Chancellor's Department inserted on 27th January;
(c) in item 16, leave out 'Welsh Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))' and insert 'Wales Office (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales)'; and
(5) the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Constitutional Affairs'.—[Joan Ryan.]
Environmental Audit
- That Mr Michael Meacher be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mr Elliot Morley be added.—[Joan Ryan.]
Public Accounts
- That Geraint Davies and Mr George Howarth be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Jon Cruddas and Jim Sheridan be added.—[Joan Ryan.]
Asperger's Syndrome
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
7.15 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): On 23 October 2001, I introduced an Adjournment debate on Asperger's syndrome and autistic spectrum disorder. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), is on the Treasury Bench, as he also attended that debate. At the time, he was chairman of the all-party group on autism and I cannot think of a better person, one with as much experience and knowledge of the subject, to respond to the debate.
I want to move on from that debate in 2001 and focus especially on Asperger's syndrome and mental health services. Although many symptoms of autism are present in people diagnosed with Asperger's, there is a difference, as such people generally have good language skills and may be of average or high intelligence. However, they demonstrate many of the traits associated with autism, which results in communication problems and, sometimes, ritualistic behaviour. They can experience difficulty in social relationships, causing a sense of isolation, especially in adolescents and adults.
Too few appropriate packages of support are available and they can often be obtained only when there is a crisis. However, where health and social services work together, especially with agencies that specialise in the management of autism, the results can be good, not least because stress and anxiety are reduced, thus reducing the patient's mental health needs and an unacceptably high suicide rate among that group.
Although the causes of Asperger's syndrome and autism have yet to be positively identified, research to date shows that they are related to a physical dysfunction of the brain that may have more than one cause, including a genetic base. What Asperger's is not is an illness, nor are the behavioural symptoms exhibited by people with the syndrome caused by psychosis.
Management of the condition is best addressed by individually tailored packages of support. They will not cure the condition—it is lifelong—but they will vastly improve the quality of life for the sufferer and maximise their opportunities for living independently. We are talking about a vulnerable group of people, who have a strange mix of abilities, which can mask characteristics that may include obsessive behaviour and lack of imagination, resulting in their not being streetwise, yet can be coupled with a range of educational abilities, up to degree level and beyond.
Behaviour may be challenging, especially if routines are interrupted or the individual is faced with unexpected changes, such as a break with a familiar environment or people. People with the condition can be quirky at best and, at worst, threatening to those who are not familiar with their behaviour. Such behaviour is almost always triggered by events rather than an emotional response. It is in that context that I shall focus on adults and adolescents who, under stress and perhaps presenting strange or challenging behaviour, find themselves in contact with mental health services, especially in-patient treatment.
It is true, of course, that people with Asperger's can become mentally ill, as with any other person. Indeed, depression is particularly common in that group. As I pointed out in my debate in 2001, apart from any physiological reason, such as low serotonin levels in the body, it is not rocket science to understand why, by adulthood, people with Asperger's syndrome—desperate for the social and employment opportunities in which they see their peer group participating, but finding themselves friendless, locked out and socially isolated because of their inability to relate to other people—start to become depressed and demonstrate behaviour that, frankly, is quite obvious to those who study the condition and understand it. Who among us would not become depressed if we had tried so hard, as many with Asperger's do, to normalise—for want of a better word—our behaviour only to find that we cannot break through the glass wall that divides us from the rest of society?
Given my work with autism charities and in assisting those who seek to improve the lives of those in the Asperger's group, I feel prompted to raise the issue again in the House because of the pattern of treatment that has clearly developed throughout this country, particularly in provincial mental health hospitals. Very few provincial psychiatrists have been trained in either the diagnosis or management of Asperger's syndrome and even fewer have gained the experience, as part of their working lives, to be able to distinguish between a mental health condition and what many of us regard as normal autistic behaviour, which even professional psychiatrists may well interpret as something quite different.
A level of expertise is required. For example, if someone with Asperger's develops symptoms of schizophrenia, very few psychiatrists in this country have the expertise to differentiate between autistic symptoms and a genuine case of schizophrenia. Yet, day after day, people with Asperger's syndrome are admitted to mental health hospitals and find themselves being diagnosed and treated by people with that lack of experience. So they fall foul—I use that phrase quite deliberately—of the mental health services, as in-patients. They are often sectioned under existing mental health legislation.
All too frequently around the country, we find that those in that group are being treated in a way that would not be tolerated in any other part of health care. It is all too common for psychiatrists even to ignore an existing diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome. That is astonishing. One professional has made a diagnosis, yet all too often another professional, who is responsible for caring for the person with Asperger's, refuses to accept the diagnosis. Behavioural symptoms are not recognised as normal autistic behaviour. They are often treated with strong drugs that have little or no effect on the symptoms, but in themselves cause yet another problem for those with Asperger's. When a drug does not work, psychiatrists work their way through the prescribing lists, building a cocktail of medication that fails to address the symptoms. Why should it address the symptoms if the underlying cause is physiological?
It is common for people with Asperger's to be misdiagnosed as schizophrenic and given medication on that basis. Many of those cases result in long hospital stays, with all the damage of long-term neuroleptic
drugs, the effect of which needs to be addressed. I know that I need not emphasise this to the Minister, but those are not isolated cases. The problem is becoming increasingly common, even in the casework that Members of Parliament have to take up on behalf of our constituents. The Minister will be aware that we have held meetings in the House with the carers of people who have been treated in that way, so we know of the absolute distress and pressure on those carers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |