That this House takes note of the Report from the Autism Act 2009 Committee Time to deliver: The Autism Act 2009 and the new autism strategy (HL Paper 205, Session 2024–26).
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this important and timely debate. I thank the members of the committee for their hard work, dedication and thoughtfulness. I thank our specialist adviser, Professor Laura Crane, professor of autism studies at the School of Education at the University of Birmingham, for her expert guidance. I also thank our outstanding staff team—Stuart Stoner, Lucy Valsamidis, Abdullah Ahmad, Clayton Gurney and Aneela Mahmood —for their incredible support.
Most of all, I thank everyone who engaged with our inquiry. We were constantly struck by the moving and powerful testimonies. Without all those who engaged, our report would just not have been possible.
The Autism Act 2009 is a landmark law for and about autistic people. The Act began as a Private Member’s Bill but won government support thanks to the tireless efforts of its sponsor, the late right honourable Cheryl Gillan MP, and we pay enormous tribute to her today. The Act requires the Government to produce an autism strategy for England, backed up by statutory guidance. Our committee’s task was to examine how well the Act has been implemented and to inform the development of a new autism strategy ahead of the expiry of the current strategy, which is this July—next month. A key priority for us was to carry out our inquiry in partnership with autistic people and those who support them.
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.
My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on this committee under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. It was a privilege not only because of the outstanding way in which our work was guided by her and supported by our clerk, our policy analyst, and our specialist adviser, but because that team brought us into contact with so many autistic people, and others with lived experience. This, of course, was what our committee was all about.
The initiatives that were taken by our team went far beyond what normally happens in committee work. This is an important point that must be made. There will be other cases where the lived experience of those whose issues a committee is considering will matter very much, hence our invitation to the relevant committees to consider ways in which such meaningful involvement can be achieved in the future, if necessary by making changes to the current rules.
It is impossible in the few minutes I have to go over every issue that is discussed in this report. As I look back over our work, however, there are one or two points to which I would like to draw attention. The first relates to the importance of diagnosis: the benefits it may bring and the harm that may be done by a failure to diagnose before other interventions are resorted to that may be wholly unsuitable. One of our autistic witnesses spent four years in a mental hospital before a diagnosis revealed what their condition really was. For obvious reasons, we did not explore the reasons for the mistaken placement in that hospital, which was such an unsuitable place for an autistic person to be. The dramatic change that enabled them to lead as normal a life as possible following release from hospital was deeply moving. The new autism strategy to be developed by the Government must ensure that mistakes of that kind do not occur again.
My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to speak in this short debate, as I was to serve on the Select Committee, although I did experience certain frustrations. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, for her huge commitment to autism and the balanced way in which she chaired the committee. I also thank the clerk, advisers, researchers and staff, who had to cope with a huge volume of evidence and of witnesses who appeared before us. I thank the numerous organisations that gave evidence, in person or in written form. I also acknowledge our debt to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who has campaigned on these issues for several decades, and who was instrumental in getting the 2009 Act on to the statute book.
I mentioned frustration, This arose from having been involved for several years in Autism Cymru and being a Member of this House not domiciled in England. In my 27 years in the Commons, I was heavily involved in disability campaigning and, on returning to the Chamber in 2011, I looked forward to resuming such campaigning work, not least in association with the much-loved late Lord Rix at Mencap. But, on returning, I found myself in no man’s land, because many aspects of disability politics had been devolved.
As stated in paragraph 31 of the report, the UK Government’s autism strategy applies “to England only”. As noble Lords may appreciate, my role in the committee was at times limited and sometimes a cause of personal frustration. I put this on the record as it might be relevant to the authorities of the House when they select Members to serve on “England only” committees in future. The committee invited and received evidence from the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which was appreciated but could be only tangential to this inquiry.
My Lords, when we speak about autism and—to expand the debate today—neurodivergence, we are speaking about people with their own strengths, challenges, perspectives and ways of experiencing the world. One point that has stayed with me came from a teacher who described the autistic spectrum as being like a unique combination of different balloons carried by each individual person. Some balloons may represent communication, sensory processing, anxiety, social interaction, confidence or learning styles; the combination is different for every person.
The report rightly highlights that many neurodivergent people continue to experience inequalities across healthcare, education, employment and wider society. Too often, support remains inconsistent and fragmented. We know that, with the right support at an early age and throughout education, neurodivergent children and young people can flourish and reach their fullest potential. Early identification, informed teaching and appropriate support matter, alongside ensuring that families and carers have access to clear guidance and support. Those with lived experience, together with their families and carers, should help shape the support and services available.
Importantly, autism and neurodivergence do not disappear in adulthood. Too often, support falls away once a young person leaves school or transitions into adult services. Many neurodivergent adults continue to face barriers in employment, healthcare and mental health support. That is why I strongly support an all-age approach, something that the committee recognises clearly in its report.
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president, along with my noble friend Lord Touhig, of the National Autistic Society, and I hold lasting power of attorney for autistic adults. I thank the excellent chair of our committee—I genuinely think we would not have got here without her.
When the right honourable Dame Cheryl Gillan MP chose to introduce what is now the Autism Act 2009 in the House of Commons, she did so because she believed that autism is different and that the transition from childhood to adulthood was a cliff face, and that failure to understand and support autistic adults deserved its own Act of Parliament. I can confirm this with certainty, as Cheryl was a friend, and I was privileged to serve on the autism Public Bill Committee with her.
The report before us today is titled Time to Deliver: the Autism Act 2009 and the New Autism Strategy. The Government’s response to the report is described by the autism charity sector as unacceptable—that is putting it mildly. The new strategy, due next month, has been kicked into the long grass, with no attempt to set out a timetable to plan the new one and no discussion with the autism charities to agree priorities. A request I made to the Minister to discuss this was passed many weeks ago to the Commons Minister, and I have heard nothing since.
My Lords, I wish to commend this report, in particular its emphasis on the importance of the principle of “nothing about us without us”, as referenced by my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham, encouraging the involvement of autistic people, as well as those who support them, in making decisions that affect them and their daily lives.
I want to talk specifically to the part of the report about relationships, sex and health education, RSE, for autistic children—or, in fact, the lack of it. As Dr Felicity Sedgewick said in her evidence, young autistic people are not typically offered RSE that meets their needs. She recommended that adapted, accessible RSE should be developed. The report then refers to the need for RSE to be tailored to the needs of all children with SEND; I agree with this wholeheartedly. I understand why RSE was mentioned fairly briefly in such a comprehensive report, and I believe that this important topic deserves ongoing attention. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that RSE for SEND children should be reviewed as a matter of urgency?
I come at this not as an expert, unlike so many of my fellow noble Lords, but with a stepdaughter who wrote her MA dissertation on the subject, in fact supervised by the committee’s specialist adviser, Professor Laura Crane. She is about to embark on a PhD on RSE for SEND children, given that there is so little research in this area. Before and during her undergraduate degree, she worked as a teaching assistant in a SEND school and experienced at first hand the consequences of a paucity of direction, guidance or policy in this area.
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, on the truly impressive way in which she chaired our committee and got this group of very knowledgeable people to produce a really tight and very good report. I also add my congratulations to Stuart Stoner and his team and to Professor Laura Crane. We had the wonderful opportunity to meet so many witnesses and organisations as part of this; I learned a lot during this process.
The central issue is about this new strategy. We really have to press government that, this time, it must have a good implementation plan. It was spelled out in the recommendation that detail matters; we are looking for a plan about what, who, when and how, as well as the resourcing and better accountability. There is nothing in the response that says that. In trying to think of a suitable word for the response to the first recommendation, I got as far as “bland”—it did not really say anything, as far as I could see, of any substance. That implementation plan and strategy are vital. Will there be an implementation plan with the strategy? Will it address all these features in the committee’s recommendation about what, who, when, how and resourcing?
Much has already been said about some of the detail, which I will not repeat. I just want to make two big points, the first of which is the human one. Throughout this, I was very struck by the pain and the love, and the private anxieties we heard about, as well as the difficulties of trying to understand and navigate the system and search for solutions, and the emotional toll on individuals and families. I was very impressed by the visit we made under the leadership of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope to the Phoenix School, which is a specialist school. There we met parents who suddenly, having come away from a position of bewilderment, were then seeing possibilities in this safe haven for what their children could be. Obviously, that is very relevant to the wider debate about specialist schools and the support for autistic people and their families.
5:46 pm
20 of 38 shown
We took oral evidence from, incredibly, nearly 70 witnesses and received written evidence from almost 400 individuals and organisations. Several thousand people also contributed through surveys and consultation exercises. I think that speaks volumes for the engagement and importance of the topic. We also spoke in private to dozens of autistic people and those who support them, including invaluable visits to CareTrade’s employment scheme at St Thomas’ Hospital, just over the river, and Phoenix School in Tower Hamlets.
When the Autism Act was passed, autistic people were often invisible. The Act really helped change that, making government recognise and respond to their needs. When the Act was passed, about one in 100 people were estimated to be autistic—diagnosis rates are now higher than that among younger people but still far lower among older people. That rise is in part because of our understanding of autism, and it has evolved. But there are also worrying signs that more autistic people are struggling. The inequalities are unacceptable and, in many cases, widening. More than 270,000 people are now waiting for an autism assessment, only about three in 10 autistic people are in work and, on average, autistic people live shorter lives.
The Government’s autism strategy for 2021-26 set out laudable ambitions decided in consultation with autistic people and their families but, after the first year, successive Governments produced no plan to deliver or fund the strategy. It is now time to change that. Our central recommendation is that the Government must deliver a new autism strategy, taking effect when the current strategy expires next month. The Minister for Care, Stephen Kinnock MP, assured us that the Government are
“absolutely committed … to there being a strategy … and to there being an implementation plan”.
He said
“the strategy that we will bring forward is being shaped as we speak”,
and the Government will be
“developing the strategy in 2026”
and
“the input from this Committee will help us shape that strategy”.
But—and I am sad that I have to say “but”—the Government’s response to our report was markedly vaguer, saying:
“We recognise that meaningful engagement will take time, so a balance will need to be struck as to what level of further engagement is required, and the current strategy will remain in force while we do this”.
This is simply just not good enough. The strategy’s expiry date is now weeks away and we seem no closer to delivering for autistic people. Can the Minister tell the House what will happen when the current strategy expires? When will the new strategy come into effect? How are the Government ensuring that the new strategy reflects the findings of our report? How will the Government meaningfully involve autistic people and those who support them in the development of the new strategy? Most importantly, how will they ensure accountability for delivering the change autistic people need?
Our report examined progress against the ambitions in the 2021 autism strategy, and I will address these in turn. First, we considered how to improve public understanding. Awareness of autism has rapidly grown in recent years, but public understanding has not kept pace. The 2021 autism strategy promised a
“public understanding and acceptance initiative”,
but that never materialised. Sadly, many told us that stigma has since increased. We called on the Government to run a public understanding campaign and to commission and evaluate mandatory training for public-facing staff. The Government told us they would “consider” this recommendation. Further inaction is inexcusable, so will the Minister clarify what concrete action the Government will now take to deliver a public understanding campaign and ensure effective training for public-facing staff?
Secondly, we examined systems for identification, assessment and support. Time and again, we heard from our witnesses the powerful evidence of how autism diagnosis changes lives. However, the autism assessment system can also be a bottleneck, giving overstretched services a means to ration access to support. The assessment system is now unfit for purpose. Thousands wait years for a diagnosis and receive little to no support, even when it comes. We called for the Government to move towards a stepped, lifelong model of support, but many fear that moving away from a diagnosis-led model will become an excuse to withhold what little support now exists. The Government’s independent review into mental health, ADHD and autism could offer a real opportunity for a new approach. I would welcome the Minister explaining how the Government will reform and rebuild our broken systems for autism identification, assessment and support, in partnership with autistic people and those who support them.
Thirdly, we considered how to reduce health inequalities and the life expectancy gap. We were truly honoured to take evidence from Paula McGowan OBE, who campaigned successfully for the introduction of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training for health and care staff after her son’s tragic death. We pay tribute to Paula and to Oliver’s memory. We must build on this progress, so will the Minister now commit to setting out a plan to enable autistic people to live healthier, longer lives? Many autistic people still fall into the cracks between mental health and social care services, and too often this leads to crisis. We heard truly courageous testimony from many young autistic people who had been detained for years in mental health hospitals. We called for a national framework for low-level support to prevent care needs developing, and a plan to build strong community services, including appropriate housing, for people at risk of in-patient admission. The Government’s response promised only an annual statement on implementation of the Mental Health Act, and in the longer term a national care service, but neither of those is a plan. Will the Minister tell us how the Government will stop unnecessary detention in mental health units once and for all?
Next, we examined how to secure equal access to education and employment. We are setting up a new generation of young autistic people to struggle. Thousands are unhappy at school or are out of school altogether. The right honourable Alan Milburn’s recent review starkly showed how we are failing the million young people who are not in employment, education or training. A disproportionate number of them are autistic. We recommended that the Government build up capability for educating autistic children and young people in all settings, supporting the best special schools to become centres of excellence. The Government’s planned reforms to the SEND system offer a real opportunity to make schools more inclusive, but we also know how worried many are about changes to their rights to specialist support. It is vital that reforms are taken forward in partnership with young autistic people and their families. Young autistic people consistently told us how they face what they describe as a cliff edge in access to support when they become adults and enter the world of work. We called on the Government to develop integrated services to help them through this critical transition. Can the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure that every young autistic person has the support they need to give them the very best start in adult life, including implementing the recommendations of the Keep Britain Working review?
Finally, we looked at improving support in the criminal justice system. Like anyone else, autistic people can come into contact with the criminal justice system as victims, witnesses or offenders. But autistic people’s needs are often unmet, leaving them at risk of disproportionate disadvantage. I welcome efforts to deliver the cross-government neurodiversity action plan for adults in the criminal justice system, but the reality is that support remains patchy. Will the Minister tell us how the Government will ensure that the criminal justice system treats every autistic person fairly?
The 2021 government autism strategy set a goal that every autistic person should have the support they need to live a full and happy life. Together we can make that a reality, but to do that we need a new strategy, a credible plan to deliver it and clear accountability for change. It is time to deliver the change that autistic people in this country need to see. I beg to move.
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.
The other side of the coin was revealed during a visit to a special school for children and young people. All the pupils have a diagnosis of autism, or are waiting for one, and all have complex needs and are disadvantaged academically. We met a group of parents who told us of the effect that early diagnosis had had on them and their children. As one parent put it, “Before the diagnosis, I was just talking to my son. After diagnosis, I am talking with him”. An unreachable child had become reachable once the reason for the condition was explained and understood. The new autism strategy needs to address the problem that, far too often, access to a diagnosis is not available. Early diagnosis can make all the difference, not only to the child but to their family.
I turn to the matter of employment. The Government’s new autism strategy should make it a priority objective to increase the employment rate for autistic people. Some of our witnesses drew attention to the risks that taking on an autistic person would involve: there were fears that they would be unlikely to fit in, and of the disadvantages they face in the recruitment process. There is a really positive case to be made here, however, that should point the way forward. One witness—speaking as the neurodiversity and social mobility manager at Babcock International, a major employer—told us that around 20% to 30% of its employees are neurodivergent. That is a remarkable number and includes some brilliantly talented people who, as he told us, challenge the stereotypes of autism and have been able to solve problems that no other engineer could. This positive message needs to be broadcast and built on by the Government. With the right support and in the right place, autistic people have so much good to give to this country. They are valued members of the community.
I have time to mention one other matter which relates to the understanding of autism and the fact that, of course, every autistic person is different. There is no one size that fits all. This matters very much in education, especially for those who are teaching autistic children in mainstream schools. These people may struggle if their needs and fears are not appreciated and addressed. As each case is different, the teacher must be given time to assess the child, to win their confidence and to find out what is wrong. The pressures on the curriculum too often mean that this much-needed time is simply not available. That needs to be changed and the Government need to address it in the proper way, so that teachers can give these people what they need to develop their education and move forward to employment.
I regret the very limited consideration given by our committee to international practices, which I raised at an early stage because of the huge benefits I had experienced as a member of the Brussels-based Autism Europe. In representing Autism Cymru on that committee, I learned a huge amount relating to good practice in European countries, including many outside the EU. It is my feeling that we could have benefited by considering what lessons we could learn from such European countries.
As soon as it was public, I passed a copy of our report to a senior member of Autism Europe, Mrs Liga Berzina of Latvia, which stated that there are certainly aspects of autism policies in England which rightly get international praise, such as the Autism Act, the ongoing development of a national autism strategy and the SEND framework of educational, health and care plans. From her experience, a key dimension is that every school should have an additional learning needs co-ordinator, with support delivered through individual development plans. Just as other countries benefit from studying experience in England, surely we at Westminster can benefit from considering successful initiatives in other countries.
With regard to the welter of evidence submitted to us, I had three abiding thoughts. First, of all the challenges and experiences we were trying to encapsulate in an integrated approach, there needs to be a flexibility to cope with the huge diversity of challenges and opportunities facing those on the spectrum; such policy applications must therefore be local, as they relate to individual needs. Secondly, we must always see the abilities and potential of those who experience such challenges. It was quite stimulating to receive evidence from such witnesses, and that underscores our responsibility to secure from government a fitting response. Thirdly, our aspirations cannot be secured without additional resources. The magnitude of the cohort crudely described as being “on the spectrum” has grown hugely as our understanding of individual needs has matured. As these individuals get the opportunity to blossom, such policies in due course bear fruit. If the Government merely respond that “There is no more available cash”, they simply have their priorities wrong.
Despite my doubts about serving on this committee, for the reasons outlined, I support the recommendations and hope that the Government will give them an urgent and positive response.
As someone from local government, I emphasise the critical role that councils and local partnerships play in delivering meaningful change. Local authorities are often the front door to support for families through schools, SEND services, housing, adult social care, public health and community services. In Lewisham, our all-age autism strategy brings together education, health, social care, employers and community partners to create a more autism-inclusive borough. A central principle of that strategy is “nothing about us without us”, ensuring that people with lived experience, families and carers help to shape services and decisions.
We should work closely with local authorities across all regions and nations of the United Kingdom to ensure greater consistency in support and opportunity. Local government understands its communities, but councils cannot deliver transformational change alone. It requires partnership and shared responsibility across the whole system. The standard of support available to neurodivergent people should not depend on where someone happens to live.
Autism and neurodivergence should be a golden thread running through government departments, public services, employers and the legislation that we bring forward in this House. Greater understanding of autism and neurodivergence within the justice system is also extremely important. Differences in communication, comprehension and body language can sometimes lead neurodivergent people to be misunderstood, particularly in stressful situations. That is why training and awareness across the criminal justice system are so important.
We also need greater training, awareness and support for employers. Neurodivergent people have enormous strengths, talents and potential, yet too many still face unnecessary barriers to employment, support in the workplace and progression. We must create workplace cultures where neurodivergent applicants and employees feel safe to disclose their neurodivergence and needs without fear of stigma.
Neurodivergent people should feel understood, respected and supported throughout every stage of life. Now is the time for joined-up action and delivery across all levels of government, in partnership with public services, employers, families and carers, and especially those with lived experience.
I turn to the reason for this small but important Act of Parliament, and to the report, which identifies why autism is different. Autism is a spectrum of degrees. Some will travel through life with minimal need for support and, at the other end, the need will be for 24-hour specialist support. In the middle will be so many for whom this Act of Parliament and its strategy are the blueprint for a place in society that is safe, meaningful and fulfils each individual’s potential. Many will be of average or even higher intelligence, but all people born autistic will die autistic. There is no medication, although there may be additional conditions as well as autism.
Nearly 20 years on from the Act, we still see autistic people with shorter life spans and the highest suicide rate of all neurodiverse conditions. Autistic people are detained in mental institutions and there is a 60% unemployment rate, often for life. I say to the Government that it is really time to deliver. Do not delay the new strategy because other things are going on. If the new proposed SEND policy is not going to be delivered until 2030, that is no reason to halt work on an Act that is already on the statute book. If services to support changes to the Mental Health Act, which has already been passed, will not be in place for some time, that is no reason to delay the strategy.
The 2009 Act states that the Secretary of State for Health must
“prepare and publish a document setting out a strategy for meeting the needs of adults in England with autistic spectrum conditions by improving the provision of relevant services to such adults by local authorities”
and “NHS bodies”.
The committee’s report is a year’s work by this House, which, together with discussion with autism charities and those with lived experience, would provide the Government with a new strategy that would make such a difference. It is, after all, the law of the land already. I expect the Government to abide by the law of the land and, when the Minister winds up, to explain how and when they will deliver it.
As the Government’s response to the report said,
“reforms should be grounded in evidence”.
This is important to parents, teachers and other caregivers, but most of all to young autistic people themselves.
From that visit, I also commend one thing we noticed: the Phoenix School provided an outreach service to other schools, and indeed ran classrooms in some other schools. That model is something the Government should well look at as part of their looking at specialist schools, because it looked as if it was working—although we obviously did not see it.
The other thing that came out of that visit was the importance of communications, technology and speech therapists, whom I have to confess I had not really thought about in quite this detail before. One father there, in a really emotional moment, talked about how he found out how he could communicate with his child, and his child could communicate with him. That, to me, was very impressive.
That is one big point—the human bit that we must not lose—and the second bit is about the system and the culture, a lot of which is, frankly, incoherent. Members of the committee will remember one of our witnesses saying that too often it is
“the state fighting the state”.
One set of policies does not match the other, or they are going in opposite directions, and that is a serious issue. Another issue here is the danger that we will just produce another set of rules, sent out by the centre, which people will have to train on but which are not really owned, as people are just paying lip service to them.
There are examples in other areas where people, despite having appropriate adjustments and their notes and passports written up and so on, were just ignored—with fatal consequences in the case I am thinking of. I know that in Parliament we can rely only on the tools we have of legislation, regulations and guidance—trying to get people to do what we want, if you like—but that is why accountability is so vital and why it runs through this like a thread. But it is not just about accountability: we will know we have succeeded when it is not just accountability hanging over people’s head but a feeling of responsibility. People must feel responsible to do something about the people in front of them.
My question to the Minister is an impossible one: how will the Government address the incoherence in policy and these cultural issues when taking this forward? I am conscious—I have finished my time—that I am in danger of widening this out too far, but let me just leave these points: strategy and implementation, and making sure it is owned. Both parts are vital.