04/12/2017 Westminster Hall

The four I called Jim Fitzpatrick to

move the motion, I would like to

draw your attention to the fact that

the proceedings today

are being made

accessible for people who are deaf

or have problems with hearing,

and the interpreters

are using British Sign Language.

If Members bear that in mind

while making contributions,

that will be helpful for everyone.

OK, I called Jim Fitzpatrick to move

the motion.

I beg to move, that this

House has considered

deafness and hearing loss.

It is a pleasure to see

you in the Chair, Mr McCabe.

I am even more pleased

to see that our debate

is being interpreted into sign

language, which I believe

is a parliamentary first,

so we may be making history,

which is great for all of us

who are here to participate.

I am grateful to the

Backbench Business Committee

for the opportunity to introduce

the debate, and am very pleased that

so many colleagues have been able

to join us to contribute

to this important discussion.

It is good to see the Minister

in his place, even though

the subject is not exactly

in his brief, and I look forward

to hearing the winding-up

speeches from him and from

the Opposition spokespersons.

I place on the record my thanks

to the UK Council on Deafness,

Action on Hearing Loss,

the National Deaf Children's

Society, Deaf Plus, the Adult

Cochlear Implant Action Group

and Brian Lamb, DeaflympicsGB,

Access Bedford, the three network

and the House of Commons Library

for their assistance

in preparing for the debate.

That is a long list,

but given that 11 million people

across the UK are living

with hearing loss, it

could have been much longer.

The UK Council on Deafness,

for example, represents 43 deafness

or hearing loss organisations

and has produced

a collective briefing.

I should also record that I wear two

hearing aids of my own and am

chair of the all-party

group on deafness.

There are too many issues for me

to raise personally and it would be

unfair not to share the time

available as equitably

as possible among those here.

So the bulk of my speech,

at 13 and a half minutes,

will focus on three key issues:

Access to Work, legal recognition

of British Sign Language

and the implementation

of the national action

plan on hearing loss.

First, however, I would like to put

down a brief marker on several other

issues that I do not have time

to raise in detail.

I secured an Adjournment debate

on cochlear implants

in March, in which the then

Minister David Mowat advised me

that the National Institute

for Health and Care Excellence

would consult on new proposals

by the ?end of the summer.

We are still awaiting that

consultation, so any

information from the Minister

would be very welcome.

Requests to improve

paediatric audiology services

across the country by accrediting

them through the IQIPS - improving

quality in physiological services

-programme have been made

for some time.

I would welcome an update on any

progress on voluntary accreditation

or, if that has proved

unsatisfactory, on whether

the Government have given more

thought to making it compulsory.

On Deaflympics, any information

from the Minister about discussions

between his Department

and the Department for Digital,

Culture, Media and Sport on support

for our deaf athletes

would be very welcome.

On early years intervention,

the first three and a half years

are critical for the development

of listening and spoken language.

I would be grateful for any update

from the Minister on Government

thinking about ensuring that

auditory-verbal is put

on the patient pathway

as a follow-up to the newborn

hearing screening.

Finally, I have some positive news

about telecommunication services:

The briefing from Three shared how

it provides services for its deaf

or hard-of-hearing customers.

I also have some good

news from Deaf Plus,

whose BSL advice line

was shortlisted this

week for a national

Helplines Partnership award.

Well done!

Let me return to my three

key issues, beginning

with Access to Work.

One person in six in

the UK or approximately

11 million people is

living with some form of hearing

loss, and estimates show that nearly

90,000 use British Sign Language

as their first language.

The Government's Access to Work

scheme provides grants to disabled

people to enable them to have equal

participation in the workforce.

It has revolutionised the career

opportunities of deaf people,

shattering the glass ceiling that

had limited them to manual jobs.

It has been largely due to Access

to Work that deaf people have

progressed as far as their talent

allows - there are now deaf

chief executive officers,

deaf Ministry of Justice

intermediaries and deaf theatre

directors, among other

senior professionals.

In March 2015, however,

the then Minister for

Disabled People

would impose a cap.

The cap means that the scheme no

longer properly supports those deaf

and disabled people for whom support

costs are more expensive.

For deaf people who are

self-employed or entrepreneurs,

there is no employer to make up

the difference between

the award and the need.

In a recent written answer,

the Department for Work and Pensions

indicated that it was unable

to state the number of people still

in receipt of awards above the cap.

The UK Council on Deafness

conducted its own survey

to establish the impact of the cap

on deaf people.

It received 87 responses,

including 60 from those who will be

capped in April 2018

which given that fewer than 200

people were identified

in the equality assessment

as potentially in that situation.

It is a high response rate.

Deaf people tell us

that they are already avoiding

applying for work in professional,

managerial and senior roles

that will be capped.

The cap on Access to Work awards

risks imposing a glass ceiling

for deaf and disabled people

in their work.

Some 46% said that they would not

apply for promotions,

20% said they had not applied

?because they were worried,

and 44% said that they would stay

with their current employer

for as long as possible

because they were worried

about a new employer.

So, will the Government look again

at the evidence opposing the cap

on Access to Work awards?

Do the Government accept

that the cap on Access to Work

grants is set too low?

The Secretary of State amended it

from £42,100 to £43,000

in his statement today,

but that is still too low.

If the Minister will not remove

the cap, will they consider raising

it to a level that provides deaf

people with more of

the support they need?

Finally, has the Government

considered that it might

inadvertently have created

legitimate financial grounds

on which employers can discriminate

against job applicants who use BSL?

I recognise that those

are questions mainly for the DWP,

but if the Minister cannot respond

to them today, I would be grateful

if he ensured they were passed

on to the appropriate quarter.

In answer to my question

in the Chamber about an hour ago,

the Secretary of State said

that the Government were still

looking at evidence.

I hope that means that the door

is still open, because increasing

the threshold by £1,000 clearly does

not cut it.

In general employment terms,

there are hurdles to getting

into work for people

with hearing loss anyway.

In a YouGov survey commissioned

by Action on Hearing Loss,

35% of business leaders stated

that they did not feel confident

about their business employing

a person with hearing loss,

while 57% agreed that there

is a lack of available support

or advice for employers

about employing people

with hearing loss.

Access to Work is still

the DWP's best-kept secret.

63% of the business

leaders polled had

never heard of it.

Let me move on to

British Sign Language.

BSL is the first or preferred

language of more than 80,000

deaf people in the UK,

and more than 150,000

people use it at home.

In 1987, the British Deaf

Association launched a call

for the legal recognition of BSL,

and in 2003, following extensive

lobbying, BSL was officially

recognised as a language

in its own right by the DWP.

In 2009, the UK Government ratified

the United Nations Convention

on the Rights of Persons

with Disabilities, which states that

Governments must uphold rights

by

Accepting and facilitating

the use of sign languages

in official interactions

and by Recognizing and promoting

the use of sign languages.

Despite formal recognition

by the UK Government that BSL

is a language in its own right,

there has been no further progress

towards establishing

a legal status for BSL.

In the devolved Administrations,

the situation is different.

In 2012, a consultation

for a British Sign Language Act

in Scotland was initiated,

culminating in the passing of

the British Sign Language Act 2015.

In 2017, the Scottish Government

published their first

BSL national plan.

In 2016, a sign language framework

consultation was launched

in Northern Ireland.

Despite those developments, however,

there is still no pathway in place

for legal recognition of BSL

across the UK.

With such legal recognition of BSL

would come the rights of deaf

people, and the benefits for deaf

people and for wider society

would be far-reaching.?

On education, deaf children are 42%

less likely to achieve five or more

GCSEs at grade C or above

than their hearing peers,

but there is no reason a deaf child

should do any worse

than a hearing child.

On health, 70% of deaf people

who have not been to a GP recently

wanted to go but did not,

mainly because there was no

interpreter available.

Deaf people who have been told

that they might have high blood

pressure are three times more likely

than everyone else not

to have it under control.

Deaf people are almost twice

as likely as others to experience

mental health issues,

which can be exacerbated

by social exclusion.

A health economics study showed that

eliminating poor diagnosis

could save the NHS

£30 million annually.

And it is worth noting that

90% of deaf children are born

into hearing families.

The call to Government

is that the deaf community want them

to acknowledge the benefits of legal

recognition of BSL and commit

to establishing a UK-wide sign

language framework consultation

for a UK-wide sign language Act.

The British Deaf Association

is asking for this consultation

process to be led by an appropriate

Department whose remit

covers language.

However, that is another major

obstacle and it prompts a question

for the Minister: which Department

and which Minister lead on BSL?

I have been writing for some

time to try to find out.

I even tabled a parliamentary

question to the Cabinet Office

and the answer that question

elicited was that

"All Government departments

have a responsibility to create

inclusive communications.

This does not mean promoting BSL

as an activity in itself but it does

mean identifying and meeting

the communication needs

of the audiences we are targeting".

I am sorry, Minister,

but that answer is nowhere

near clear enough and I think it

demonstrates why BSL is stranded.

No Department is responsible for it,

no Minister is responsible for it,

there is no champion in Government

who is responsible for it,

there is no advocacy for it,

and there is no progress on it.

Finally on BSL, there is the case

for a British Sign Language GCSE.

Although BSL is a recognised

language within the UK,

a GCSE that can be taught in schools

is not available.

A GCSE on BSL has already been

piloted and is largely ready to go,

but the Department for Education

is declining to give

it the go-ahead.

There is a principle

of fairness and justice here.

BSL is an official language

in the UK that is used by tens

of thousands of people.

Not allowing BSL to be taught

as a GCSE implies that it has

a lower status and importance

than other subjects,

and that could even be

seen as discriminatory

against deaf people.

Also, we do not have

enough deaf interpreters.

Judging by the briefings

that we have all received,

I think that there are 800 to 900

registered deaf interpreters,

which is clearly inadequate to deal

with more than 100,000 people.

The last of the three issues

that I will raise today

is the implementation of the action

plan on hearing loss.

When the Department of Health

and NHS England published

that plan in March 2015,

it was widely welcomed.

This cross-Government plan not only

recognised hearing loss as a major

public health issue,

but highlighted the major

impacts of hearing loss.

It also committed the Government

to improving services for everyone

living with hearing loss.

In addition, it set out

the need to reduce variation

in the provision of services,

through the development

of guidelines by NICE

on adult-onset hearing loss.?

The action plan set out five key

objectives in the following areas:

earlier diagnosis; good prevention;

integrated services; increased

independence and ageing;

and good learning outcomes.

There was wide support for the plan.

As part of the implementation, NHS

England published its new national

commissioning framework for hearing

loss services in July 2016.

It is essential that information

about that framework is properly

disseminated by NHS England

and that the framework

is fully adopted by clinical

commissioning groups.

To help with that dissemination,

in September, NHS England published

its What Works Guides -

Action Plan on Hearing

Loss, which provides

advice to commissioners

and providers on supporting people

with hearing loss in a variety

of different settings.

NHS England is also set to publish

guidance imminently,

setting out the need for health

and wellbeing boards to consider

people with hearing loss

when they are commissioning

services, as well as

considering its data tool.

In this case, the requests made

of Government would be fairly

straightforward to meet,

because the frameworks are in place.

The UK Council on Deafness

is asking the Government

to work with NHS England,

commissioners and professional

bodies for medical professionals

to raise the importance of early

diagnosis of hearing loss; produce

an analysis of the case

for hearing screening,

potentially adding it to the NHS

health check that is provided

to people in England aged between 40

and 70; and raise the importance

of promoting the commissioning

framework through NHS England.

The framework provides a clear

alternative to the decommissioning

of hearing aids, and CCGs should be

aware of it when designing

and commissioning local services.

It is fair to say that on the three

major issues I have raised

today the Government

have a mixed report card.

On Access to Work, the Government

started very positively,

then faltered and now

could be going backwards.

We need the response

of the Secretary of State for Work

and Pensions to my question

in the main Chamber today

on the need to continue to look

at the evidence to make serious

progress, because the evidence,

as I hope I have laid out,

is very much there.

On BSL, the Government

never really got started.

That is not just the

Minister's Government;

that is "the British Government",

a phrase that covers both

sides of the Chamber.

We are still stalled on BSL

and there is no sign of an ignition

switch to start us moving again.

We need a champion

of BSL in Government.

On the action plan,

the Government started well

and maintained progress,

but they need to move

through the gears now to ensure that

that progress continues and secures

the promised outcomes.

We only need more of the same,

because the start in this area

was welcomed by the whole deaf

and hearing loss community.

Finally, this is an important debate

and I am grateful that so many

colleagues have managed to be

here to participate.

I am also grateful for

the opportunity to open

the debate and I look forward

to the contributions

that will follow.

It is a great pleasure to serve

under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.?

I start by congratulating

the honourable

Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim

on securing this debate

and on setting out his case

with his customary

courtesy and passion.

He has been a champion of these

issues for many years,

so I pay him heartfelt

tribute for that.

As the honourable

Gentleman said, this is the first

debate in the House to be

transmitted via British Sign

Language.

Christopher Jones, who wanted

to attend, but decided not to travel

Unfortunately, news of that came too

late for one of my constituents,

Christopher Jones, who wanted

to attend, but decided not to travel

down from Milton Keynes

because he did not think that this

facility would be available.

Mr McCabe, perhaps you could report

back to the Speaker and the Panel

of Chairs that we should consider

providing this interpretation not

only during debates on this subject,

but during general debates more

widely, so that we are as accessible

as possible to all our constituents.

I will focus on the introduction

of a nationwide telecommunication

relay service, something that

Mr Jones came to see me

about a few weeks ago.

In most advanced economies,

a nationwide TRS provides

functionally equivalent telephone

transmission services to deaf

and hard-of-hearing individuals.

A TRS is a telephone transmission

service that allows an individual

who is deaf or hard of hearing

to have the same telephone

availability as someone

who is of good hearing.

As telephone services

and technologies evolve,

so does the scope and achievement

of functional equivalence.

At one time, typed text

communication was considered

the functional equivalent of voice

communication, but in the 21st

century, captioning,

video and other technologies have

changed what equivalency means.

The gaps between what is available

to hearing individuals and those

with hearing deficiency are growing.

Sadly, the UK, which was the first

to introduce such systems,

now lags well behind other countries

such as the USA, Australia,

Canada and New Zealand.

The issue of functionally

equivalent telephone

services must be addressed.

It includes, but is not limited to:

the unrestricted availability

of relay services 24 hours a day,

seven days a week, emergency

preparedness and response,

to ensure the delivery of relay

services in the event of disruptions

to telecommunications services,

international capacity, and access

to the full array of existing

telephone services offered

by telecommunications companies.

Competition, innovation

and choice are important,

so that users can access a wide

range of services.

What works for some people in some

circumstances might be different

from what others need.

There are different facilities

available, and it is important that

each user can choose the system that

works best for them at any one time.

That might mean one individual

having different things

at different times.

My constituent said

that he would use one means

to communicate with his family,

and a different one

for business conversations.

Many other issues need

to be considered.

While these may seem like lofty

goals, they are being delivered

in the countries I mentioned.

For example, Australia provides

the following relay services:

textphone to voice and voice

to textphone, textphone voice

carry-over, textphone hearing

carry-over, speech to speech, video

relay services, internet relay,

mobile text relay, mobile SMS relay,

captioned telephone for phone

and web, and captioned

telephone to Braille display.

In Australia, the system has

operated as a national service

since 1995 and is available to every

Australian at no additional cost,

24 hours a day, seven days

a week.? A number of studies

since the system's introduction have

looked at its impact.

We might think some

of the findings are obvious,

but it is important to mention them.

Access to enhanced relay services

is positively associated

with reductions in feelings

of frustration with telephone use.

It gives individuals a much

higher quality of life.

It not only allows access

to work, as the honourable

Member for Poplar and Limehouse

mentioned, but is proven to reduce

the wider health consequences that

can arise from isolation,

such as mental health issues.

The cost saving is likely to exceed

the cost of introducing the service.

I think I heard him mention that

£30 million annually could be saved

from the health and social care

budget if many of these feelings

of social exclusion were dealt with.

Ironically, my constituent

was involved in designing

and setting up such a system

many years ago.

It had to close down in 2008

as he could not make it work,

and part of the problem

was bureaucratic muddle and delay.

The issue is often

cross-departmental.

We have a Minister from

the Department of Health here,

but the matter is as much

for the Department for Digital,

Culture, Media and Sport

and the Department for

Work and Pensions.

The potential benefits

of the system my constituent

introduced could not be realised

because there was buck-passing

and delays, and the approach

was not joined up.

My call today is for the Minister

to take away these points

and discuss them with his colleagues

in DWP and DCMS, and to drive

forward the introduction

of a nationwide service

in this country.

It is embarrassing that

while we were one of the first

to introduce such systems,

we have fallen back over

a number of decades.

Other countries are

now way ahead of us.

I urge the Minister and his

colleagues to look at the evidence,

particularly from Australia,

on what can be done

cost-effectively.

This is not just about money,

it is about quality of life.

We owe it to all our constituents

to give them as much access

to the world of work and public

services as anyone else,

and my suggestion is a fairly

straightforward way to do that.

I urge the Minister to look

at the evidence from other countries

and discuss it with his colleagues.

Mr Pat McFadden.

I want to begin by echoing

the tribute paid to my honourable

Friend the Member for

Poplar and Limehouse for

securing this debate.

As we have heard, there

are a number of dimensions

and aspects to deafness,

but I want to focus on one issue:

the criteria for receiving cochlear

implants under the NHS.

My argument today is simple:

the criteria should be reviewed

so that it is easier

to get an implant.

That would transform the lives

of those who need this technology,

and improve the lives

of their families and loved ones.

It would be a prudent investment,

because it would obviate the need

for more expenditure further down

the line as a consequence of people

not receiving the implants

they desperately need.

I will tell the story

of my constituent, Lamina Lloyd.

Until last year, Lamina had

a flourishing career as the manager

of a local citizens advice bureau.

However, Lamina has Meniere's

disease, which has resulted

in progressive hearing loss-so much

so that last year she

?had to give up work.

She has two children who themselves

have additional needs.

She can no longer hear her children,

who have to act as her ears.

She describes her family as having

gone from being an outdoor family

to one that rarely leaves the house.

Lamina is an intelligent,

capable person, but hearing loss has

meant the end of her career,

a diminishment in the quality

of her family life,

and increasing isolation.

To try to alleviate her condition,

Lamina wears the most powerful

hearing aids available,

turned up to maximum volume,

but they make little difference

and give her frequent ear infections

and headaches from their feedback

and squealing noises.

She can no longer hear music

or follow conversations,

yet she has been in a battle

that is the only word

for it for the past

two years to try to get

a cochlear implant.

She falls just 5 dB short,

which is no more than a whisper,

of the 90 dB hearing loss threshold

for consideration for an implant.

That threshold is one of

the strictest in the western world.

It is estimated that only 5%

of those who could benefit

from the technology get access to it

in the UK.

Lamina describes her condition

as being too deaf to hear,

yet not deaf enough to get the help

that could make a huge

difference to her life.

Her hearing has deteriorated even

further in recent months,

and she has an appointment to be

assessed at the Queen Elizabeth

Hospital in Birmingham in two weeks'

time, but she and many others

in her position have serious

reservations about how

the assessments are made.

The BKB test uses short

sentences in lab conditions.

It does not replicate

normal conversation

or real-world conditions.

Lamina and many others feel that

that tool is not fit for the purpose

of properly measuring hearing

ability and hearing loss.

Even if Lamina is approved

for an implant, why

has it taken so long?

Why do we put people

and their families through such pain

before giving them the help that

could be life-changing?

My honourable

Friend the Member for Poplar

and Limehouse raised those issues

in an Adjournment debate

earlier this year,

and briefly at the beginning

of his speech today.

He was told earlier this year

that the National Institute

for Health and Care Excellence

was launching a consultation

on the relevant guidelines.

That has not happened.

The guidelines have been

in place since 2009,

Are you

but technology and costs have moved

on a great deal since then.

I wish to ask the Minister

a few questions.

If he cannot respond to them

all today, I would be very happy

for him to consult with colleagues

and write to me, and other Members

participating in the debate,

with a more considered response.

First, why has the NICE

consultation, which we were promised

would be launched in summer this

year, not yet been launched,

and when will it be?

Secondly, does he agree that

Lamina's case and many similar cases

around the country show

that there is an overwhelming

argument for revising

those criteria?

Thirdly, whatever hearing loss

threshold is picked,

does the Minister agree

that the hearing loss test needs

to be done in real-world conditions

that approximate to how people

actually live their lives and

conduct conversations, and so on?

Fourthly, and perhaps most

fundamentally, why does it

a

take so long for people

to get an implant?

Why is it such a battle?

The NHS is there for those who need

it, it should not be an organisation

that people have to battle

with to get the treatment

that ?they need.

Had my constituent

been helped earlier,

she might still be in a job.

She would not need to rely

on the state for financial support,

and her family would not have had

to go through the huge difficulties

that they have all been

through together over the last

couple of years.

It is time for a step change

in the urgency with which the issue

of cochlear implants is treated.

The guidelines must be revised.

NICE needs to move on that soon,

so that the suffering

of my constituent Lamina Lloyd,

and the many people around

the country who are in a similar

position, can be alleviated.

On a point of order, Mr McCabe.

I asked my staff to

monitor the transmission

of the sign language.

It is not being broadcast,

the cameras do not

meet the interpreters.

poet appreciate if you took this

back to these speakers panel and

have a discussion about this in due

course.

I understand that the sign language

is being filmed today,

and when the debate is re-broadcast

it will appear in a box, as is

normal in other TV transmissions.

Obviously this is an early stage.

I will report back on how

the whole debate goes and any

points that Members raise,

but I understand that

the arrangements for today are that

when the debate is re-broadcast,

the sign language will appear.

I am grateful for that

clarification, Mr McCabe.

Kelly Tolhurst.

Thank you.

It is a pleasure to serve

under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.

I congratulate the honourable

Member for Poplar and Limehouse

on securing this important debate,

it is a real pleasure for me

to speak in it.

I also think it is an absolutely

fantastic move that today's

debate is being signed.

I advocate that more debates held

in the Chamber be signed.

It should be the norm

in the House of Commons,

not an exception to the rule.

I was very keen to speak in this

debate about deafness and hearing

loss, because it has had a major

effect on my family.

Today, rather than focusing

on the many issues that affect deaf

people in this country,

I want to share with you

an example of how deafness

has affected my life.

25 years ago, at the age of 40,

my mum lost her hearing

literally overnight,

due to a virus.

She woke up one morning

and could not hear any more.

She had not been ill and had never

had any hearing problems,

but she went from being a hearing

person one day to having no

hearing the next day.

My father took my mother to the

hospital.

At that time, we had a really good

ear, nose and throat

hospital in Maidstone.

About a week after my

mum lost her hearing,

my father took her there,

and it was confirmed

that she had no hearing.

The hospital staff put her

on steroids and told her

that it was due to a virus,

that the hairs in her ears had died

and that it was very unlikely

she would ever get her hearing back.

That was absolutely devastating

for my mother and for us all

my sister, myself and my dad.

It changed her and our

lives fundamentally.

We could not communicate with her,

everything had to be written down.

My mum ?could not sign or lip-read,

so she was flung into isolation

and, quite honestly,

a state of depression.

It was a really tough time.

She had two teenage girls

who were at that time very

much into their singing,

and all of a sudden,

my mum had to accept

that she would never again be able

to hear her daughters sing.

Due to the abruptness

of her hearing loss,

it was really difficult to mitigate

some of the emotional

damage she suffered.

The NHS looked after her

and the staff tried to help her.

They gave her lip-reading classes

and offered her support

with a counsellor, they even

put her in contact with another lady

in the country who had

lost her hearing overnight,

but my mum was still mourning

the loss of something

that she was never going

to get back.

Importantly, she was never told

that she was a candidate

to have a cochlear implant,

that reinforces the point

made by the Right Honourable

Member for Wolverhampton South East.

Deafness is the

invisible disability.

My mum did not look

like she had a disability.

Her voice sounded like it always

had, because she had been a hearing

person for 40 years,

but I saw and experienced at first

hand the major barriers that people

who are deaf have to face.

I recognise that there are strong

differences between individuals

who have been born deaf,

those who have gradual hearing loss,

and those who had hearing

loss as a small child,

perhaps due to meningitis

or some other illness,

but the biggest thing for my mum

was that she did not

have any deaf friends.

We did not even know

any deaf people.

Particularly acute was the fact

that my mum's opportunities

were severely limited.

She had looked after me

and my sister at home,

but was looking forward

to going back to work

because we were now in our teens.

All of a sudden, she found

that she was unable to work,

because she did not

have the confidence,

and it was very difficult

for her to understand anyone

at that time.

The opportunities open to her

were therefore extremely limited.

Eventually, after eight years,

my mum decided that she wanted to do

something about her hearing loss.

She went to the doctors,

and they talked to her

about whether she could be

a candidate for a cochlear implant.

She was told that she would have

been able to access one immediately,

because of the severity

of her hearing loss,

but it then took another two years

for her to have an implant,

because 25 years ago the funding

was quite a challenge,

due to the fact that such procedures

were not as frequent

as they are now.

After ten years of suffering,

being isolated, suffering

with depression and being unable

to go back to work, she finally had

the cochlear implant.

Sadly for her, after a year

of travelling to St Thomas'

Hospital, with its fabulous

technicians, led by Terry Nunn,

it was decided that the cochlear

implant had not worked.

She therefore had to go back

for a further implant.

Many people will not understand that

a cochlear implant does not bring

someone's hearing back.

They do not hear like they did

when they were a hearing person,

but it gives them some

quality of life.

Technology has changed,

and 25 years on, cochlear implants

are available not just in London,

but all over the country.

What is very clear is

that the sooner someone has

a cochlear implant after the loss

of hearing, the greater impact it

will have on how that person hears.

I was extremely worried

on reading the reports,

which have ?already been mentioned,

that some clinical commissioning

groups are now looking at stopping

hearing aid provision.

One of the only things that

kept my mother going through those

ten years was that she was

using a hearing aid.

It did not help her hearing, all it

did was accentuate the background

noises and cut out some

of her tinnitus some of the time-but

if she had not had access to that

service in the time before having

a cochlear implant, it

would have been even worse.

In my view, hearing aids are a cheap

way of having an impact

on people who are suffering

from gradual hearing loss.

I find it quite frightening

that CCGs would even be

considering stopping that support,

and I think it is a dangerous

road to go down.

As honourable

Members have already said,

hearing loss, even if it is mild,

sends people into isolation.

They might not put themselves

into certain situations

because of fear of not understanding

or not being able to

hear what is going on.

I used to go into the supermarket

with my mother and people would ask

her if she would like a carrier bag,

but because she did not hear them,

they would think she was rude.

They might make a rude comment

to her because of that,

but she actually could not hear

them.

Hearing aids are massively important

and can be an important way

of keeping people out of that

isolation and of maintaining

their contact with the health

service so that the hearing loss

can be monitored.

It is not often talked about,

but people who suffer from hearing

loss and deafness are also very

embarrassed by their disability.

If it was physically visible,

everybody would be talking

about that kind of disability.

People would be banging the drum

and asking for support

from the Government and different

organisations, but deaf people work,

get on with their lives

and rarely moan very much.

They put up with quite a lot.

Because they do not have a visible

characteristic, it is very difficult

for hearing people to truly

understand the isolation,

depression and mental health issues

that they are subjected to.

I have spoken today very much

from an emotional point of view

about a real-life situation that

has affected me.

I hope that what I have said has

illustrated that deafness can take

many different forms, it occurs not

just in old age, or from birth.

For too long, deaf people have been

disadvantaged and isolated.

It is really good to have this

debate, and I join the honourable

Member for Poplar and Limehouse

in supporting the cause of the UK

Council on Deafness.

All its recommendations

are well thought out,

meaningful and realistic asks.

I hope that anyone who is deaf

who watches this debate next week

will see that it is good to have

such debates in Parliament,

and that we care about deafness

in this country and the people that

suffer from it.

I am pleased to have been

able to speak today.

Stephen Lloyd.

It is a privilege to serve

under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.

I join other honourable

Members in congratulating

the honourable

Member for Poplar and Limehouse

on securing the debate.

I was chair of the all-party

parliamentary group on deafness,

but was rudely interrupted in 2015

when something else happened.

It is a pleasure to be back

and to serve as vice-chair

of the APPG under the honourable

Gentleman's excellent chairmanship.?

I commend the previous speakers'

comments about cochlear implants.

I remember 20 or 30 years ago,

when they really began to take off.

The difference between now

and then is absolutely huge.

That overlaps with

what the honourable

Member for Rochester

and Strood described

of her mother's experience.

I thank her for that moving speech.

Her mum will be proud of her,

I am absolutely sure of that.

I can relate to a lot of the things

that her mum went through.

I have been deaf for about

50 years of my life.

Cochlear implants have made a huge

difference and the improvement

is absolutely massive.

The Minister is from the Department

of Health-he is an old colleague

from coalition days,

it is good to see him-and

I ask him to explore

how cochlear implants can be

ever more available,

because they do much more now

and they do it much earlier.

They are a game-changer.

For many years after they first came

out, a long, long time ago,

they really did not make that much

of a difference.

There was vigorous opposition

from a lot of the British

Sign Language community,

and I understand why.

That has changed a great deal over

the years and cochlear implants

are now, in many ways,

the future for

transforming deafness.

I never really believed it

in the old days, but now I do,

because of the advances.

I would like to cover a few areas,

a couple from the UK Council

on Deafness angle and a couple

specifically because we have

a Health Minister here.

British Sign Language

is a different language.

I am hard of hearing and have been

since having measles when I was six.

Sometimes, people might say to me,

"Stephen, are you a member

of the deaf community?"

And I would say, "No, I am a member

of the hearing community.

I just don't hear very well."

That is an important point,

because they are completely

different.

The deaf community is a community.

The BSL community is a completely

different community, with cultural

norms and a different language.

BSL is not even a direct translation

of my speech, it is different.

Sometimes people do

not understand that.

They would say to me,

"Why don't you learn BSL?"

and I would say,

"Because I am a member

of the hearing community,

I just don't hear very well,

and it is a different language."

I am very supportive of profoundly

deaf people trying to get BSL

as a recognised language,

as has happened, I believe,

in Holyrood in Scotland.

I remember just before 2015 having

meetings with a number

of people down from Scotland

and we were watching that

development with great interest.

Once it happens in one legislative

House, it is very hard for other

legislative Houses not to follow,

so I say good luck with

that up in Scotland,

because it is a game-changer.

It will happen eventually

in Westminster.

When it does, it

is not just a label.

When a nation says that a language

is a statutory language,

it means it is accessible and that

public bodies have to provide

information in that language,

and that will make a huge difference

for a lot of profoundly deaf people.

I will tell honourable

Members why and give

one very good example.

I have been involved for many years

in politics around deafness

as a trustee of this or a patron

of that, or what have you.

I knew a lot of people

who are profoundly deaf

working in that area,

including from the British

Deaf Association.

I just came from a statement this

morning in which the Secretary

of State for the Department for Work

and Pensions mentioned that

about 50% of disabled

people are out of work.

I tell you ?what, Mr McCabe,

it is a hell of a lot higher

than that for the profoundly deaf.

I do not have the figures because no

one really finds them.

The DWP-it used to drive me crazy

when I was here before-will not

slice the different disabilities up.

It just says "problems

with deafness and problems

with visual impairment",

which completely denies

the separateness of deafness.

Off the bat, though,

I would say that profoundly deaf

people have an unemployment rate

of around 70%, which

is just ridiculous.

How can we possibly

have 100,000 people -

if not more - of adult working

age and have such barriers that

70% are unemployed?

It is a blooming outrage!

Now that I am back in the House,

which is wonderful for the people

of Eastbourne, I thank them, I am

determined to lobby hard to make BSL

an accepted language.

I am also keen to

join the honourable

Member for Poplar and Limehouse

in lobbying on Access to Work.

The Government have done a great

thing with Access to Work.

I think

it was John Major's

Government that started it.

Access to Work is a good thing

which has made a huge

difference to a lot of people,

and I am a big supporter or it,

but there is a challenge.

It has made a great difference

for people who are in work

and acquire a disability

through illness, a catastrophic

incident or what have you-it has

been fantastic in helping them

to stay in work.

I want it to be improved,

particularly in the small

and medium-sized enterprises sector,

so that SMEs understand

that they can employ

people with disabilities.

Access to Work provides

a lot of the money that

will buy an induction loop,

put in a ramp, or do whatever

is necessary to help an employer

take on a disabled person.

That is really important.

Corporates kind of get it-they

are huge, and they have massive

human resources departments and pots

of money, so they try

to do their best.

It is much harder for an SME

employing three people.

If I were the director of a plumber

working seven days a week,

and someone with disability came

to see me, it would be

so much easier to say, "No,

no," and find an excuse not

to employ them.

Access to Work often provides

the money that allows the SME

to take on that disabled person.

I will let the House

into a vast secret.

I say this with authority,

because I used to be a consultant

in this area for years.

If a business employs disabled

people, they get lower churn.

I have seen that in call

centres, in businesses

and in numerous other areas.

I used to be very involved

with the Federation

of Small Businesses,

and I am sure I will be

again now I am back.

Lower churn is really

important for businesses

if a lot of their spend goes

on employing people.

At a later date, I will explain

why it leads to lower

churn, but it does.

Will the honourable

Gentleman give way?

The honourable

Gentleman is talking

about the challenges that SMEs

have in employing people

with such impairments.

Does he agree that it is difficult

for many people who suffer

from deafness or failing hearing

to progress within organisations

because of the cap?

It is therefore almost

self-enforcing that those people

are pressed into part-time working.

That is a very good example.

I have no hearing on my left,

so I could not hear the honourable

Gentleman trying to intervene.

Jim knows to punch me.

The honourable

Gentleman is right.

There are issues to do

with Access to Work.

As it has expanded and cost a lot

more money over the years,

the Government, I am

not chucking stones,

as I know how challenging

it is to work within the Budget

envelope-have introduced more

and more caps.

Rather than focusing on different

ways of capping Access to Work,

I would like the DWP, the Minister

can go back and tell his

colleagues-to focus on better

and more creative ways

to use the money.

I know from years of experience,

colleagues will have

to take my word for it,

that the majority of disabled

people who get into a job,

are properly managed

and have the right support,

stay there for years.

That costs much less money

than constantly having to re-employ.

I thank the honourable

Gentleman for the intervention.

I want to talk about two key

areas that are specific

to the Minister's brief.

One of the things I fought for last

time I was here, I am going to do

so now as the Minister

is in Health, was an automatic

invitation for a hearing aid

screening whenever someone

hits pension age.

That would be at 65 or 66,

although that was under

the coalition, I think

retirement age is 150 now.

That is significant

because something like 50%

of people over the age of 65,

heading up to 60% as they get older,

begin to get age-onset hearing loss.

My hearing loss is not age-onset,

although I am old enough now-it

was measles, as I

said-and the honourable

Member for Poplar and Limehouse

is far too young, so his cannot

possibly be age-onset.

The thing with hearing loss

is that the vast majority of people

ignore it for 15 years

because it is not a sexy disability.

The honourable

Member for Rochester

and Strood flagged

that up, and it is true.

People start losing their hearing,

they do not admit to it,

their husband or wife goes potty,

the volume is turned up

massively on the television,

and eventually their kids drag them

to the audiology department,

if it is still open-we will come

to that-in their mid-70s.

The problem with that,

there is significant

data to prove this,

which I will happily share

with the Minister another time, is

that the longer someone takes

to get a hearing aid,

the lower the chance of it working.

The difference between a 75-year-old

and a 65-year-old in

acuity terms is enormous.

Hearing aids are not like glasses.

If I cannot see properly, I put

glasses on and I have 20:20 vision.

Hearing aids do not replace lost

sound, all they do is amplify

the residual hearing.

Let me try to explain that

to colleagues very quickly.

Imagine a radio with a battery

that is running down.

If the volume is turned up,

it makes a lot more sound,

but it is very discordant.

That is what hearing aids do.

I was pressing very hard

for the Department of Health to run

a pilot so that all people who get

to pensionable age receive an invite

to audiology or wherever,

it could be a pharmacy,

for that matter, to

have a hearing test.

My rationale for that,

which was supported by pretty much

every group that could possibly be

imagined, including NICE,

was that if people get in early,

they are forced to accept

they are losing their hearing.

They get a hearing aid,

and ipso facto it is much

easier to get used to.

My view, which is shared by many

others, is that that

would be a huge advantage,

not least in reducing

the levels of dementia.

We have discovered that dementia

is linked to social isolation,

and old people who are and deaf

or hard of hearing tend to isolate.?

The Department of Health agreed

in principle to run a pilot.

It took me a long time

to get that agreement,

because the Department did not

want to do it.

It knew that I was right

and all those extra hearing aids

were going to cost a lot more money.

Then there was a tragedy,

colleagues: I lost the election.

I was not there to nag like hell,

and it sort of disappeared

and was put on the back burner.

I am delighted to see

that my old colleague

is now the Minister.

I am sure that, now I have

put that on the table,

he will move heaven and earth

to develop it into a pilot.

It will make a huge difference

to hundreds of thousands of people-I

am deadly serious,

so I encourage that.

It is easy to cut hearing aids,

because it is mostly

old people who use them.

They are not organised and are not

going to complain like hell,

they are isolated, anyway.

As I said, they are in their mid-70s

by the time they go

to audiology departments.

I am really pretty angry that a lot

of CCGs are getting away

with beginning to trim audiology

services because there are not

enough people fighting their corner.

I know that CCGs are independent,

but the Minister and I also know

that there are protocols.

In his response, I ask that he make

a commitment that CCGs will be told

how important audiology

and hearing aids are.

They must not use the austerity

challenges they face

to cut audiology.

On that note, I again

thank the honourable

Member for Poplar and Limehouse

for securing this debate.

It is a pleasure to serve

under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.

I congratulate my Honourable

Friend the Member for

Poplar and Limehouse

on securing the debate.

Colleagues have spoken very movingly

about their personal experiences.

It is great to see my Honourable

Friend the Member for

Winchester in his place

as the responding Minister.

I am sure he will do this ably,

but it is an indication

of the challenges that

the hard-of-hearing and deaf

community face that Honourable

Members have mentioned five

Departments that have issues that

need to be addressed -

the Department of

Health, the Department

for Education, the Department

for Business, Energy

and Industrial Strategy,

the Department for Culture,

Media and Sport and the Department

for Work and Pensions.

That shows that by working

in departmental silos,

there is perhaps a danger that some

of challenges that we are hearing

about today are not

being properly addressed.

My Honourable

Friend the Member for

Poplar and Limehouse

is a champion for the deaf

and hard-of-hearing community.

I will briefly highlight the work

of another such champion,

Ann Jillings, from Lowestoft,

who is working with passion

and determination to secure the best

possible education for her son,

Daniel.

In doing so, she is campaigning

for other parents of deaf

children in north Suffolk.

Daniel started at Bungay High

School in September.

He is doing well and there is a good

package of support in place for him,

but Ann had to fight very hard

to get that and she continues

to campaign for a hearing impaired

unit in north Suffolk.

It is clear that not just in Suffolk

but across the country,

deaf children do not get the right

support right from the start,

so they cannot always realise

their full potential at school.

That can put them at

a considerable ?disadvantage

for the rest of their lives.

We need to break down these barriers

and create a properly

funded national framework,

within which local education

authorities such as Suffolk County

Council can provide a good education

and support service locally.

If they do not do that,

they must be held to account.

The National Deaf Children's

Society, which does great work

campaigning for deaf children

to have the same opportunities

as everyone else, has highlighted

four issues on which Government

action is needed to break

down the barriers that

deaf children face.

First, the NHS needs

to improve the quality

of children's hearing services.

The National Deaf Children's Society

highlighted in its Listen Up!

Campaign that, across the country,

many such services have significant

shortcomings and are failing to meet

the necessary audiology standards.

The quality assurance process

that was previously in place has

ended, and it has not been replaced

by any other mandatory process.

The NDCS has a three-point

action plan to address

this particular problem.

First, NHS England must ensure

that the children's audiology

services that it directly

commissions, such as

for the under-fives,

comply with the IQIPs, improving

quality in physiological

services-accreditation programme.

Secondly, it is vital that that

programme is more transparent,

so that families know

whether their services

are good quality or whether

they need to improve.

Thirdly, the accreditation must be

compulsory, so that all paediatric

audiology services move

towards running

a good-quality operation.

My second point relates

to access to radio waves

technology for deaf children.

Radio aids play a vital role

in helping deaf children to hear

speech, they enable them to better

understand their teacher,

and they have a big impact

on improving parent-child

communication.

Despite the obvious benefits,

most local authorities do not

currently make radio aids available

for use by families in the home.

The NDCS is calling on local

authorities and the Department

for Education to ensure that every

child who could benefit from a radio

aid is given access to one at

the earliest possible opportunity.

To do that, the Department

for Education should encourage local

authorities to make use

of their special provision capital

fund, to provide radio aids

where they are needed.

My third point relates to the need

for a GCSE in British Sign Language.

The Government really must listen

to the right to sign campaign,

to make British Sign Language

available as a GCSE that can

be taught in school.

Ann Jillings points out

that it is the first

language of deaf children,

so it is discriminatory that deaf

children do not have the opportunity

to achieve what is probably the most

widely recognised qualification,

and that it is given a lower status

than other languages.

There are other accredited

qualifications in British Sign

Language, but they are not widely

available to children in schools

and they are less likely to be

recognised by employers.

Daniel Jillings achieved his BSL

level 1 three years ago,

but it was not funded.

Ann tutored him and paid

for all the assessments herself.

There is a compelling

case for a GCSE in BSL,

based on equality, the denial

of choice for deaf children