Monday 17th December 2012

(11 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Asked by
Baroness Wilkins Portrait Baroness Wilkins
- Hansard - -



To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce a screening programme for hearing loss for those over the age of 65.

Earl Howe Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, UKNSC, advises Ministers and the National Health Service in all four United Kingdom countries about all aspects of screening policy. The UKNSC reviewed the evidence for screening for adult hearing loss in 2009 and recommended that there was currently insufficient evidence to warrant a screening programme. In line with its three-yearly review policy, the UKNSC is currently reviewing the evidence for screening for adult hearing loss.

Baroness Wilkins Portrait Baroness Wilkins
- Hansard - -

I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware of the huge level of undiagnosed hearing loss in the UK and the impact this can have on other conditions. It is estimated that at least 4 million people who need a hearing aid do not have one. Not only does unaddressed hearing loss increase social isolation and depression, but there is increasing evidence that there is a link to dementia. People with mild hearing loss have nearly double the chance of developing dementia. Given that there is an average 10-year delay between someone identifying that they have a problem and seeking help, will the Government take early action to ensure that hearing loss is addressed early by introducing a screening programme?

Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s comments relating to the features that can often accompany hearing loss, such as depression and other forms of mental illness, are absolutely to the point and I recognise all that she said in that area. The national screening committee had a number of reasons for feeling that a universal screening programme would not be appropriate. First, it was not clear to it what the test should be. Secondly, it was unclear about what agreed time or schedule there should be for doing the testing. Thirdly, it felt that if there were a realistic proposal for screening, there should be randomised trials of screening beforehand. However, it is reviewing its decision of three years ago and we will have to await the results of that.