Helen Morgan

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for introducing the debate, as well as Sam, his family and Auditory Verbal UK for campaigning on this important issue. I confess that I am quite new to auditory verbal therapy, and it has been fascinating to research the issue more for the debate and to listen to hon. Members’ contributions. The hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South made a hugely compelling argument for improving access to auditory verbal therapy, setting out not only the benefits for the children who would be able to improve their ability to listen and speak, but the economic benefit that would derive from what I think we can all agree is a small investment—as an accountant, I can confirm that £2 million is probably a rounding error in most instances. I also thank other Members for their useful speeches today, not least the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), who highlighted the importance of early intervention, and the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), who highlighted the educational impact that early access to appropriate therapy can have. There are more than 50,000 deaf children in the UK. Around 7,200 of them are under the age of five. Some 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, who do not have the experience of dealing with hearing impairment. Although deafness is not a learning disability, deaf children face a significant attainment gap during their time at school, and their educational outcomes are poorer. There is also a higher risk of poor mental health. In addition, deaf people are less likely to have decent employment, and suffer generally from inequality as a result of being hearing impaired. It is important to say up front that all deaf and hearing-impaired people have the right to participate fully and independently in society. Too often at the moment, those rights are not being fully realised. Liberal Democrats believe, as I am sure hon. Members from all parties do, that every deaf child deserves the best possible start in life, the opportunity to flourish and for their families to be supported, so that they can express themselves and communicate with ease, in the way that is most comfortable for them. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) highlighted that offering a range of therapies is the best way to support families who have a child who is deaf, and that they should be able to exercise choice when deciding which therapy is most suitable for them. Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities in England have a duty “to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need” by providing “a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs.” A child is defined as being in need if they are disabled, and the Act says that a child is considered disabled if they are deaf. We are therefore in a position where it seems that local authorities must be compelled to provide appropriate support for deaf children and their families. The National Deaf Children’s Society notes that “in some cases, local authorities do provide funding to help” a child “access AVT”. The problem is that the Government have confirmed that audiology services are commissioned locally and that “the responsibility for meeting the needs of non-hearing children lies with…National Health Service commissioners.” That leaves us with the dreaded postcode lottery. It would be helpful if the Government provided guidance to local authorities on the level of support they should be providing, particularly, in the context of this debate, for AVT. Locally in Shropshire, headteachers report an inability to access basic speech and language therapy for hearing children. The strain on local government finances will clearly have a significant impact on what is available to children in each area. Will the Minister confirm whether provision of AVT will be a responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care or local government? Therapies such as this might sometimes fall into the gap between the two, and it would be useful to understand how it can best be delivered. As I mentioned, I am slightly new to this topic but Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for better support for people who are deaf, and particularly for those who communicate through British Sign Language. We would like BSL to have official, equal status to the UK’s other languages, and would like free access to sign language lessons for parents and guardians of deaf children. We welcome all the developments in improving outcomes for deaf children, including technology such as cued speech visual systems, for which there is a major centre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). I echo the call of the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South for a pilot scheme—that seems a sensible way forward. The existing research on AVT is promising but the evidence base is still narrow and a pilot scheme seems the best way to broaden that evidence base and convince those who have not yet been convinced by meeting children who have benefited profoundly from the therapy. More broadly, the Government should strengthen the availability of basic speech and language therapy training for people working with children to ensure that children who are struggling with hearing impairment can be identified, that their progress is monitored and supported, and that an equal outcome is found for them. In conclusion, will the Minister confirm whether the provision of AVT is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care or a local government issue, bearing in mind that the provision of such assistance comes through local government? Will he also confirm that the 10-year plan will address services such as AVT for deaf children and adults? Finally, will he consider a pilot scheme to broaden our understanding of the benefits of AVT?