Phil
Hope: My hon. Friend is right; there is no sunset clause
in the Bill. Therefore, if we enact, it will be a permanent feature
that the Secretary of State regularly reviews the strategy and
republishes accordingly. That means that the review process should be
continual, rather than a discrete exercise at arbitrarily specified
intervals. It will be an ongoing process, so that we can respond as
quickly as possible to any significant changes—the more
important point—or developments in the autism field as a result
of work that is
done. Mr.
Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab): The
Minister has done such a brilliant job that I rise to speak with some
trepidation. On the very point that has just been
raised, did he consider at any time whether the review might be
regarded at the very least as an annual
review?
Phil
Hope: Yes, we considered that, but the key issue is that
we want to be able to respond to changes in the world of autism
research, so that if something significantly changes in our
understanding of the causes or the consequences of autism, or in the
way to respond to the needs of people with autism, we are able
to revise the strategy, rather than having an arbitrary annual
process. Mr.
Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): I think that we are reaching
a wonderful consensus on this Bill, but in the context of regular
reviews, the Minister will of course remember that the “Valuing
People” White Paper set out a requirement that the Government
strategy for learning disabilities should be subject to annual review.
I will not press him on that now, but it is a model that he might wish
to reflect
on.
Phil
Hope: The hon. Gentleman makes a useful contribution. We
looked at various models, but in this area of policy, in which we know
there could well be significant changes in the development of our
thinking, this is the right approach. “Valuing People”
takes a different approach, which is more about delivery and
implementation. With the strategy for people with learning
disabilities, we need to ensure annually that we hold to account those
responsible for delivering the strategy and making change happen on the
ground. Sandra
Gidley (Romsey) (LD): I believe that the Minister is well
intentioned on that point, but there needs to be some clarity about the
tipping point for a review. If something comes up and there is an
urgent review, that is a good thing, if the Minister is committed to
it. However, the hon. Gentleman will not always be the Minister, so
what assurance can he give to those in the future who might think that
there is a need for a review and might disagree with the Minister in
post?
Phil
Hope: By virtue of this procedure being in the Bill, it is
imperative for whoever is Secretary of State to continually review
developments in the world of autism, and if need be, to change the
strategy to reflect them. I believe that the assurances to which the
hon. Lady refers are provided by the procedure being a statutory
requirement, and by my comments today on the new clause and the
importance of responding to significant changes. It is important that
future Governments are as committed as we are now to achieving the
change that we want to see.
Mrs.
Janet Dean (Burton) (Lab): I commend both Ministers for
the work they have done and also the promoter of the Bill, the hon.
Member for Chesham and Amersham, for working with
them. On
reviews, will the Ministers consider the timing of reviews and see
whether there could be an amendment, even on Report, to firm that up?
My other point concerns revising and continuing to look at the
strategy. Can we be assured that the same groups of people involved in
the consultation on the strategy now—parents, carers and those
with autism—will continue to be consulted when any revision is
taking place?
Phil
Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind remarks. We want
to ensure that in the development of
the strategy, now and in future years, we continually engage, consult
and work jointly with—co-production is the term that I know we
will learn to use—a variety of stakeholders, particularly those
who represent the families and the individuals who have autistic
spectrum conditions. It is important that we find a way to do that. I
would not like to tie future Ministers to a particular model. We have
developed the external reference group, and as time goes on there might
be other models that are more appropriate, but certainly there should
be a mechanism for engaging and working with a variety of stakeholders,
as well as the local authorities and the health
service.
Mr.
Boswell: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for
giving way and I promise not to trespass on his patience. He has made a
good series of
points. In
the spirit of the comments made by the hon. Member for Burton, will the
Minister at least consider the possibility of a fall-back—a
maximum time of perhaps four or five years during which a review might
take place? It would not preclude the possibility, if circumstances
dictated, of an earlier review, but it would at least reassure the
Committee that the strategy was not for ever. My hon. Friend the Member
for Chesham and Amersham might have some reservations about that, but I
would love to hear the Minister’s answer first.
Phil
Hope: That strategy would mean that we risk always having
a review every five years and therefore would not have a review to
respond to any significant changes in the world of autism. I can see
the arguments both ways. I recommend we adopt the approach that is in
the Bill, although I understand hon. Members’ contributions
about how we might go about doing it.
Mrs.
Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): I am listening
carefully to the Minister. I hope that it does not escape the attention
of observers of the Committee that it is the Minister who is moving the
new clauses, which shows what a great job of work has been done by the
officials and the Minister. It is a most unusual development in a
private Member’s Bill and people should recognise
that. In
looking at the review and the general powers in which this area will be
considered, I was hoping to seek the Minister’s agreement to
clearly identified and named officials in the Department whose names
would be widely published throughout the world of autism so that people
know who to focus on. I like the idea of a continual review and being
able to respond rapidly, because, as I understand it, that is the
nature of developments in autism today. I would be unhappy if any part
of the legislation, were it to become an Act, inhibited that
process.
I have a
specific question on clause 2(5) and what should be included in
statutory guidance. It is a comprehensive list but it does not mention
local data collection databases, which is a central theme in the Autism
Bill as it stands. Will the Minister consider looking at that before
Report and Third
Reading? 3
pm
Phil
Hope: On the latter point, I shall come to
clause 2 in a moment and I will address that
issue.
Mrs.
Gillan: It was advance
warning.
Phil
Hope: I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
There has
been a process of joint working. What we are doing is unusual, but
there is a profound commitment across the House among different
individuals and political parties to making a step change in what we do
and how we respond to the needs of people with autism. That is why I
said how proud I am to move these new clauses; the outcome has been
achieved by work that we have done together. I want to put on the
record my thanks to the officials who, with very short notice and at
breakneck speed, have brought us to this position.
On the
question about a named individual, the Department currently has a
national adviser on autism, Elaine Hill—I am not sure whether I
am allowed to name people but I have anyway. She does that work for us
now, although I cannot guarantee that such a post will continue over
the years ahead or that that individual will continue to hold it.
However, recognition by the Department that somebody should have those
responsibilities is a useful suggestion, and I thank the hon.
Lady.
I will move
on to subsection (7). As I indicated in relation to subsection (3), our
intention is to publish the strategy before the end of 2009. As we
know, parliamentary processes take time and it is conceivable that the
Bill may not come into force until December—I hope that is not
the case, but it is possible—so we might find that we want to
publish the strategy before the Bill is in force. Subsection (7) covers
that possibility and ensures that an adult autism strategy published
before the Bill comes into force will still fulfil the duty of
the Secretary of State.
Subsection
(8) does much the same thing in relation to the consultation process
for the strategy. It ensures that the current consultation fulfils the
duty to consult, even though, clearly, it will have not only have begun
but in all probability will have ended before the Bill is on the
statute book. Taken together, the duties and requirements set out in
the new clause tie the Government into the preparation and publication
of an adult autism strategy in a way only rarely seen in statute. That
is no more than we have already committed to, and I have no qualms
about bringing forward legislation that gives hon. Members, key
stakeholders and the general public a sure and certain means of holding
us to account on the delivery of those commitments. I commend the new
clause to the
Committee. On
new clause 2, the development and publication of the adult autism
strategy will be only the first stage in the journey of transformation
of services for people with autistic spectrum conditions. We do not
intend simply to put it into the public domain and leave local
authorities and the NHS to get on with it. On the contrary, I have
already made it clear that the strategy will be followed up by detailed
guidance that sets out what the NHS and local authorities need to do to
achieve the visionary changes that I expect to see described in the
strategy. The new clause puts that commitment on a statutory footing in
the same way that new clause 1 does for the strategy itself. As I shall
explain, it goes further and guarantees that a number of topics will be
included in the guidance—topics that I know are of great
importance to our key stakeholders.
Taking
the provisions in order, subsection (1) places a duty on the Secretary
of State to issue guidance to local authorities and NHS
bodies—including NHS foundation trusts—about the exercise
of their respective functions in order to secure the implementation of
the autism strategy.
Mr.
Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister and to the
Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, my hon.
Friend the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, because I know that a lot
of work has been done on the Bill. May I return to the point raised by
the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham? My hon. Friend the Member for
Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and I chaired a review on this matter
two years ago. One of the points that came across strongly was that we
did not have the information, particularly from local authorities, that
was necessary to enable us to make our strategy as meaningful as we
wished. We thought that local data collection was very important, and I
wonder whether the Minister has given thought to that matter. He has
got everything else
right.
Phil
Hope: The particular point about information and data
gathering that was raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham
and my right hon. Friend is covered in the subsections. We have had to
use appropriate statutory language, and paragraphs (5)(b) and (c),
taken together, meet the point about information and data
gathering.
Mr.
Boswell: I appreciate that the provisions bind public
authorities—quite properly—and that guidance will follow.
However, at least in the guidance, if not in the Bill, will the
Minister assure the Committee that he will expect public authorities to
liaise sufficiently with the private and, more particularly, the
voluntary and not-for-profit sectors, to take into account their views
and to make use of the services and other opportunities they provide?
They have great expertise and it is obviously sensible that they should
be engaged fully in the process.
Phil
Hope: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman those
assurances, although not necessarily in the Bill. That is certainly how
we expect the process to develop. Any statutory guidance issued has to
have a 12-week consultation period and that gives us, as well as all
the organisations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and many more, the
opportunity to be fully
involved. Mrs.
Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood) (Lab): Will
my hon. Friend clarify the point about data collection? He will recall
that on Second Reading concern was expressed that some people’s
autism is not such “a problem” at particular stages in
their lives that they need services, but they may need services later
on in life. That applies especially to some young people with
Asperger’s. Collecting the data is complex, so will my hon.
Friend ensure that, as part of the guidance, he draws the attention of
local authorities to the fact that there are people with autism to whom
they might not be delivering a service now, but for whom they may need
to plan to deliver a service in
future?
Phil
Hope: My hon. Friend raises an excellent point about the
need to ensure that the guidance does not leave anybody out—that
there are no holes. Due to the
legal approach to writing law, paragraphs (5) (b)
and (c) together give us the outcome that we want. The details of how
the guidance will look and its content, ensuring that the concerns that
she has raised are not missed, will be a key part of the consultation
process. The fact that my hon. Friend has made those points today will
help to ensure that when the consultation process on the guidance
starts, it covers the points that she raises. All stakeholders will
have the opportunity to ensure that that is the case so that the issues
that my hon. Friend is concerned about are covered when the guidance is
agreed. Subsection
(2) requires the guidance to be issued no later than 31 December 2010.
Again, that is an unusual step to take, but I am happy to do so to give
greater reassurance that our commitments are, in effect, set in stone.
It was one of the concerns raised on Second Reading. I am happy to be
clear about our commitment by putting it in the Bill. I want to spend a
moment explaining why we have chosen that particular date as the final
deadline for the guidance. Some people may feel that nine months
between the final publication deadline for the strategy and final
publication of the supporting guidance is a long
time. First,
it is a “no-later-than” deadline. There is nothing to
stop us issuing the guidance sooner if we are in a position to do so.
However, we need to go through a number of steps to develop the
guidance. For a start, the guidance will be about implementing the
strategy, so until we have completed the consultation on the strategy
and are more certain about what the exact priorities for action are to
be, we cannot start working up the guidance in
detail. Secondly,
if we are to place an obligation on the NHS and local authorities to
act in accordance with the guidance, it is only fair to consult with
those organisations on its content to ensure that we do not, for
example, set requirements that are impossible for them to meet in
practice. As those who are familiar with the parliamentary process
know, all these things take time. We have had to make a realistic
estimate of how much time we will need and, as with the strategy, build
in a little extra to cover the unexpected. Although it may well be
possible to issue the guidance considerably earlier than the end of
2010, we have taken the prudent step of ensuring that we have
sufficient time to do the job properly.
Subsection
(3) places a duty on the Secretary of State to keep the guidance under
review and gives a power to revise it. Subsection (4) ensures that in
reviewing the guidance, we pay particular attention to how well it is
doing its job of securing the implementation of the autism strategy.
That is not the only thing to consider, of course, but it is of
sufficient importance to justify its being specified in the Bill. I
think that echoes the point raised by the hon. Member for Daventry
about the “Valuing People Now”
strategy. Subsection
(5) is particularly important because it is where the minimum coverage
of the guidance is set out under broad headings representing the key
issues that it is clear, even at this early stage, the guidance will
need to cover if it is to be effective in improving services for people
with
autism.
| 
